part with a $198 million IDA credit. <strong>The</strong> hydropower plantcontributes 35 times as much to a tally <strong>of</strong> <strong>Bank</strong> disbursementsbut costs the <strong>Bank</strong> only 3.8 times as much in preparationand supervision. Overall, the hydropower project cost58 times as much as the energy efficiency project and 183times as much as the CFL component. Yet it generated onlyabout 20 times as much power and provided only about4.5 times as much capacity. This is not to suggest these twoparticular projects were substitutes or were inappropriate.Rather it serves to illustrate the order <strong>of</strong> magnitude <strong>of</strong> <strong>Bank</strong>costs, client costs, and client benefits in energy efficiencyand renewable projects; it also suggests why preparation <strong>of</strong>small energy efficiency projects has relied on trust fundsrather than <strong>Bank</strong> budget.<strong>The</strong> Way Forward for Energy EfficiencyEconomic and GHG returns to energy efficiencyinvestmentsEfficient lighting may <strong>of</strong>fer extraordinarily high economicreturns, with substantial GHG reductions as a by-product.Promotion <strong>of</strong> efficient lighting may have large catalytic ordemonstration effects. A concerted, multinational effort topursue incandescent phase-out could lead to economies <strong>of</strong>scale in production and distribution. Such an effort mightrequire considerable WBG staff time for preparation andcoordination but relatively low loan or grant amounts. Reduction<strong>of</strong> transmission and distribution losses also <strong>of</strong>fersapparently high returns and scope for large investments.Scattered information from industrial energy efficiencyintermediation projects suggests that SMEs can achieveattractive rates <strong>of</strong> return through retr<strong>of</strong>its. But there mayalso be high returns in large, greenfield companies. Manycompanies operate at the state <strong>of</strong> the art in efficiency, butnot all do. A recent study in China found that large cementcompanies investing in new facilities failed to incorporatetechnologies that would have financial returns greater than35 percent (not taking into account carbon benefits) (Priceand others 2009). Globally, cement and steel account for15 percent <strong>of</strong> energy-related GHG emissions, about threequartersas much as coal burning, so this is an importanttarget for improved efficiency.Studies project large energy efficiencyopportunities in the building sector, wheremarket failures abound, representing alargely untapped area for WBG intervention.Studies project large energy efficiency opportunities inthe building sector, where market failures abound. Rapidurbanization during the coming decades will result in theconstruction <strong>of</strong> billions <strong>of</strong> square meters each year. Because<strong>of</strong> market failures, these buildings are likely to be energyinefficient and carbon intensive, and they will stand for decades.At the same time, demand for energy-intensive appliancessuch as televisions, refrigerators, and air conditionersis growing rapidly. As noted in Phase I <strong>of</strong> this evaluation,there is large scope for supporting policies for building andappliance efficiency.<strong>The</strong> WBG has modestly supported policy formulation but,with the notable exception <strong>of</strong> two Chinese projects, has notbeen deeply involved in implementation. <strong>The</strong>re is considerablescope here for public-private coordination. <strong>The</strong> <strong>World</strong><strong>Bank</strong> could support policy implementation, and IFC (followingthe precedent <strong>of</strong> ELI) could work with manufacturersto promote more efficient and cost-effective productsand practices.Overcoming barriers to adoption and diffusionMany <strong>of</strong> the barriers to energy efficiency lending are in factbarriers to general lending: lack <strong>of</strong> liquidity, inability tomake long loans, and inability to rely on contracts. Hence,guarantees have been useful not as a temporary device toovercome banks’ unfamiliarity with energy efficiency, butrather the means to convince them to lend to enterpriseswith poor collateral. Future use <strong>of</strong> guarantees should bemore tightly focused on these targets. Technical assistancedoes appear to have helped some banks identify and marketenergy efficiency lending opportunities.Energy efficiency policies loom large as complements t<strong>of</strong>inance. China’s vigorous push for energy efficiency was amotivator for industrial investments. Hungary’s innovationsin municipal finance opened cost-saving, emissionsreducingopportunities. As noted in first phase <strong>of</strong> thisevaluation, cost-reflective prices are important motivatorsfor efficiency.Growing but largely unevaluated experience with CFL distributionprojects suggests that public policies can overcomehousehold barriers to adoption. <strong>Carbon</strong> financewould be another possible mechanism to pay for light bulbdistribution, because the carbon returns are large relativeto CFL costs. Further analysis is needed to determine whena one-time subsidized distribution <strong>of</strong> CFLs is sufficient totrigger follow-on adoption and diffusion.IFC could use its direct investments to promote energy efficiencyat three levels. First, just as it has encouraged clientbanks to market energy efficiency solutions to their ownclients, IFC itself could proactively seek new markets withlarge impacts. <strong>The</strong>se could include, for instance, developers<strong>of</strong> large commercial buildings and residential developmentsthat are interested in pursuing low-energy buildingconcepts, including nascent proposals for “eco-cities.”Second, within its current client base, IFC could prioritizethe attention <strong>of</strong> energy efficiency staff to projects with the44 | Climate Change and the <strong>World</strong> <strong>Bank</strong> Group
highest potential for savings. Currently, IFC has devotedstaff attention to small loans <strong>of</strong>fering only a few thousandtons per year <strong>of</strong> CO 2savings, and in at least one case (theabove-noted distribution utility) failing to follow up on aproject <strong>of</strong>fering energy and CO 2savings a hundred timesgreater. IFC has just hired an expert in building energyefficiency—how should this expert’s scarce time be allocatedfor maximum impact? Third, IFC could encourage benchmarking<strong>of</strong> performance among its smaller direct clientsand among clients <strong>of</strong> financial intermediaries, preparingstandardized audit services and loan products for them.Systems issuesEnergy efficiency can <strong>of</strong>fer a cost-effective alternative tonew generation, but this may be overlooked in the absence<strong>of</strong> a view <strong>of</strong> the entire power system. Similarly, thecongestion impacts <strong>of</strong> new generation on transmission canbe overlooked. A systems view is important to address thedegree to which energy efficiency provokes “snap-back”—increased consumption <strong>of</strong> electricity as its effective pricedrops.Learning and feedbackMost <strong>of</strong> the financial intermediation projects had a rationale<strong>of</strong> promoting diffusion <strong>of</strong> financial technologies—thatis, the techniques <strong>of</strong> appraising and structuring energy efficiencyloans. However, this was most effective in China,where the <strong>Bank</strong>’s Energy Conservation Project (especially)and IFC’s CHUEE Program (to a lesser extent) sought tobuild networks and disseminate information throughoutthe financial and end-user industries. In contrast, mostother projects did not create explicit channels for diffusion,and banks had little motivation for sharing their learningwith competitors.<strong>The</strong>re remains a tremendous need tounderstand what works and what does notin the evolving field <strong>of</strong> energy efficiency.<strong>The</strong>re remains a tremendous need to understand whatworks and what does not in this still-evolving field. Financialreturns to energy efficiency are poorly and inconsistentlymeasured. A lack <strong>of</strong> monitoring information on thestate <strong>of</strong> T&D losses weakens power planning and makes itmore difficult to locate high-return investments. And thereis a desperate need for applied operations research in efficientlighting programs to understand which consumer andproducer barriers are most salient and which interventionsare most effective.<strong>The</strong> first phase <strong>of</strong> this evaluation stressed the importance<strong>of</strong> developing indicators for energy efficiency to set targetsand assess progress. Learning is critical, because energyefficiency promotion is less well understood than renewableenergy promotion. However, current project-levelmethodologies are haphazardly applied, <strong>of</strong>ten lack ex postmeasurement, and are inconsistent in their treatment <strong>of</strong>projects that combine retr<strong>of</strong>its with capacity expansion.<strong>The</strong> United Nations Industrial <strong>Development</strong> Organization,however, has documented that it is possible to set up informationnetworks that facilitate benchmarking and sharing<strong>of</strong> infromation on efficiency performance. At the nationallevel, several countries are beginning to assemble sectoralinformation on energy efficiency, as a recent ESMAPsponsoredworkshop showed. “Bottom-up” indicators, forexample, for particular industry sectors or for power distributionlosses, would be more useful for the purposes discussedhere than national level indicators.Energy Efficiency | 45
- Page 1 and 2:
Phase II: The Challenge of Low-Carb
- Page 3 and 4:
CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE WORLD BANK G
- Page 5 and 6:
Table of ContentsAbbreviations . .
- Page 7 and 8:
Figures1.1 GHG Emissions by Sector
- Page 9 and 10:
AcknowledgmentsThe report was prepa
- Page 11 and 12:
Executive SummaryUnabated, climate
- Page 13 and 14:
esettlement plans has been ineffect
- Page 15 and 16:
of some technologies, such as landf
- Page 17 and 18:
Scale up high-impact investmentsEne
- Page 19 and 20:
should have been strengthened in th
- Page 21 and 22:
Major monitorable IEGrecommendation
- Page 23 and 24:
Major monitorable IEGrecommendation
- Page 25 and 26:
Chairman’s Summary: Committee onD
- Page 27 and 28:
most places. Before we get there, w
- Page 29 and 30: non-Annex I countries. The World Ba
- Page 31 and 32: attention. In a couple of decades,
- Page 33 and 34: GlossaryAdditionalityBankabilityBas
- Page 35 and 36: Joint ImplementationA mechanism und
- Page 37 and 38: Chapter 1evALuAtiOn HiGHLiGHts• T
- Page 39 and 40: of interventions, from technical as
- Page 41 and 42: would allow industrialized countrie
- Page 43 and 44: growth, poverty reduction (includin
- Page 45 and 46: Table 1.1 Map of the EvaluationSect
- Page 47 and 48: Chapter 2eValuaTION HIGHlIGHTS• W
- Page 49 and 50: Table 2.2Evaluated World Bank Renew
- Page 51 and 52: Figure 2.2Breakdown of 2003-08 Low-
- Page 53 and 54: Table 2.4 Commitments to Grid-Conne
- Page 55 and 56: Box 2.1The Economics of Grid-Connec
- Page 57 and 58: on average (Iyadomi 2010). (Reducti
- Page 59 and 60: and industrial policy. An increasin
- Page 61 and 62: Table 2.6Hydropower Investments by
- Page 63 and 64: costs for remaining unelectrified a
- Page 65 and 66: World Bank experienceTwo factors ac
- Page 67: Box 2.5On-Grid and Off-Grid Renewab
- Page 70 and 71: Energy EfficiencyThe first phase in
- Page 72 and 73: Box 3.1ESCOs and Energy Performance
- Page 74 and 75: have had limited causal impact on t
- Page 76 and 77: measurement of achieved economic re
- Page 78 and 79: Since the early 1990s, public entit
- Page 83 and 84: Chapter 4eVAluATioN HigHligHTS• B
- Page 85 and 86: The WBG urban transport portfolio (
- Page 87 and 88: y conventional transport systems, i
- Page 89 and 90: include the forest carbon projects
- Page 91 and 92: for Costa Rica for the period 2000-
- Page 93 and 94: After 20 years of effort, systemati
- Page 95 and 96: orrowers have demonstrated the abil
- Page 97 and 98: Chapter 5EVALuATioN HigHLigHTS• O
- Page 99 and 100: Consequently, the efficiency with w
- Page 101 and 102: technologies could accelerate diffu
- Page 103 and 104: A second issue, inherent to any adv
- Page 105 and 106: goal of promoting wind turbine impr
- Page 107 and 108: ConclusionsThe WBG’s efforts to p
- Page 109 and 110: Table 5.1Carbon Funds at the World
- Page 111 and 112: demonstration initiative. The Commu
- Page 113 and 114: Impacts on technology transferThe 2
- Page 115 and 116: Chapter 6Photo by Martin Wright/Ash
- Page 117 and 118: Figure 6.1800Economic and Carbon Re
- Page 119 and 120: Specifically, the WBG could:• Pla
- Page 121 and 122: Table 6.1Summary of Sectoral Findin
- Page 123 and 124: Table 6.1Sector Intervention Direct
- Page 125 and 126: Appendix ARenewable Energy Tables a
- Page 127 and 128: Table A.4Grid-Based Biomass/Biogass
- Page 129 and 130: Table A.5 (continued)Negative examp
- Page 131 and 132:
Figure A.4A. Hydro/biomass capacity
- Page 133 and 134:
Appendix bWorld Bank Experience wit
- Page 135 and 136:
Table C.2Completed Low-Carbon Energ
- Page 137 and 138:
TAble C.4Reviewed energy efficiency
- Page 139 and 140:
the new capacity. Transmission syst
- Page 141 and 142:
Table E.2Climate obligationsCoal Pl
- Page 143 and 144:
Table F.2GHG objectiveModeNumber of
- Page 145 and 146:
IEG eliminated a few cases of doubl
- Page 147 and 148:
Table H.1Project andlocationBioener
- Page 149 and 150:
Appendix ICarbon and Economic Retur
- Page 151 and 152:
Appendix JRecent WBG Developments i
- Page 153 and 154:
y providing value to standing fores
- Page 155 and 156:
never had an explicit corporate str
- Page 157 and 158:
overnight. The Bank can provide ass
- Page 159 and 160:
Chapter 51. From the chief economis
- Page 161 and 162:
Hartshorn, G., P. Ferraro, and B. S
- Page 163 and 164:
______. 2007. World Development Ind
- Page 165 and 166:
IEG PublicationsAnalyzing the Effec