Commentary: Energy investment in emerging economies - transforming Southeast Asia’s power sector



5 November 2019

Experts discuss risks, policies and investment opportunities for renewables in Southeast Asia during an IEA roundtable at Singapore International Energy Week (Photograph: IEA)

The new IEA Southeast Asia Energy Outlook 2019 (SEAO) provides a comprehensive overview of energy prospects in an increasingly influential region for global energy trends. Alongside the scenario projections and analysis, the report contains three “deep dives” – on the future of cooling, on regional electricity trade and renewables integration, and on investment – that reflect priorities for cooperation agreed between Southeast Asia energy ministers and the IEA.

Bolstering investment in more efficient and cleaner energy technologies in Southeast Asia’s power sector is a particularly urgent challenge. Policy makers in many countries of the region are stepping up their efforts to support deployment of renewables across the region, but investment has lagged well behind the levels reached in China and India. Electricity demand in Southeast Asia is rising rapidly, and many parts of the power sector are showing signs of financial strain.

Whichever pathway the region follows, it will need a sizeable increase in investment flows and a reallocation of capital, particularly under a sustainable  pathway (in the Sustainable Development Scenario) where renewables spending more than quadruples. 

	Fossil fuel power	Renewable power	Electricity networks	Other power
2018	12.86020000000000	9.49687400000000	11.41554440000000	0.01772400000000
Stated Policies Scenario	10.10834045454550	15.10832272727270	32.47612794090910	1.05202031818182
Sustainable Development Scenario	4.26108862727273	40.75942272727270	30.37782167272730	1.20821643636364
{"chart":{"type":"bar","height":"55%"},"plotOptions":{"bar":{"stacking":"normal"}},"title":{"text":"Power sector investment in Southeast Asia: 2018 compared to annual average investment in the Stated Policies and Sustainable Development scenarios 2019-2040 "},"xAxis":{"type":"category"},"yAxis":{"reversedStacks":false,"title":{"text":"billion dollars (2018)"}},"series":[{"colorIndex":2},{"colorIndex":3}],"tooltip":{"valueSuffix":" billion","valuePrefix":"$","valueDecimals":1}}

Note: Projected investment is expressed as the annual average over the 2019-2040 period. Fossil fuel power includes both plants with and without carbon capture technology. Other power includes investment in battery storage and nuclear.

What can be done to put the region on a more sustainable pathway, from both a financial and environmental perspective? This was the question that we addressed in the new IEA report  and also at a major IEA Roundtable featuring the insights of financial, legal, industry and policy experts from across Asia, which was held in Singapore on 1 November as part of the Singapore International Energy Week.

Bridging investment gaps with more private finance

To date, public actors – including state-owned enterprises and public financial institutions – have provided the bulk of funding for the power sector, particularly in thermal generation. By contrast, wind and solar PV projects have relied much more on private finance, spurred by specific policy incentives.

In addition, funding for over three-quarters of generation investment has come from within the region. This landscape reflects prevailing decision-making frameworks, which have largely revolved around state-owned utilities and the distortionary impact of energy subsidies, but also the ability and willingness of private players to navigate perceived country, regulatory and market risks that have inhibited much higher levels of investment in the power sector across Southeast Asia. 

	Public	Private
Coal and gas power	42.423	25.148
Hydropower and geothermal	9.893	5.800
Utility-scale solar PV and wind	0.629	10.515
{"chart":{"type":"bar","height":"55%"},"plotOptions":{"bar":{"stacking":"normal"}},"title":{"text":"Sources of finance for power generation investment in Southeast Asia (by year of final investment decision, 2014-2018)"},"xAxis":{"type":"category"},"yAxis":{"reversedStacks":false,"title":{"text":"billion dollars"}},"series":[{"colorIndex":2},{"colorIndex":3}],"tooltip":{"valueSuffix":" billion","valuePrefix":"$","valueDecimals":1}}

Notes: Includes only utility-scale projects ≥ 25 megawatts. Public finance includes the participation of state-owned enterprises, development finance institutions, export-credit agencies and other public entities.

However, public sources alone cannot cover the sizeable investment needs ahead. Sustained and balanced access to international and regional sources of private finance, complemented by public sources, would better help Southeast Asia fund its energy goals. More robust private financing conditions would help governments to use public capital more effectively, especially in countries with limited fiscal capacity.

Realising this requires reforms and greater policy focus on tackling the risks facing investments, especially in renewables, flexibility assets and efficiency. With the dramatically improved economics of renewables in many parts of the world, the region now has a compelling opportunity to transform its power sector.

While recognizing that market conditions and underlying risks differ starkly by country, the SEAO points to efforts needed across four priority areas:

  • enhancing the financial sustainability of the region’s utilities;
  • improving procurement frameworks and contracting mechanisms, especially for renewables;
  • creating a supportive financial system that brings in a range of financing sources and
  • promoting integrated approaches that take the demand-side into account.

Priority 1: Enhancing the financial sustainability of the region’s utilities

The region’s utilities, mostly state-owned, function as the primary counterparty to private generators and are the main investors in electricity networks (which as highlighted in the SEAO, are also crucial for supporting regional trade and integration). Their financial sustainability depends on their ability to recover costs, which is influenced by customer connections, operational performance and regulatory frameworks. Cost-recovery varies across Southeast Asian markets, with particular challenges related to setting retail tariffs in a way that balances system needs and affordability for consumers.

For example, despite improved borrowing conditions for Vietnam Electricity (EVN), financial performance is tenuous and tied to government decisions on electricity prices, which remain low by international standards. By contrast, in Malaysia, a combination of improved operations, better financing and regulations for cost-pass-through supports a relatively high level of per capita investment for grids. 

Financial metrics for Indonesia's state-owned utility, PT PLN (Persero)
	Revenues	Government subsidy	Purchased power (IPPs)	Fuel costs	Other costs	Operating income (subsidised)
2013	12.20	7.68	-0.80	-11.21	-4.77	3.11
2014	14.4137839	7.400221398	-3.988179817	-11.41198516	-4.37121064	2.042629673
2015	16.02572502	4.169808503	-0.920662892	-10.20531086	-5.50636201	3.563197766
2016	16.25158713	4.233403185	-4.833751105	-7.985860253	-5.738762335	1.926616618
2017	18.27272478	3.273706962	-5.655760774	-8.370525734	-5.690736981	1.82940825
2018	19.16828795	5.006358399	-6.219011995	-9.641586593	-5.786533138	2.527514627
{"chart":{"type":"column","height":"55%"},"plotOptions":{"column":{"stacking":"normal"}},"series":[{"colorIndex":2},{"colorIndex":3},{"colorIndex":7},{"colorIndex":6},{"colorIndex":8},{"colorIndex":1,"type":"line","className":"noline"}],"title":{"text":"Drivers of PLN's operating income"},"yAxis":{"title":{"text":"billion dollars (2018)"},"reversedStacks":false},"xAxis":{"type":"category"},"tooltip":{"valueSuffix":" billion (2018)","valueDecimals":0,"valuePrefix":"$"}}
	No tariff rises + thermal capacity expansion in STEPS	2.6% annual tariff rise + thermal capacity expansion in STEPS	1.8% annual tariff rise + higher thermal utilisation, less expansion
2019	4.039118699	3.556914122	3.492372198
2020	4.454472982	3.376092711	3.221254939
2021	4.667830935	2.938512029	2.725718936
2022	5.24	2.79	2.21
2023	5.18	1.92	1.61
2024	5.23	1.10	0.90
2025	5.12	0.00	0.00
{"chart":{"type":"column","height":"55%"},"series":[{"colorIndex":8},{"colorIndex":6},{"colorIndex":7}],"title":{"text":"Projected subsidy for PLN by retail tariff and thermal capacity expansion case"},"yAxis":{"title":{"text":"billion dollars (2018)"}},"xAxis":{"type":"category"},"tooltip":{"valueDecimals":0,"valueSuffix":" billion (2018)", "valuePrefix":"$"}}
Note: IPP = independent power producer; STEPS = Stated Policies Scenario

Underperformance can put pressure on government budgets, as in the case of Indonesia. Following several years of improvement, increased financial pressure on PLN, due to rising power purchase and fuel costs in the face of frozen retail tariffs, prompted a year-on-year boost in government subsidies in 2018 (equivalent to over 3% of total state spending). Looking ahead, PLN’s subsidy burden could be sizeably reduced through more cost reflective electricity tariffs. Moreover, changes to retail prices could be tempered through better utilisation of existing generation, more focus on efficiency measures to help slow Indonesia’s demand growth and less dramatic expansion of capacity with contractually onerous terms.

Priority 2: Improving procurement frameworks and contracting mechanisms, especially for renewables

Investment frameworks for power generation have evolved considerably, but further reform could help improve private financing prospects. While independent power producer (IPP) investments are playing an increased role, these have come mostly through administrative mechanisms, such as direct negotiation with utilities, which are often not transparent in terms of price formulation. Price incentives (e.g. feed-in tariffs) under licensing schemes have driven most investment in renewables, but their design is not always effective; in some cases (e.g. Indonesia) tariffs have been set too low to attract investment at current project costs.

Competitive auctions, which can provide price discovery and clear risk allocation through contracts, have helped drive down renewable purchase prices around the world. Most Southeast Asian countries have been slow to adopt them, but implementing such transparent mechanisms for orderly market entry, with a commitment to sustain their use over time, would go a long way to reassure investors.

	Utility developed project	IPP - Direct negotiation	IPP - License scheme	IPP - Competitive bidding	IPP - Corporate buyer
2014	65.14	31.39	18.92	0	0
2015	59.6	39.01	1.99	21.63	0.03296
2016	67.13	11.02	17.98	42	0
2017	70.42	23	58.03	3.55	0.1538
2018	29.74	29.95	51.59	37.75	0.66
{"chart":{"type":"column","height":"45%"},"plotOptions":{"column":{"stacking":"percent"}},"yAxis":{"reversedStacks":false,"labels":{"format":"{value}%"}},"title":{"text":"Southeast Asia generation FIDs by procurement type"},"tooltip":{"valueSuffix":"%","valueDecimals":0}}
	Invisible 	LCOE for new investment	LCOE for new investment
Utility-scale solar PV	67.44	31.04	0.00
Onshore wind	70.55	0.00	36.11
{"chart":{"type":"column","height":"45%"},"plotOptions":{"column":{"stacking":"normal","enableMouseTracking":false}},"legend":{"enabled":false},"yAxis":{"reversedStacks":false,"tickInterval":20,"title":{"text":"USD/MWh"}},"series":[{"color":"rgba(0,0,0,0)","showInLegend":false,"enableMouseTracking":false},{"colorIndex":8,"label":{"enabled":false}},{"colorIndex":3,"label":{"enabled":false}},{"name":"Low WACC @~4%","type":"line","data":[[0,67.44]],"colorIndex":7,"showInLegend":false,"enableMouseTracking":false,"dataLabels":{"enabled":true,"format":"Low WACC @~4%","verticalAlign":"top"}},{"name":"High WACC @~4%","type":"line","data":[[0,98.48]],"colorIndex":7,"showInLegend":false,"enableMouseTracking":false,"dataLabels":{"enabled":true,"format":"High WACC @~9%","verticalAlign":"bottom"}}],"tooltip":{"enabled":false},"title":{"text":"Viet Nam: indicative LCOE for new investment (2018) by financing cost"}}

Notes: LCOE = levelised cost of electricity and is expressed on a nominal, unsubsidised basis. Assumed capital costs = $1 090/kilowatt (kW) for solar PV and $2 080/kW for onshore wind. Assumed capacity factors = 17% for solar PV and 30% for onshore wind (South central Coast). Projects reflect capital structure of 70% debt/30% equity. Higher financing assumptions assume before-tax cost of debt of 6% and required return on equity of 16%. Low financing costs correspond to 3% for debt and 7% for equity.

The case of Viet Nam illustrates challenges and opportunities in terms of policy design and bankability. Attractive feed-in tariffs spurred a boom in solar PV deployment in the first half of 2019, financed mostly by regional players. Yet, perceived risks and financing costs are relatively high and international banks remain reluctant to lend to renewables projects. This stems from risks associated with the standard power purchase agreement offered to IPPs, including areas related to dispatch and payments, as well as concerns over the adequacy of local grids to accommodate a rapid increase in variable generation. Clearer regulations, better policy design, and measures to address system integration and contractual concerns could help to improve the affordability of investments. With financing terms equivalent to those found in more mature markets, generation costs for solar PV and onshore wind could be around one-third lower.

Priority 3: Creating a supportive financial system that brings in a range of financing sources

As changing financing conditions make investing in some legacy parts of the power system more difficult, more effort is needed to cultivate a supportive financing environment for newer technologies while ensuring security of supply. To illustrate, final investment decisions for coal power in the region have fallen to their lowest level in over a decade in 2019 (reflecting a mixture of increased financial scrutiny by banks and overcapacity concerns). There has been a reduction in the number of financiers involved in transactions in the past three years, while IPP projects that have gone ahead continue to rely on a high share of international public finance. 

	Indonesia	Viet Nam	Philippines	Rest of Southeast Asia
2010	1.34	4.30	0.02	2.00
2011	1.02	1.24	0.02	1.13
2012	1.76	2.36	0.08	1.10
2013	0.87	0.00	1.50	1.07
2014	0.31	4.52	1.79	2.67
2015	1.39	4.20	1.0985	0.834
2016	3.54	0.63	1.775	0.026
2017	2.60	1.32	0.74	0.16
2018	0.13	1.43	0.00	0.00
2019 1H	0.45	0.00	0.00	0.04
{"chart":{"type":"column","height":"45%"},"xAxis":{"type":"category"},"plotOptions":{"column":{"stacking":"normal"}},"yAxis":{"title":{"text":"GW"},"reversedStacks":false},"title":{"text":"Final investment decisions (coal power)"},"tooltip":{"valueSuffix":" GW"}}
	International commercial	International public	Regional commercial	Regional public	Lenders (right axis)
2015	1138	0	3245.788889	308.1111111	26
2016	1217	5323	1719	225.4	24
2017	2407.6	4999	802	73	21
2018	653	724	492	0	9
{"chart":{"type":"column","height":"45%"},"plotOptions":{"column":{"stacking":"percent"}},"series":[{"colorIndex":2,"tooltip":{"pointFormat":"{point.percentage:.0f}%"}},{"colorIndex":3,"tooltip":{"pointFormat":"{point.percentage:.0f}%"}},{"colorIndex":7,"tooltip":{"pointFormat":"{point.percentage:.0f}%"}},{"colorIndex":1,"tooltip":{"pointFormat":"{point.percentage:.0f}%"}},{"colorIndex":8,"type":"line","className":"noline","yAxis":1,"tooltip":{"valueSuffix":" lenders"}}],"title":{"text":"Sources of debt for coal IPP projects"},"yAxis":[{"title":{"text":" "},"labels":{"format":"{value}%"},"reversedStacks":false,"tickInterval":20,"alignTicks":false},{"title":{"text":"Number of lenders"},"opposite":true,"tickInterval":6,"min":0,"max":30,"alignTicks":false,"gridLineWidth":0}]}

Notes: GW = gigawatts; 2019 1H = first half of 2019. Regional sources of finance include domestic financiers and those in other Southeast Asian countries. Sources: IEA analysis with calculations based on McCoy Power Reports (2019) and World Bank (2019).

At the same time, mobilising capital in newer areas requires improving the cost and availability of finance. The average loan duration in Southeast Asia is just over six years, far less than the lifetimes of energy and infrastructure assets. The cost of capital for an indicative IPP varies widely – with estimates in Singapore, Thailand and Malaysia at 3-5% (nominal, after-tax), while those for Philippines, Viet Nam and Indonesia are much higher (7-10%). Investors cite limited availability of early stage project development equity and long-term construction debt for renewables and storage, though some dedicated funds, such as the Southeast Asia Clean Energy Facility, are emerging to fill the gap.

Priority 4: Promoting integrated approaches to investment that address the demand side

Integrated approaches to investment, which take into account the demand side, could help to address rising consumption needs more cost-effectively. This is particularly true in fast-growing areas, such as demand for cooling, which is a major driver of supply requirements during peak hours but where more efficient air conditioner units, including those manufactured locally, are available at affordable prices. Efficiency investments can face barriers due to the small transaction sizes (from the perspective of banks), high upfront capital requirements (from the perspective of consumers), challenges in evaluating creditworthiness, and lack of clear labelling to support purchase choices. Low and subsidised retail power tariffs can also distort the investment case. 

Addressing information barriers, enhancing financing models and reducing subsidies would better support investment. Energy service companies are addressing the scale and upfront financing challenge of investment. They are well established in markets with long-term energy savings targets and supporting regulations, such as in Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore. Targeted use of public funds, insurance and capacity building can help reduce performance-related risks, as in Indonesia’s Energy Efficiency Project Finance Program. Progress in aggregating and securitising projects, through green bonds for example, could also help attract lower cost finance from a bigger pool of investors. Despite picking up in 2018, with over 40% targeting low-carbon buildings, Southeast Asia accounts for only 1% of global green bonds issuance to date.

Higher investments would yield multiple benefits

Overall, achieving Southeast Asia’s energy goals will call upon stronger policy ambitions across a range of energy sources and significant new capital commitments in the years ahead. As international experiences have demonstrated, where governments provide frameworks that allow for the efficient allocation and management of investment risks, the private sector responds and the cost of capital is reduced. 

These efforts would also yield multiple benefits – in the Sustainable Development Scenario, average annual capital spending across the entire energy sector of more than $140 billion over 2019-40 (higher than the $110 billion under the State Policies Scenario), is offset by the nearly $200 billion that Southeast Asian economies would save annually on fossil fuel imports by 2040. Such financial savings would come in addition to improved local air quality and universal energy access, as well as a reduced contribution to global climate change.

There is now an opportunity for investors and companies in Southeast Asian countries to engage with governments in order to encourage financial decisions and policy making that are better aligned with sustainability goals. This includes not just traditional utilities, developers and banks, but also the crucial perspectives of development finance institutions and the institutional investors, whose participation will be critical to funding the region’s energy goals.

As the world’s “All-fuels and All-technologies” energy authority, the IEA will continue to assist ASEAN Member States to tackle their energy policy challenges, including through good data and analysis, training and capacity building and enhanced engagement.

Latest articles