EMERGING MARKETS

Home EMERGING MARKETS Page 12

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Turbocharging Trumps Supercharging in the Battle for Engine Downsizing

376views

Naturally aspirated engines have dominated the automotive landscape for decades. However, growing emphasis on the need to improve air quality in recent years has placed significant pressure on global vehicle manufacturers to improve fuel efficiency and ultimately reduce CO2 emissions. Not only have OEMs been subject to growing pressure from consumer groups and environmental activists, but there has also been a stronger push by…

The article was published as part of Automotive World’s Special report: Turbocharging and supercharging.

Click to read the full article

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

China EV Policies: Is It A Bumpy Road Ahead for EV Players?

398views

Over the past several years, the Chinese government has been taking steps towards promoting green energy projects and building eco-friendly New Energy Vehicles (NEVs). Since 2008-2009, investments in green sector projects in China have witnessed tremendous growth, which is pushing development of the Chinese NEV industry. As China is slowly shifting focus from fossil fuel vehicles to electric vehicles, its involvement in developing technologies such as green energy and NEVs has equipped the country to compete at global level with western giants such as the USA, Germany, France, etc. While currently China is the largest producer of NEVs globally, it is still debatable whether in the future it will be able to sustain this growth to stay competitive and lead the global EV industry.

China has always aimed to become one of the global leaders in automobile industry similarly to its neighbors, Japan and South Korea, but for the longest time it was not able to produce vehicles that would be globally competitive in terms of quality and safety. In 2009, the Beijing government introduced Automotive Industry Readjustment and Revitalization Plan to strengthen China’s position in the global automotive market. The key objectives of the plan were to support domestic auto manufacturers, commercially as well as technologically, and allocate more resources to environmental friendly vehicles’ research and promotion. The government started promoting electric cars to tackle the environmental threats that China was facing. Electric and hybrid cars were relatively new concepts in 2009-2010, but this did not dissuade China and it started building strategies to increase production of such vehicles to compete and lead in the NEV market.

Since 2010, the Chinese government has been providing incentives, in various forms, for the NEV sector. For instance, the government introduced direct subsidies for NEV manufacturers, deductions for local authorities opting for green cars, and tax waivers and free registration incentives for consumers purchasing electric cars. These incentives accelerated the growth of NEV industry, which sold around 507,000 units in 2016 as compared with 480 units in 2009. Currently, the top ten global EV manufacturers are all Chinese producers. China aims to sell around two million electric cars annually and introduce a fleet of five million electric cars on the country’s roads by 2020. China’s goal, in terms of NEV sales, is quite ambitious but also necessary, as the country aims to limit its carbon emission rate by 2030 and curtail air pollution.

With the Chinese government shifting its focus on promoting green energy and green vehicles, changes have been made in various policies laid down for the auto sector. For instance, the 13th Five Year Plan, introduced in 2016, promotes adoption of NEVs. Government is also considering to ban gasoline and diesel vehicles, indicating that in near future, automakers may have to redesign their production and shift to green vehicle manufacturing.

In June 2017, the Chinese government made it compulsory for automakers selling more than or equal to 30,000 cars annually to increase share of EVs in their total auto sales. China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) introduced the carbon credit trading program, which mandates manufacturers to earn carbon credit score on their automobile production and sales. The policy is aimed to encourage production of various types of zero and low-emission vehicles. Effective 2019, manufacturers will be required to earn EV credits equivalent to 10% of sales, which would eventually rise to 12% in 2020. The credit score will be calculated on the basis of electrification level of the cars produced, indicating that fully electric cars will earn more credits than plug-in hybrid cars. Manufacturers not complying with these quotas will either have to buy credits or pay penalties. A credit score equivalent to 12% of sales will be equal to about 4-5% of EV sales, which could lead to the production of more than a million green energy vehicles in China in 2020. Certainly, this policy will be beneficial to the domestic EV manufacturers, who have massive EV production, as their income from credit sales will increase.

In January 2017, the Chinese government introduced another change in EV policy to subsequently phase out the tax benefits on purchase of EVs by 2021. The announcement has resulted in slight decline in consumer demand for EVs in China.

Further, the government has mandated the foreign players to form a 50-50 joint venture (JV) with domestic firms to operate in China. Consequently, the foreign players are forced to share their intellectual property and technology with local Chinese automakers. Some of the countries perceive this move as intellectual property theft by China. In the future, the Chinese government is likely to relax the JV terms and increase the foreign player’s percentage share in a JV.

China's Emergence in EV Market

 

EOS Perspective

Currently, China holds a bright spot in the global electric vehicle industry. Fuel-run vehicles are expected to lose their dominant position in a couple of decades if the EV industry continues to grow at the anticipated rates. Being the largest market for NEVs globally, China is likely to play a major role in this progress. But to continue leading the EV market, foremost requisite is to solve issues such as the price to performance ratio of batteries, and lack of sufficient charging stations and EV infrastructure in China.

In near-term, undoubtedly, China will remain a huge market for NEVs with foreign players aiming to be a part of it. It is yet to be seen what changes the Chinese government makes in JV terms for foreign players, but they will surely face a stiff competition from the well-settled domestic EV manufacturers. Selling in the competitive environment of China will surely affect their profits, but the main concern for them will be sharing their intellectual property with Chinese OEMs. Another challenge for all players would be to understand whether consumer demand for EVs will continue to thrive after the price increase related to the gradual withdrawal of subsidies and tax benefits. China has strategically kept NEV prices low to increase popularity and awareness of EVs amongst consumers. However, the government does not plan to sustain the low-priced regime, with the recent policy changes and subsidy phase outs likely to gradually increase EV prices in China, which might impact demand for EVs (it is likely to still remain high as compared with demand in other countries). The government plans to focus more on research and innovation to supply EVs at lower prices without any subsidies as well as to build robust infrastructure to support growth of the industry.

China also plans to export EVs to other major markets such as the USA, Norway, the UK, Germany, and Korea. With the current low quality and performance of domestically manufactured EVs, local Chinese players are not getting many buyers in these countries. But forging JVs with foreign players to produce EVs at lower rates and better quality may improve the export figures in future.

China has definitely raised the bar for other countries with its aggressive EV policies launched in 2017, which are future-centric and focused on ushering in a revolution in the auto industry by promoting EV vehicles over the traditional diesel/gasoline-based vehicles. In the future, NEV manufacturers in China are likely to focus on building economical and efficient vehicles, and with foreign players bringing in their latest EV manufacturing technologies, the future drive looks smooth for Chinese NEVs.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

US Smart Water Meters Roll-out – Do Utility Companies Stand a Chance amid User Resistance and Funding Shortage?

1.6kviews

The global smart water management market is expected to grow at a CAGR of 18.9% during 2016-2021, reaching US$20.1 billion by 2021, with USA expected to be one of the leading markets. Water utility companies across the country are focusing on installing smart water meters and replacing the old ones. Swapping the meters is a step towards deploying the infrastructure that manages water usage smartly, however, monetary, administrative, technological, and user acceptance challenges associated with adoption of this technology tend to overwhelm the public utility companies.

In the USA, just as in several other markets globally, the growth of the smart water metering industry can be attributed to the increased concern about water scarcity, reduction of water leakage, and upgrading the aging water infrastructure. Also with drought conditions becoming a common scenario in major parts of the country, the need for smart water meters to monitor both the usage and wastage of water has escalated.

Several water utilities across the USA have pursued automated metering infrastructure to monitor water usage. However, the cost of implementing smart technology is a concern for these utility companies, and acts as a major barrier to country-wide adoption. Some areas in the USA have succeeded in adopting and implementing advanced water metering solutions with the help of government funds. One such initiative was taken in 2016, when the New York Department of Environmental Protection awarded a US$68.3 million contract to ESCO’s Aclara RF Systems, a supplier of utility solutions, to provide advanced metering infrastructure solution for the city’s water service territory with 875,000 meters serving nearly eight million customers.

While such initiatives are helpful, the extent and availability of the government funds is limited, and it seems that support in the form of public funds to deploy smart water meters is crucial in driving the change on a nationwide scale. Indeed, the last period, in which US utilities saw an upsurge in spending on smart metering infrastructure, was around 2010, when US smart water meter investment reached US$395 million, coinciding with stimulus funding programs from public agencies, such as Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency.

As such funding flow from public programs slows down, so does the infrastructure investment, clearly indicating the inability by the utility companies to carry out such major upgradations by themselves. And they are not to be blamed, as there is a major resistance from their customers (especially residential users) to accept higher prices for such basic necessities as water, in the event the utility companies would want to generate funds through such a route. Many customers, in general, throw roadblocks at utilities’ smart metering roll out plans. Frequently, they simply do not want such meters, following reports of water bills doubling after smart meters installation for some residential users. Moreover, many residents raise questions with regards to health, privacy, overbilling issues, with resistance resulting in the rise of organizations such as StopSmartMeters.org, an advocacy group originating from California. With such a sentiment in some communities, it is virtually impossible to convince the users to accept higher prices to generate funds needed by utility companies for smart infrastructure investments.

The needs for funding are vast and frequently the availability of funds at public utilities does not match the requirement to roll out and integrate an extensive network of smart meters with the existing infrastructure. Such roll outs can only be done in phases, to accommodate for both availability of funds and network integration. For instance, Memphis Light, Gas and Water (MLGW), a three service municipal public utility company, first started rolling out the smart meter program in 2013, when about 60,000 customers in Memphis area had the new meters installed. The initiative moved to the next phase only in 2016, when Honeywell, a technology conglomerate, was selected to deploy smart meters over next five years for MLGW. The US$200 million contract included deploying one million meters (across three utilities) in MLGW’s service territory and providing the customers with access to their consumption data in order for them to manage the utilities usage in real time rather than seeing it after receiving the bill.

The MLGW service area is not fully covered with smart meters yet, as many layers of infrastructure must be developed simultaneously or ahead of time of the roll out. The smart grid project is still under way at MLGW, and includes development of fiber optic communications system required before even a single smart meter is operational in a particular area. MLGW received public funding for this section of the project, however it is only partially covered by a federal grant. The rest of the funds to develop these complex systems that require broader IT environment, including fiber optic or wireless connections, repeaters and gateways, analytical software, hydraulic modelling and network monitoring, must be typically generated by the utility companies.

Smart Water Meters

EOS Perspective

Many US water utility companies are switching from traditional mechanical meters for water reading to smart meters that capture real-time or near-real-time data about water usage and leakage. However, the transition has unquestionably been slower than desired, mainly because of the high cost of installing smart meters and related infrastructure, a major issue that continues to delay the deployment of smart meters across the country. The cost difference is indeed considerable – according to DC Water, a water services company based in Washington, DC, it costs an average of US$180 to install a smart meter in the capital as against a regular analog meter that costs around US$25. Replacing the old water lines with the new automated metering infrastructure also calls for a huge investment. As per a survey conducted in 2016 by West Monroe Partners, a US-based consulting firm, only 20% of the water utilities in the country adopted the automated water meters citing cost as a barrier to implementing smart meter technology.

Implementation of automated water meters is a complex task not only from the point of view of finances required but also with regards to the technological advancement, which is an ongoing process. Current generation of smart water devices have in-built capabilities that easily track water usage and detect leaks, but the technology continues to develop. As technological advancements intensify, it will not take long till the existing so-called smart meters will not support the features required in the future, making the present-day water meters obsolete. This is a considerable challenge for water companies when engaging in costly infrastructure projects. No utility provider will spend huge amount of money on smart meter today, only to replace them in a couple of years.

The limited government funding further complicates the situation for public utilities, putting a break on the smart meters systems truly taking off. With no clear funding policies, the road ahead is bumpy to achieve the goal of installing automated water metering systems throughout the country. US administration’s limited commitment to support installations, makes it difficult to anticipate by when the US water systems will be benefiting from smart technology. This uncertainty about the political will, clear resistance by some users, paired with high costs and the installations being outpaced by changing technology, make it hard to arrive with reasonable expectations of the timeframe in which consistent and widespread installations will be completed across the country. Till then, despite the fact that smart water metering can help reduce water loss and generate significant savings, a system that is only partially run with smart meters will not offer savings and smart management to its full potential.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

EU-Mercosur FTA: Old Negotiations, New Zest

1.1kviews

The EU and Mercosur (a trade bloc comprising Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay*) free trade agreement (FTA) negotiations date back almost two decades, to 1999. After failing to seal the deal in 1999 and again in 2004, the countries initiated new negotiations in 2010 and though started out slowly, they accelerated the process in 2016 (with hopes to finalize the deal by the end of 2017). A trade deal at this moment will be of significant importance to both sides owing to substantial amount of trade between the two blocs. The EU is Mercosur’s largest trading partner accounting for 21% of the bloc’s trade in 2015, while Brazil alone is the EU’s eleventh largest trading partner. However, despite a positive framework for the agreement to happen, there is still a great deal of resistance from few EU countries regarding the opening up of their agriculture sectors. Now it remains to see whether the two blocs can reach the much needed compromises and end up with an agreement by the end of the year or talks will remain hanging once more.
*Venezuela has been suspended from the trade bloc in 2016 and therefore is out of the negotiations

While this may not be the first time the EU and Mercosur sit to negotiate the terms of an FTA, it definitely seems to be the most promising one. The main reason the earlier efforts have gone in vain was the Argentinian leftist government’s adverse stance on trading outside their own backyard. This changed with the election of president Mauricio Macri in December 2015, who unlike his predecessor (Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner), looks at international trade as a growth opportunity for Argentina. Similarly, the impeachment of the Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff in May 2016 resulted in a new political wave in Brazil. While Brazil’s former president did take small steps towards trade liberalization, her successor, Michel Temer, has accelerated this process and has made the EU-Mercosur deal one of his top priorities.

Another reason this deal has gained immense importance for the Latin American bloc has been a declining bilateral trade among Mercosur’s two largest members, Argentina and Brazil, owing to recession. Trade between the countries declined from US$36 billion to US$22 billion during 2013-2016. This has forced the two nations to soften their stance on global trade.

Considering these developments, as well as the changing political and trade dynamics between several Latin American countries and the USA, following the arrival of Trumps administration at the White House, Mercosur’s openness and renewed interest in strengthening international trade ties is fully understandable. We wrote about it in February 2017 in our article Trump in Action: Triumph or Tremor for Latin America? and again later in June 2017 in Japan Hopes to Get a Slice of Mercosur Opportunity Cake as LATAM Exports to USA Decline.

On the other side of the negotiations table, as the EU has maintained a positive outlook towards foreign trade in general, the lost prospect of a Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the USA under Donald Trump has also reinvigorated EU’s interest in the Mercosur FTA. Moreover, the EU views the deal with Mercosur as a suitable counter-measure to the growing Chinese influence in Latin America.

Apart from these aspects, the main reason for renewed commitment to the deal by both sides is the significant and increasing level of trade and investment between the two blocs. In 2014, EU’s investments in Mercosur countries reached US$494 billion. The EU’s exports to Mercosur expanded from about US$24.6 billion (€21 billion) in 2005 to about US$54 billion (€46 billion) in 2015. Similarly for Mercosur, its exports to the EU increased from US$37.5 billion (€32 billion) to US$49 billion (€42 billion) during the same period. Agriculture products constituted 48% of Mercosur’s exports to the EU, while machinery (29% of exports) and vehicle and parts (17% of exports) were EU’s largest export categories to the Latin American bloc.

The EU stands to gain a great deal from the FTA. As per current calculations, EU exporters would save about US$5.2 billion (€4.4 billion) annually on trade tariffs and stand to double their exports within five years of reaching a deal.

Despite hefty trade benefits and a lot of political and economic factors being in favor of the deal, agriculture remains a sore point. Several EU countries, led by France, do not want to open up their agriculture sector to Mercosur’s exports as they feel their domestic produce (especially grains and meat) cannot compete with that of Brazil and Argentina in terms of price. In addition, they are concerned that Mercosur’s agricultural produce are not subject to the same health standards as their domestic produce.

A quick glance at the average production costs indicates that the EU farmers have a reason to worry. As per estimates, if the deal comes through, the amount of maize available in Brazil and Argentina for export by 2020 will be between 23 and 26 million tonnes. While the average production cost of cereal in Mercosur is close to US$94/ tonne (€80/tonne), it is about US$141/tonne (€120/tonne) in the EU. This is likely to result in substitution of EU-grown maize with that from Mercosur, which will most likely result in a loss of about US$2.3 billion (€2 billion) by 2020 for EU’s agriculture sector. In addition, it can be expected to result in an indirect loss of about US$1.2-3.5 billion (€1-3 billion) as Mercosur-produced maize is likely to also replace wheat for animal feed during high production and harvest months.

In case of meat products, beef produced in Mercosur is more competitive than EU’s beef in terms of pricing. Moreover, a study of the usual trend of beef quotas suggest that they are first filled with noble cuts exports (including filet, entrecote, and rump steak) followed by other hindquarter cuts (such as topside and silverside). In case the deal takes place, it is expected that Mercosur’s beef will largely substitute local beef produce with Mercosur’s export volume (keeping in mind higher quantities of noble cuts, such as Hilton beef) expecting to reach 1 million tonnes. These would be worth US$18.8 billion (€16 billion) and would directly impact the local production and sales value. To bring this into perspective, the value of Brazil’s beef exports (the largest beef exporter among the Mercosur countries) to the EU was US$485 million in 2016. Moreover, low-priced imports from Mercosur will put pressure on the pricing in the domestic EU market resulting in close to a 30% downward price revision, which in turn is highly likely to result in further losses of about US$10.6 billion (€9 billion). In case the EU agreed to 300,000 tonnes at zero duty, this would expectedly result in US$3.5 billion (€3 billion) in direct costs and US$7.1 billion in indirect costs (€6 billion).

In addition to this, there are several non-tariff related issues with Mercosur’s produce, such as lack of tagging and traceability of livestock to identify and guarantee origin. Also, several drugs, such as hormones and growth promoters, as well as few antibiotics and insecticides that are banned in the EU are legally used in Mercosur. These factors have resulted in countries such as France, Ireland, and Poland opposing the EU-Mercosur FTA.

Another source of disagreement for the EU lies in the trade of sugar and ethanol, which the European producers claim should be excluded from the list of freely-traded items. This stems primarily from the fact that the Brazilian government provides subsidies worth US$1.8 billion annually to its ethanol and sugar producers, a fact providing them with an undue advantage compared to the European counterparts.

On the other hand, Mercosur is discontent with EU’s limited concessions on agricultural imports and its stance to continue quotas on the Mercosur’s food imports. Mercosur also has some concerns regarding providing the EU with access to public tenders, which in Brazil alone are worth about US$176 billion (€150 billion), however, they are positive that they will be able to reach a consensus during negotiations.

While few points of contention remain, negotiators at both ends are keen on resolving these issues and signing the deal by the end of 2017, remaining aware of the significance of this deal for both the sides as well as of the tendency for these talks to remain unresolved if not pushed soon. Moreover, both sides want to exploit the current favorable political scenario in Brazil and Argentina. With Brazil heading for presidential elections in 2018, the chances of a leftist-government coming to power do exist, and this can again put the deal in danger if it is not completed by then. Both sides of the negotiating table want to reach an agreement sought-after for the past 20 years as early as possible, even if it means compromising on some expectations.

EU Mercosur FTA Old Negotiations New Zest

EOS Perspective

A goal of completing the deal by the end of 2017 seems like quite a gun to the heads of both the blocs, as past experience, both in the case of this deal as well as other FTAs, proves that the process is never quick nor simple. Moreover, the EU seems somewhat divided on the deal, with Spain, Portugal, and Germany advocating for it and France, Poland, and Ireland opposing it. That being said, this deal – which has been on and off again and again since 1999 – has never been as close to getting finalized as it is now. This is primarily due to the fact that both Argentina and Brazil (that were the two main factors holding the deal back all these years) are extremely keen on reaching this agreement with EU, to the extent that they may be willing to compromise quite a bit as long as the deal includes provisions that leave room for future improvements and it brings increase in trade and thus growth for local economies. However, it remains to be seen whether they will be willing to stretch their compromises far enough to agree to the EU’s terms on the agriculture produce trade. At the same time, it is not clear how much the EU is going to push for these provisions, so there is a chance that both parties will manage to reach a well-rounded deal for both the sides. The least probable scenario is that the deal will come to a stand-still once more, however till the ink dries on the deal, nothing can be considered as certain.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

USA-China Solar Dispute – Will Sanctions Really Aid the US Solar Market?

659views

Trade disputes are not a rare sight in the current competitive era. Especially the USA and China have a history of such disputes in last couple of decades and both have locked horns again, this time over solar equipment trade. Chinese manufacturers are being accused of unfair trade practices as they sell solar modules at a considerably lower prices than producers from other countries, using government subsidies to finance their operations and to create a glut of imports. In response to such a practice, American manufactures filed a petition with US International Trade Commission (USITC) seeking steep tariffs and a floor price for the Chinese solar imports. The commission voted on the merits of the petition in late September 2017, and decided that there has indeed been a considerable damage to the US manufacturers. The USITC’s recommendations for sanctions will be sent to the White House to decide the course of action in the following month. If sanctions are introduced, will the US producers be the ultimate winner after the final verdict in November?

The solar power generation technology was invented in the USA which have dominated the solar industry for last three decades of 20th century. The global solar industry is now a US$100 billion market, a fact that leads to a large number of players being interested in grabbing their share of this mammoth opportunity. As solar energy is considered clean and renewable, countries suffering from high pollution levels increasingly demand efficient and cheap solar energy generation equipment.

This strong demand is expected to continue, luring many players around the globe towards venturing into solar equipment manufacturing and this in turn has led to intense competition in this market. With China rising as a manufacturer of cheaper solar equipment since 2011, it has become increasingly difficult for other players to compete with China, and many producers, especially in the USA, are not very pleased with that.

This strong demand is expected to continue, luring many players around the globe towards venturing into solar equipment manufacturing and this in turn has led to intense competition in this market.

This is not the first solar battle between the USA and China. The countries were in a solar dispute back in 2011 when the USA hit China with 25-70% tariffs on solar module exports. It was due to a trade complaint filed by SolarWorld Americas along with six other US manufacturers about unethical trade practices undertaken by their Chinese counterparts. And now, Suniva, a Georgia-based solar cell and module manufacturer, filed a Safeguard Petition with the USITC in April 2017, just one week after it had filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy.

The USITC, in its unanimous vote, agreed that the US companies suffered injury from cheap imports. Following these developments, the markets are waiting for the president Trump’s decision over the case in November, and if the White House follows with sanctions and remedies, this might be the beginning of a significant wave of changes in the solar equipment market.

China has not always been the market leader for solar products. Way back in 1990s, when Germany could not meet its rising domestic demand for solar equipment, it started working with Chinese players to manufacture the equipment for German market. Germany did not only provide the capital and technology but also some of their solar energy experts to those Chinese manufacturers.

The high demand was a result of German government’s incentive program to use the rooftop solar panels. Needless to say, those Chinese players happily accepted the opportunity. Further they got lured with the rising demand for solar equipment in other European countries such as Spain and Italy, where similar incentive programs started to be rolled out. The Chinese producers started hiring experts and expanding their capacities to tap the surge in demand.

With rising pollution levels and global demand for cleaner energy, solar industry became an attractive opportunity for China, and this resulted in the government’s willingness to invest as much as US$47 billion to develop China’s solar industry. With the beginning of 21st century, China started inviting foreign companies to set up plants in the country and take benefit of its cheap labor.

The Chinese government also introduced loans and tax incentives for renewable energy equipment manufacturers. By 2010, the solar equipment production in China increased at such levels that there were almost two panels made for every one demanded by an importer. In 2011, China took the German route and started incentivizing domestic rooftop solar installations, which rocketed the domestic demand so much that it surpassed Germany’s in 2015 to become the largest globally. China deployed 20 GW capacity in the first half of 2016, whereas the entire US capacity at that time was 31 GW.

The Chinese government started perceiving solar power generation as a strategic industry. It started a range of initiatives to help the domestic manufacturers to increase production of solar equipment, be it through subsidies for the purchase of the land for factories or through lower interest loans from banks. These moves and gigantic Chinese production capacities drove the global solar panel prices down by 80% from 2008 to 2013, which further increased China’s exports as its prices were the lowest.

Before 2009, the USA used to import very little from China in the solar domain and by the end of 2013, the Chinese imports rose to over 49% of total solar panels deployed in the USA. This increase in the imports resulted in 26 US solar manufacturers filing for bankruptcy in 2011, one of which was SolarWorld which also filed a trade complaint. The situation was not very different in several European countries.

The Chinese government started perceiving solar power generation as a strategic industry. It started a range of initiatives to help the domestic manufacturers to increase production of solar equipment.

China was accused of unfair trading and dumping exports below market prices which led the Obama government and EU to imposing import duties of 25-70% on Chinese solar products in 2011 for the following four years. In return, in 2012 China threatened to impose tariffs on US imports of polysilicon used in solar cells, and actually announced tariffs of 53.5% to 57% in 2013. Also, finding loopholes in the tariff system imposed by the Americans, Chinese manufacturers set up facilities in countries such as Malaysia and Vietnam, as the tariffs were not applicable for imports from those countries. The US imports of Chinese solar products continued.

The current Suniva’s case has received a mixed support within the US solar industry. While the US solar installers, for obvious reasons, will not support the case, some of the well-known manufacturers in the country have also stood up against it. They think the tariffs will almost double the prices of solar equipment in the USA which will eventually lower the demand of their products as well.

Following the USITC vote agreeing with Suniva’s petition, the industry is awaiting the final decision on the extent of the recommended tariffs and remedies, which are expected to affect jobs, innovation, and growth of the solar industry in various ways.

Impact of tariff decision on jobs in solar industry

Out of the total 260,000 US solar jobs, installers accounted for more than 80%, and around 38,000 people were working in manufacturing in 2016, a 26% increase over 2015. As the prices of solar panels dropped to around US$0.4/watt in 2016 from US$0.57/watt in 2015 thanks to the availability of cheap Chinese imports, solar installations boomed in the USA.

Manufacturers and experts supporting the Suniva case (supporters) argue that if the suggested tariffs of US$0.4/watt on imported cells and a minimum price of US$0.78/watt on panels are implemented, it will help the domestic manufacturing and around 114,800 new jobs will be created. The installers and some manufacturers opposing the case (adversaries) say that the tariffs on import will hurt everyone including the manufacturing sector. If the prices increase, this will cause the demand to go down which is likely to affect around 88,000 jobs in the US solar industry.

A group of 27 US solar equipment manufacturers including companies such as PanelClaw, Aerocompact, IronRidge, SMASHsolar, Pegasus Solar, on behalf of their combined 5,700 employees, wrote a letter to trade commissioners not to impose new import tariffs. With Chinese solar imports as high as 49% of the total US requirement, increased prices are expected to affect thousands of jobs in the solar installation sector which is the primary sub-sector of solar industry.

However, if the Chinese imports continue at the current rate, the demand for solar equipment will eventually decrease. Over long term, the manufacturers will have to lower their production and installers will have no new clients. So, the economy of scale effect will not work after that and that might affect the US solar jobs.

Impact of tariff decision on innovation in solar industry

The one factor that genuinely seems affected with the rise of China in the solar industry is innovation. Being the pioneers of the solar power generation technology, Americans are undoubtedly good at innovation. However, with dozens of US companies being on the verge of bankruptcy and lowering sales for remaining manufacturers because of glut of cheaper Chinese imports, the innovation budgets have seen a large blow in the country.

China is still producing the first generation, traditional solar modules and doing little, if anything at all, to improve the efficiency of the existing products. Chinese are not known for investing much in R&D departments and top seven Chinese solar manufacturers invested a mere 1.25% of total sales in R&D in 2015. Compared with what electronics firms invested in 2015 towards R&D, this number is six times lower. Compared with US clean energy firms, Chinese firms patent 72% less.

However, the US innovation receives targeted help and support from the government, which is not the case for Chinese innovation. US Department of Energy has come up with a loan program of US$32 billion to help clean energy companies innovate efficient solar products while still being price competitive with Chinese products. Nonetheless, US innovations are expected to dry up if the Chinese solar equipment dumping continues.

US-China Solar Dispute

Impact of tariff decision on solar industry growth

Growth of the solar industry should probably be the prime factor to consider for the Trade Commission and the White House while deciding about the potential introduction of solar tariffs.

As of 2016, US solar industry is worth roughly around US$23 billion. Moreover, solar energy accounted for 40% of new generation in the US power grid and 10% of total renewable energy generated in the USA in 2016, while the recent cost declines have led American utilities to procure more solar energy. This energy has witnessed 68% of average annual growth rate in terms of new generation capacity in the USA in last decade and as of first half of 2017, over 47 GW of solar capacity is installed to power 9.1 million American houses. There are currently about 9,000 solar companies in the USA employing around 260,000 people. In 2016, solar power generation was at 0.9% of total US power generation, a share that is expected to grow to more than 3% in 2020 and hit 5% in 2022.

The Suniva case supporters believe that this growth can slow down once the solar equipment demand is satisfied through Chinese imports, which is likely to eventually lead to job cuts and no innovation that in turn will put a break on any further growth in the US sector. They also argue that the solar equipment manufacturing sector in the USA will be destroyed if the right steps are not taken to safeguard the manufacturers from cheaper imports.

After the tariffs are introduced, for some time, the prices will be parallel for locally manufactured as well as imported solar products. Later on, with innovation and competitiveness between the domestic manufacturers coming back (currently absent from US solar market), the prices are expected to go down as per the allies.

At the same time, the Suniva case adversaries believe that the dream run for solar industry’s growth in the USA should not be hindered by imposing tariffs on imports as it will jeopardize even up to half of all solar installations expected to be demanded by 2022. In case of US$0.78/watt minimum module price scenario, US solar equipment installation is expected to fall from 72.5 GW to 36.4 GW between 2018 and 2022 or to 25 GW in case of US$1.18/watt minimum price scenario.

Solar energy is believed to be price sensitive and if the government aims to motivate the clean energy development, the origin of equipment used for this development should not matter. Some of the US solar equipment manufacturers are even opposing the tariffs which means they think there is still potential in the domestic manufacturing industry and with innovation they can gradually increase their share in the market.

EOS Perspective

The US government will have to take a responsible decision on the trade tariffs. The issue looks very sensitive and can directly affect the growth of the US energy sector. A win-win situation seems impossible if the tariffs are levied, and in its deliberations the government should consider the effects of the past US tariffs imposed on Chinese products. When the USA took anti-dumping steps against Chinese steel, China fired back with tariffs on caprolactam, a textile material. China re-imposed duties on US broiler chickens, after the USA announced duties on Chinese tires in June 2015.

So, none of the trade wars have proved to be beneficial for either of the sides. In the current dispute, the stakes are also high, and the wrong decision might have repercussions in a range of sectors. For instance, China placed a US$38 billion order to Boeing for commercial aircraft in 2015, an order that has not been delivered yet. This aspect should be kept in mind by the USA.

China currently dominates solar products supply with 80% of global solar equipment manufacturing capacity. The USA need to understand that their role in the global solar market is decreasing, and is no longer what it used to be. It would be beneficial for the USA to focus on strengthening the role in innovation of solar technology rather than looking to be the leading solar equipment manufacturer by volume.

Even if the US government supports the manufacturers by slapping tariffs on imports, the country is not ready with the required infrastructure for solar generation equipment manufacturing to satisfy the domestic demand in absence of the imports from other countries. Solar equipment producers cannot instantly set up infrastructure to manufacture a number of solar products, such as solar cells, junction boxes, extruded aluminum, glass, etc., that too in a cost-effective model. President Trump’s support for reviving local manufacturing, while at the same time favoring fossil fuels over the green energy (also manifested through his withdrawal from Paris Climate Accord), makes the outcome of the case uncertain, and interesting to follow.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Electric Trucks in Japan – a Tale of Tests and Trials

347views

“I am convinced that electric trucks are the future of inner-city distribution”, said Marc Llistosella, President and Chief Executive of Mitsubishi Fuso Truck and Bus Corporation (MFTBC) when inaugurating Japan’s first public power charging station for trucks in May 2017.

There are two ways to view Llistosella’s statement. On the one hand, with the launch of the Fuso eCanter, a fully electric light truck, in 2017 and now with the setting up of the charging infrastructure, Mitsubishi is establishing a strong hold in Japan’s electric/electrified trucking space, marking its territory as one of the few players in the country to go beyond the trial phase.

 

The article was published as part of Automotive World’s Special report: ACE trucks – autonomous, connected, electrified.

Click to read the full article

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Small Hydropower: Sub-Saharan Africa’s Answer to Energy Crisis?

540views

The Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) region is believed to have bountiful energy resources, sufficient to meet the region’s energy requirements, however most of these resources are largely underdeveloped due to limited infrastructural and financial means. This has led to majority of the countries in the region to have restricted access to electricity, despite the presence of huge waterways, which could boost the hydropower sector’s growth, particularly the small hydropower (SHP) projects – plants with generation capacity between 1 and 20 MW. In recent years, SSA region’s focus has slowly shifted to SHP projects instead of depending on large-scale hydro plants, which are relatively expensive to construct and require longer time to build. However, question remains whether SHP has enough potential to improve electricity supply and reduce power outages across the SSA region.

African continent has approximately 12% of the global hydropower potential, most of which is centered in the Sub-Saharan region due to the presence of vast water bodies. Despite the underlying potential, the region faces massive electricity shortage partially due to under exploitation of hydropower.

Over the years, the SSA region has focused on the development of large-scale hydropower projects to increase its electricity generation capacity. However, recently, the emphasis has shifted to SHP because they are economically viable with almost negligible environmental effect and a short gestation period. Additionally, several small African economies utilize less than 500 MW of electricity annually, which negates the requirement to build a large dam, making SHP a viable option. Further, with comparatively lower overheads and maintenance costs, SHP could play a vital role in solving electrification problem in rural areas.

By 2024, the African SHP capacity is likely to reach 49,706.1 MW, growing at a CAGR of 19.2% since 2016, driven by the tremendous growth opportunities that the region offers. SHP projects are likely to proliferate in the region, owing to low capital investment requirement for installation, which makes SHP a more viable and affordable option than large-scale projects. SHP market still remains quite unexplored due to limited technological and infrastructural capabilities, and lack of sufficient promotion of SHP in national planning schemes.

Nevertheless, in the last couple of years, investments in the region’s SHP sector have increased, with various internationally-funded projects likely to commence installations. Geographically, countries such as Zambia, Uganda, and DRC (Democratic Republic of the Congo) are most suitable for SHP generation, due to the abundant presence of river basins and water resources. These countries depend predominately on hydropower for their energy requirements.

Hydropower is the primary source of power supply in Zambia, with a 99.7% dependency on hydropower to meet electricity needs. However, the country faces massive power outages due to fluctuating water levels, owing to persistent issue of scanty rainfall or droughts in the country, causing turbines to stop functioning to generate electricity. In 2015, the country witnessed a massive drought, which led to a huge decline in electricity generation. Nonetheless, since then, the country’s water level has improved, due to better rainfall pattern, resulting in higher level of power generation (as compared with 2015) through hydropower. The government has been making efforts to develop SHP stations to improve electricity supply – some of the SHP stations in the country include Lunzua, Mulungushi, Chishimba, and Shiwangandu hydropower stations.

Uganda’s power requirement is quite high due to extensive use of electricity in the industrial sector. The supply is always lower than the demand and the country faces frequent load shedding issue. Hydropower, accounting for 80% share in electricity generation, is the main source of power production in Uganda with a number of SHP plants in operation. Uganda’s government supports the hydropower market and has been making consistent efforts to promote SHP projects. For instance, in order to attract investors, the government provides incentives such as VAT exemption on hydropower projects.

DRC has the highest hydroelectricity potential in SSA due to the presence of particularly abundant water resources. Hydropower accounts for a share of 99% in DRC’s power generation. As of 2014, DRC’s total installed electricity generation capacity stood at 2,500 MW against its potential of 100,000 MW. In long term, DRC aims to become a key hydropower exporter in the region.

The SHP market across Zambia, DRC, and Uganda is still developing, with several potential SHP sites that could be harnessed to improve electricity supply. Each country faces its individual set of challenges in terms of SHP development, however, the hindrances seem trivial against the mammoth benefits that the countries could reap through SHP development.

Hydropower in Sub-saharan Africa

EOS Perspective

Hydropower holds a key position in SSA’s energy generation mix and SHP projects have particularly witnessed steady growth in the recent years. However, whether SHP has the potential to alleviate the power crisis in SSA is still debatable.

Is high reliance on hydropower a reasonable approach to overcome energy crisis?

While hydropower plays a dominant role in energizing the SSA region, continued energy crisis across various countries reflects the dangers of over-dependence on one form of energy for power generation. The chronic power shortages, load shedding, and low levels of electricity penetration are a clear indication that the SSA countries are unable to keep pace with electricity demands by heavily relying on a single power source.

Pinning hopes solely on hydropower to alleviate the energy crisis has spelled catastrophe for certain key industries, heavily reliant on electricity for functioning, that are suffering due to the electricity shortage. For instance, in 2014, DRC’s mining sector was adversely hit by the electricity supply shortage and development of new mines had to be frozen. The limited electricity supply situation has not yet improved, as DRC announced plans (in 2017) to import electricity from South Africa to support the struggling mining sector.

A solution to the electricity crisis could be to avoid heavily investing in one source for energy generation as well as to focus on tackling the fundamental vulnerabilities of power sector. In the long term, addressing the energy crisis would demand better management of water resources, continuously growing capacity of existing power plants along with a well-planned diversification of energy generation.

Is SHP a holistic solution to SSA’s energy crisis?

While focusing only on hydropower as a solution to the entire energy crisis situation across SSA countries might not be the best approach, developing SHP for rural electrification could be ideal to eradicate energy poverty across rural communities. SHP alone cannot consistently satisfy the energy demands of SSA countries such as Zambia, Uganda or DRC, but it can surely become the best possible solution to electrify rural areas, as people residing in these communities typically live closer to a river than to a grid.

Rural communities are characterized by much lower electricity access rates as compared with urban areas because people residing in villages typically cannot afford grid connections and in most cases the electricity supply through national grid does not reach the remote areas. SHP could play a major role in off-grid electricity supply that can be used for domestic application in rural households.

Besides the requirement to develop SHP particularly for rural communities, it is also essential for various SSA countries to adopt a cost-reflective tariff, which would ease pressure on public finances and attract more private investments.

Further, focusing only on increasing electricity supply is not a comprehensive solution to the crisis, as certain SSA countries such as Uganda suffer due to high tariff rates, which also need to be monitored. Uganda has one of the world’s highest electricity tariff rates and consumption is partially affected by it due to low affordability. The high commercial and industrial tariffs adversely impact some major industries such as agro processing (agriculture is a core sector of Uganda’s economy). A lower tariff rate could help to boost production across industrial sectors (including agriculture) and improve affordability among households.

Nonetheless, development of SHP projects would certainly help to move closer to eradicating the energy crisis in SSA region but only to a certain extent. It is imperative to take other measures as well to completely tackle the issues of supply shortage and load shedding. Development of SHP projects across the SSA region is challenging, however, navigating through these obstacles would be well worth the efforts, particularly in countries such as Zambia, DRC, and Uganda, where SHP could play a major role in rural electrification.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

UK Airlines Expected to Face Turbulent Times with Brexit on the Horizon

419views

As the UK heads towards a hard Brexit, one of the industries that could be facing the maximum heat is the airline sector. The country’s aviation sector has for long enjoyed the perks of UK being an EU member, as its business greatly benefits from two of the EU’s four fundamentals of freedom of movement – freedom of movement of people and of cargo/goods (with the other two being freedom of movement of capital and of services). However, with UK triggering Article 50 (divorce clause) of the EU treaty, the European Commission has warned British airlines about several restrictions that are likely to be imposed on their EU routes in case the UK and EU fail to reach a new agreement. This has left the airline sector in a state of high uncertainty. While several airlines, such as EasyJet, have already started working on a contingency plan, others chose to follow a wait-and-watch approach.

Airlines industry has definitely been one of the key beneficiaries of the UK being an EU member. As per the EU’s Open Skies Agreement, all EU members are allowed to fly anywhere across the EU states. This rule gave the British airlines access to fly not only from London to Paris but also from Milan to Paris, expanding the airlines’ passenger base.

However, with Brexit being an absolute certainty, UK airlines fear losing access to the EU’s single aviation market which they have for long promoted and championed. Since the EU-UK divorce seems to be a rough one, airlines have little hope for a continued Open Skies Agreement. The sector’s worries have been further deepened by the fact that British PM, Theresa May, has clearly expressed her inclination to end the authority of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) over the UK matters. Since ECJ (which is the highest court in the EU in matters of European Union law) also presides over European Aviation Law and in turn the Open Skies Agreement, the end of its authority over the UK will automatically result in the removal of UK’s aviation sector from the Open Skies Agreement.

Moreover, within days of the UK triggering Article 50 of the EU treaty (i.e. formalizing the exit process that needs to be completed over two years), the European Commission has sent out warnings to British airlines about several compliances they must adhere to, to continue flying intra-EU post Brexit. In order for these airlines to continue flying on these routes, they must comply with EU’s strict ownership rules, which state that airlines operating intra-EU flights must be based in an EU state and their majority stake must be owned by EU citizens. Failing to abide by these regulations will result in the UK losing its rights to fly intra-EU flights. Alternatively, as a counter to EU’s regulations on UK airlines, it is well expected that the UK will put similar stipulations on EU-based airlines that wish to fly intra-UK flights.

These two-sided restrictions will affect several airlines such as British EasyJet, Irish Ryanair, and IAG-owned airlines – Irish Aer Lingus as well as Spanish Iberia and Vueling, which derive a great deal of their business from flying within the EU countries and UK cities. While some of these airlines have preemptively started deploying a contingency plan, others are still waiting for some more clarity and are hoping for a positive outcome in the form of an agreement similar to Open Skies.

UK Airlines Expected to Face Turbulent Times

EasyJet

One of the first movers with regards to an action plan has been EasyJet. Being a UK-based company deriving a large part of its revenue from low-cost intra-EU flights, EasyJet will be one of the airlines hit the worst. Since losing its intra-EU business is not an option for the carrier, it has already set up a European sister company in Vienna, EasyJet Europe, in July 2017. About 100 planes have been assigned to the subsidiary and the total cost of the project is about US$13 million.

EasyJet does not face a major hurdle with regards to ownership requirements for EU airlines. It is currently 84% owned by EU citizens, a stake that will fall to 49% post Brexit provided that the shares of its owner, Stelios Haji-Ioannou, who is a dual UK and EU citizen, are accounted as EU citizen-owned. However, since the 49% ownership is going to be only slightly below the required mark, the airlines will not have much issue in meeting the requisite ownership requirement.

With these two aspects settled, the EasyJet is likely to be able to continue operating its international and domestic flights across the EU states.

Ryanair

Ryanair, unlike EasyJet, does not need to move its base as it is already headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. However, the airline faces ownership pressure as the shares owned by EU citizens will fall from 60% to 40% after Brexit. To ensure compliance with the ownership rule, as a first step, the airlines could possibly ask the fund managers holding their stock to switch the funds in which the shares are held from their UK-based funds to Dublin-, Milan-, Frankfurt-, Ireland-, or Luxembourg-based funds. However, if that does not work, the company does have extraordinary provisions in its articles of association to force non-EU investors to sell their stake to ensure major control and ownership by EU nationals.

However, the airline might be facing a larger threat looming on the horizon. In case the UK replicates similar flying barriers on EU-based carriers, Ryanair might be negatively affected, as the UK is an important domestic market for the airline. To ensure smooth operations in the UK, the company will need to apply for a domestic UK Air Operator Certificate (AOC) which will let it continue its operations without major changes.

IAG-owned Airlines (British Airways, Aer Lingus, Iberia, and Vueling)

IAG-owned British Airways is likely to remain among one of the least Brexit-affected airlines as is does not fly intra-EU flights. Moreover, the group’s other airlines including Spanish Iberia and Vueling, as well as Irish Aer Lingus already are based in the EU and therefore can continue flying within the EU. However, the group has refused to comment on its shareholding structure which will be required to be majority EU-based for the latter three airlines to continue intra-EU operations. As per industry experts, IAG, which also has extraordinary provisions for force sale in their articles of association, may need to divest some of their non-EU-based stake and replace it by stake held by EU nationals.

EOS Perspective

While there is a significant uncertainty about the fate of the airline industry post Brexit, there is a common consensus that the sector is likely to be hit hard by the divorce. The UK and EU markets aviation sectors are largely inter-dependent, whether it is about air traffic or employment in the sector, and potential lack of regulations similar to the Open Skies Agreement will be detrimental to the industry in general as well as its consumers. This makes it vital for the Brexit negotiators to try to develop a mutually beneficial deal for the sector in general.

Having said that, it is clear that the airlines must prepare for the worst as the UK and EU seem to be heading for a hard divorce. Brexit process was formally started in March 2017 and the UK has two years to conclude all procedures and negotiations leading to the EU exit, which also puts the same timeframe for the sector to develop contingency plans. Some players, such as Ryanair hope that some form of Open Skies Agreement will be replicated, and continue to put pressure on their government for such a similar agreement to be negotiated. Other players, such as EasyJet, seem to take a more proactive approach, already investing resources in ensuring their smooth operations even if the worst case scenario materializes. Such an uncertainty about shifts in the operating environment is never favorable for any sector, UK airlines included, and as the future developments of the operating framework lie largely in the hands of negotiators, the industry players hold rather limited control over the future changes.

Top