|
|
Line 692: |
Line 692: |
| <br/> | | <br/> |
| | | |
− | = Private Finance<br/> = | + | = Guarantees<br/> = |
| | | |
| {| border="1" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" style="width:100%;" | | {| border="1" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" style="width:100%;" |
Line 700: |
Line 700: |
| | | |
| | style="width: 618px;" | | | | style="width: 618px;" | |
− | '''<span></span><span></span><span></span><span>Finance provided by investors or lenders in the expectation of financial returns (profit). </span><span></span><span></span><span></span>''' | + | '''<span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span>A promise from an institution (the guarantor) with sufficient resources to assume the financial obligations of one party to a contract if that party defaults. </span><span></span><span></span><span></span><span></span>''' |
| | | |
− | <span>Private finance will be input on commercial terms, meaning that the investor or lender will expect to receive returns that exceed the original investment or loan and at a level that reflects the risks involved. Factors considered by financiers may include risks to implementation, delivery and technology performance, risks of cost escalation, market/demand and credit/payment risks, regulatory and macro-economic risks and external risks such as policy framework and weather. Any financier will require clear information on forecast revenues and potential risks before providing funding. It may be difficult for new electricity businesses working in new markets, and for users without a formal credit-record, to give commercial funders the confidence they require. Finance for electrification may come in the form of equity investment, or capital asset or working capital loans, and may be provided to a business as a whole, to a specific project or to end-users.<span><span><span></span><span></span></span></span></span> | + | <span>A guarantee is a type of “insurance policy” that protects companies and investors from the risks of non-payment. This financial tool has been a foundation of financial markets all over the world for many years. Guarantees play an important role in helping the private sector make investments that promote growth and create jobs, in particularly in unfamiliar sectors or contexts, such as rural electrification in developing countries, which they regard as high risk. A guarantee can be unlimited or limited, depending on whether the guarantor assumes liability for the whole potential loss or only a part of it. Governments are often well-placed to offer guarantees (except where the protection is against their actions), and may be able to attract private investment and lower user prices by removing or reducing risks which investors view as significant but which from a government perspective may be quite acceptable. Other potential guarantors are international development agencies. Guarantees may be provided on a commercial basis in return for fees (like any other insurance policy), or for free as a form of grant, or on a concessionary basis. In the context of electricity access provision, guarantees may be structured to protect against:</span><br/> |
| | | |
− | '''''Equity''''' - Any equity investment implies partial business ownership, with the investor taking the risk of losing their investment if the electricity venture fails, but also expecting to receive bonus returns if forecast targets are exceeded. Early stage investment in new businesses often relies on finance from entrepreneurial individuals, angel investors or venture capitalists who are willing to take large risks but expect to receive high returns on their investment if it’s successful.<br/><br/>'''''Loans''''' - capital asset loans are used, generally in later stages of business development and on specific projects, to leverage equity investment enabling businesses to scale up and expand their assets. Capital lenders expect repayment of loans over fixed periods and with pre-agreed (fixed or variable) interest rates, so that if profits fall short of forecasts payments are reduced only once equity capital has been exhausted, but if forecasts are exceeded lenders receive no additional benefit.<br/><br/>'''''Working capital'''''- alongside capital investment, most businesses require working capital to bridge the gap between expenditure and receipt of revenues. Working capital is particularly needed by, for instance, solar product businesses, where there may be three months or more between purchase/ import of the product by the business and sale to the end-user.<br/>
| + | *<span>default or action by government or government agencies - for instance for the developer of grid-connected mini-grid who is reliant on sale of electricity to the grid utility;</span><br/> |
| + | *<span><span>external risks - for instance the risk of exchange rate movements to a standalone system importer or of drought to a hydro-powered mini-grid operator </span></span><br/> |
| + | *<span><span><span>user payment risk – for instance for an isolated mini-grid operator. (This may include the risk that demand does not reach forecast levels or just that users fail to pay for electricity they receive.</span></span></span><br/> |
| | | |
− | '''''Sources of finance''''' - Often both international and local finance is required to support electrification – particularly where capital equipment or products are imported. The scale of funding needed for electrification may require international finance, and international financiers may have greater familiarity with, and hence be more comfortable with, some of the issues associated with the energy sector, particularly if their funding is channelled through an international company. However, local private funders will be more familiar with the national context and be more confident in resolving, and hence charge less premium for, risks associated with it. Exchange rate, and hence macro-economic, risks will always be an issue for private financiers where any of the electrification costs are in foreign currency. This issue will be greater where international funding is used to cover more than just import costs, and international funders will be very reluctant to provide finance if repatriation of funds is constrained. <br/> | + | <span><span><span><span>In more general terms, types of guarantee include:</span></span></span></span><br/> |
| + | |
| + | <span><span><span><span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-size: 13.6px;">'''''Development Finance Guarantees''''' <span style="font-size: 13.6px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">– </span> may be offered by multilateral development banks and national development banks to assist with the implementation of projects in developing countries, particularly those that involve significant capital costs. Such guarantees provide any project developer, or the national Government of the country concerned, with security against the loss of funds due to unforeseen circumstances. For example, the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) is organized by the World Bank to help investors and lenders to deal with political risks by insuring eligible projects against losses relating to currency transfer restrictions, breach of contract, expropriation, war and civil disturbance. With this backing, there is a much greater chance that a developing country, or related project implementer, can attract and retain the necessary private investment.</span> |
| + | |
| + | '''''Partial Risk Guarantees''''' – PRGs (also known as political risk guarantees), cover private lenders and investors against the risk of the government (or a government owned agency) failing to perform its obligations regarding a private undertaking such as electrification expansion in a developing country. The aim of a PRG is usually to attract private sector financing, accelerate foreign direct investment, promote infrastructure development, and encourage private sector participation in public-private partnerships. A PRG will typically cover up to 100% of all repayments expected by a project developer or investor when they have financed project development costs (e.g. for the purchase of electrification systems/infrastructure) and the repayments cannot be received due to the non-performance of the government or a state-owned entity. For example, a PRG could be used by a project developer who partners the national electricity utility in a developing country, using the utility’s customer payment channels to receive repayments for an expanded electrification system. In the event of a lack of repayment due to incapacity of the utility, the PRG would reimburse the project developer (according to the specific conditions of the guarantee).<br/><br/>'''''Partial Credit Guarantees (PCGs)'''''– a PCG represents a promise of full and timely debt service payment up to a predetermined amount. In the event of lack of repayment, such a facility is usually designed to pay out an amount that fully covers project developers or investors irrespective of the cause of default. The guarantee amount may vary over the life of a planned electrification project based on the developer's expected cash flows and the investor’s concerns regarding the reliability of the repayments from customers targeted. An example of a PCG facility for such development projects is offered by the International Finance Corporation. The IFC tailors guarantees to meet the needs of both the borrower and creditors. They are structured in a way that reduces the probability of default regarding the repayments from customers, and to increase the recovery if default occurs. In general, IFC's objective is to offer the minimum amount of guarantee necessary in order to facilitate a successful outcome regarding repayments. This generally allows the project developer to achieve the lowest possible funding cost, permits investors to maximize their returns, and mobilizes the<br/>maximum amount of borrower finance for a given level of IFC credit exposure.<br/> |
| | | |
| |} | | |} |
Line 723: |
Line 729: |
| | | |
| | style="width: 616px;" | | | | style="width: 616px;" | |
− | <span style="color:#FFFFFF;"></span>Most national grid systems are constructed using public funds, though private finance can be introduced through privatisation of existing assets, inviting private generators to feed into the national grid, or establishment of distribution/grid-connected mini-grid concessions. For instance, the introduction of feed-in tariffs (e.g. in Tanzania) has provided the basis for private investment in generation. Mini-grids are more frequently, though by no means always, financed by the private sector since the smaller investment and shorter payback period can reduce the risks and provides a more manageable business opportunity. Stand-alone systems offer even greater opportunities for market-based finance since the relatively short period between purchase and sale to the user means that that only business establishment and a small amount of equipment capital investment is at risk. | + | <span style="color:#FFFFFF;"></span>Guarantees are generally most relevant for technologies which involve capital investment in infrastructure which, once installed, is difficult and expensive to re-locate and re-use, ie grid and mini-grid systems. |
| | | |
| |- | | |- |
Line 733: |
Line 739: |
| | | |
| | style="width: 616px;" | | | | style="width: 616px;" | |
− | Application of market-based finance, by definition, requires private sector ownership or a public-private partnership (PPP). PPPs are often an effective way to attract private finance since the public-sector element can offer funding and offset the risk associated with financing of electrification. Any private or PPP financing will require a business model with clear investment requirements and projections of income that provide expected return on investment over an acceptable timeframe, and with acceptable levels of risk and uncertainty.
| + | Under a public delivery model, governments will usually “self-insure”, so explicit guarantees are more likely to be relevant under private or public private partnership models. However, many types of guarantee are associated with political risk, with the aim being to provide some form of financial cover to the project developer/investor in the event that the Government or state entity involved in the project fails to meet its obligations to the project. Clearly one way to mitigate this risk is to work very closely with the public-sector partner and determine at an early stage the risk of any default regarding project implementation. Forming a PPP, with clear terms and obligations agreed between the partners, can help to reduce the need for any form of guarantee. |
| | | |
| |- | | |- |
Line 743: |
Line 749: |
| | | |
| | style="width: 616px;" | <span style="color:#FFFFFF;"></span> | | | style="width: 616px;" | <span style="color:#FFFFFF;"></span> |
− | Any private finance provider will consider the legal basis of electrification in terms of the risk profile it presents to them. The lower the risk and the greater certainty, the more likelihood that private finance will be available and at a lower cost. The most fundamental requirement for any private investment in fixed assets is clarity around the legality of operating and selling electricity. This may be provided explicitly through a concession or license, or through a general exclusion of certain types of electricity provision (e.g. mini-grids below a certain size) from the need to be licensed. Without this basic regulatory clarity, and so with the risk that future introduction of regulation may undermine their business and restrict their levels of income, it will be extremely difficult to attract private finance for electrification.
| + | A concession arrangement is based on government commitment and hence is exposed to political risk, so any third party guarantee providing protection from this risk may be valued by investors. Under a licensing arrangement this reliance is less (except as it relates to price/tariff regulation), so guarantees for this type of risk are less important, but guarantees for other areas of risk such as exchange rate or user payment risk remain relevant. |
| | | |
| |- | | |- |
| | style="width: 10px; background-color: rgb(49, 49, 152);" | <br/> | | | style="width: 10px; background-color: rgb(49, 49, 152);" | <br/> |
| | style="width: 117px; background-color: rgb(204, 51, 0);" | | | | style="width: 117px; background-color: rgb(204, 51, 0);" | |
− | <span style="color:#FFFFFF;">Price/Tariff Regulation</span><br/> | + | <span style="color:#FFFFFF;">Price/Tariff Regulation</span> |
− | | + | |
− | <br/>
| + | |
| | | |
| | style="width: 616px;" | | | | style="width: 616px;" | |
− | Is a critical factor for private investment in electrification, with inadequate or inappropriate price/tariff regulation often cited as the key barrier to such finance. Whatever form of price/tariff regulation is used the critical requirement is that it is clear and transparent, as without this, private financiers will see a significant risk of political pressure reducing prices or tariffs to the point below which they fail to cover investment costs.
| + | While price/tariff regulation can increase clarity and the confidence with which future revenues can be forecast, it also poses the political risk of changes to the regulatory regime, and a third party guarantee can provide protection against this. |
| | | |
| |- | | |- |
| | style="width: 10px; background-color: rgb(49, 49, 152);" | <span style="color:#FFFFFF;"></span><br/> | | | style="width: 10px; background-color: rgb(49, 49, 152);" | <span style="color:#FFFFFF;"></span><br/> |
| | style="width: 117px; background-color: rgb(32, 56, 100);" | | | | style="width: 117px; background-color: rgb(32, 56, 100);" | |
− | <span style="color:#FFFFFF;">Other Forms of Finance</span><span style="color:#FFFFFF;"></span><br/> | + | <span style="color:#FFFFFF;">Other Forms of Finance</span> |
− | | + | |
− | <br/>
| + | |
| | | |
| | style="width: 616px;" | <span style="color:#FFFFFF;"></span> | | | style="width: 616px;" | <span style="color:#FFFFFF;"></span> |
− | <span style="font-size: 13.6px;">In many cases some other form(s) of public finance such as grants, subsidies, concessionary loans, tax exemptions or guarantees (to reduce investment risks) will be needed alongside private finance to overcome the lack of user spending power and the high costs of early market development.</span><span></span> | + | <span style="font-size: 13.6px;">By reducing risks, a guarantee can make it easier to attract private finance and reduce the cost (return required) of that finance. This cost reduction will raise the level of affordability for the user and thereby reduce the need for user finance. A guarantee is thus an indirect form of subsidy or grant and its use can thus reduce the need for other forms of grant/subsidy. </span> |
− | | + | |
− | '''''User Finance''''' – Charges paid by users provide the means to repay electricity providers’ loans and equity investments and pay interest and return on capital. Where upfront charges are imposed on users, they may in turn seek to borrow to cover these charges and then repay the loan over time. Alternatively the electricity provider may seek additional finance in order to reduce up-front charges and so minimize barriers to users accessing their services.
| + | |
| | | |
| |- | | |- |
| | style="width: 10px; background-color: rgb(49, 49, 152);" | <span style="color:#FFFFFF;"></span><br/> | | | style="width: 10px; background-color: rgb(49, 49, 152);" | <span style="color:#FFFFFF;"></span><br/> |
| | style="width: 117px; background-color: rgb(0, 100, 100);" | | | | style="width: 117px; background-color: rgb(0, 100, 100);" | |
− | <span style="color:#FFFFFF;"></span><span style="color:#FFFFFF;">Non-Financial Interventions</span><span style="color:#FFFFFF;"></span><br/> | + | <span style="color:#FFFFFF;"></span><span style="color:#FFFFFF;">Non-Financial Interventions</span> |
− | | + | |
− | <br/>
| + | |
| | | |
| | style="width: 616px;" | | | | style="width: 616px;" | |
− | Most support activities to assist national electrification will reduce the perceived financial risk and so help to attract private sector investment and sustainable market development. Providing policies and targets, standards and technical assistance for new electrification initiatives will all increase the private financier’s certainty regarding the likely outcomes and so reduce the risk of investment. Market information, capacity building and customer engagement through promotional activity will all have a similar positive effect.<span style="font-size: 13.6px;"></span>
| + | Guarantees are unlikely to be used in the context of direct provision of electricity. Guarantees, like any other form of insurance or risk management, are a specialist area and technical assistance will almost certainly be needed to establish a sound guarantee arrangement.<span style="font-size: 13.6px;"></span> |
| | | |
| |} | | |} |
Line 787: |
Line 785: |
| | style="width: 10px; background-color: rgb(49, 49, 152);" | <br/> | | | style="width: 10px; background-color: rgb(49, 49, 152);" | <br/> |
| | | | | |
− | If private finance is attracted, it can support rapid electrification at a large scale, and can free up public funding to be used for other things. If market conditions are such as to attract purely private finance, this indicates that the electrification process will be self-sustaining without dependence upon external grants or subsidies from the government or donor organisations. Where customers are able to pay for electricity at a level that allows the supply to be maintained under market conditions, there is no concern over the withdrawal of public funding that may then prevent continued access to electricity. Experience also indicates that involvement of private finance can drive innovation and efficiencies in electrification as in other sectors.
| + | A clear advantage to a project developer/investor from the use of a guarantee is the reduced risk profile of the project as far as financial returns are concerned. A guarantee offers assurance to the financier that the funds invested will not be lost due to unforeseen circumstances, or lack of capacity to implement the project at the local level. A guarantee can also address uncertainties over political instability, and thereby facilitate access to project finance that may otherwise be unavailable.<br/> |
| + | |
| + | <span style="font-size: 13.6px;">The disadvantages associated with a guarantee include its cost, and the interpretation of liability. The preparation of any form of guarantee involves detailed assessment of the risks and, if it is secured on a commercial basis or if the government or agency providing it charges a fee, the developer may judge that the cost exceeds the benefits from the guarantee. It should also be noted that the cause of any default is often not absolute so there will be a process to determine who or what was the cause – this again has negative implications for costs and lost time.</span> |
| | | |
− | Private finance, however, requires clear evidence that revenues will provide returns on investment, and this may be an insurmountable barrier, particularly for forms of electrification such as grid and mini-grid systems which have high upfront capital costs that will be recovered over long periods (perhaps 20 years). Even where macro-economic conditions are stable, regulatory frameworks and prices/tariffs transparent, and users able to afford electricity, financiers may be reluctant to provide support in the absence of established companies with a track record of performance. Much time and effort may be expended in the attempt to attract sufficient private finance without the required results. Furthermore, private finance is usually more expensive than general government borrowing and this will particularly be the case for programmes that are seen by the financiers as carrying significant levels of risk.
| + | It may be possible to provide a guarantee which is valuable to the electricity provider, but which the guarantor government or agency can manage or off-set in some way which has little cost. Even if the guarantor is required to make payment under a guarantee, because of their greater resources they should be able to absorb a loss which could have crippled the electricity provider. However, guarantee arrangements are highly complex and if ill-designed could result in significant liabilities being taken on unknowingly. It is this complexity, and the resulting cost of establishing a guarantee arrangement which are the main disadvantages to guarantees. |
| | | |
| |} | | |} |
The Review was prepared by Mary Willcox and Dean Cooper of Practical Action Consulting working with Hadley Taylor, Silvia Cabriolu-Poddu and Christina Stuart of the EU Energy Initiative Partnership Dialogue Facility (EUEIPDF) and Michael Koeberlein and Caspar Priesemann of the Energising Development Programme (EnDev). It is based on a literature review, stakeholder consultations. The categorization framework in the review tool is based on the EUEI/PDF / Practical Action publication "Building Energy Access Markets - A Value Chain Analysis of Key Energy Market Systems".
A wider range of stakeholders were consulted during its preparation and we would particularly like to thank the following for their valuable contributions and insights:
- Jeff Felten, AfDB - Marcus Wiemann and other members, ARE - Guilherme Collares Pereira, EdP - David Otieno Ochieng, EUEI-PDF - Silvia Luisa Escudero Santos Ascarza, EUEI-PDF - Nico Peterschmidt, Inensus - John Tkacik, REEEP - Khorommbi Bongwe, South Africa: Department of Energy - Rashid Ali Abdallah, African Union Commission - Nicola Bugatti, ECREEE - Getahun Moges Kifle, Ethiopian Energy Authority - Mario Merchan Andres, EUEI-PDF - Tatjana Walter-Breidenstein, EUEI-PDF - Rebecca Symington, Mlinda Foundation - Marcel Raats, RVO.NL - Nico Tyabji, Sunfunder -