The great power blackout

The anarchic nature of energy distribution has reached tipping point, with many countries across the globe deficient to the point of paralysis. Will events in Pakistan, Nigeria, Yemen and Japan serve as a wake-up call to the rest of the world?

The anarchic nature of energy distribution has reached tipping point, with many countries across the globe deficient to the point of paralysis. Will events in Pakistan, Nigeria, Yemen and Japan serve as a wake-up call to the rest of the world?

Just as millions of people will ‘do their bit’  to save energy by switching off their lights during Earth Hour 2012, (March 31, 8.30-9.30 pm local time) the harsh reality for others across the planet will be power blackouts due to energy shortages – a reflection, in part, of oil prices remaining stubbornly high following supply interruptions resulting from the Libyan conflict in 2011 and ongoing tensions in the sensitive Straits of Hormuz, where the progressively disruptive Iran is threatening to shut down shipping lanes.

Against this backdrop, energy subsidies are being used by some states as an economic policy lever to pacify their masses by controlling inflation and protecting disposable incomes.Although this isn’t an issue in most of the rich oil producing states, it is becoming a major problem in places such as Nigeria, where national treasuries are coming under increasing pressure due to revenue shortfalls caused by endemic corruption. And for those states that are heavily reliant on energy imports, due to the relative lack of indigenous energy resources and/or poor infrastructure, the outlook is even bleaker.

In its 2011 World Energy Outlook, the IEA (International Energy Agency) estimated the worldwide cost of fuel subsidies for oil amounted to approximately $190bn in 2010, up from $120bn in 2009. It added that expenditure on all fossil fuel subsidies could rise to $660bn in 2020, from $409bn in 2010.

While the energy subsidies road may be paved with good intentions, the reality is that the richer portions of domestic populations often benefit disproportionately because wealthier households consume more fuel and access to subsidies is invariably not contingent upon income. Indeed, only eight percent of the $409bn spent on fossil fuel subsidies in 2010 went to the poorest 20 percent of the population, according to the IEA.

Good luck Nigeria
With food and energy expenditure taking up a larger proportion of income at lower levels of wealth, it doesn’t take rocket science to realise that removing subsidies will hit the poor much harder if the subsidies haven’t been targeted properly. Nigeria is a case in point. On New Year’s Day this year, President Goodluck Jonathan called for an end to fuel subsidies that had kept gasoline prices artificially low. Virtually overnight, the price of a litre of gasoline more than doubled to 141 naira ($0.86).

The Abuja government has long sought to deregulate the nation’s oil sector, claiming that subsidising oil consumption not only acts as a drain on the public purse, but also is unsustainable over the longer term. It adds that the move will save the treasury more than 1trn naira ($6.12bn) this year and provide scope for improving existing amenities and building much needed infrastructure. Though Nigeria produces around 2.4 million barrels of crude oil a day, roughly 70 percent of its petrol is imported, due to its domestic refineries being inoperative following years of neglect, resulting from corruption.

In a country where fuel subsidies had been in place for 40 years and where the average individual earns less than the price of a gallon of petrol each day, by some estimates, the response to Jonathan’s initiative was swift. Public transportation came to a standstill in some parts of the country while outbreaks of violence occurred in other areas. Factor in threats from Islamic sect Boko Haram – founded a decade ago – whose stated aim is to establish Sharia law across the whole country and the sense of national crisis in Nigeria is unlikely to diminish over the short to medium term at least.

Failure to prosper
In Pakistan, the sense of national crisis is even more palpable, given the deteriorating political landscape that could yet see the military re-enter the political arena after the firing of the country’s defence secretary in January, following a dispute over a memo. The unsigned memo, sent to Washington, sought US help in reining in the power of the military in exchange for favourable security policies – this in turn undermining an already uneasy relationship between the civilian government and the country’s military leadership.

As the political crisis plays out, the country faces a seemingly intractable energy crisis where production cannot be sufficiently increased to meet growing demand.

A government initiative in April 2010, aimed at alleviating chronic energy shortages – including cutting electricity to government offices by 50 percent, banning air conditioners from being operated before 11 am and compelling stores to close early – eventually failed.

State Bank of Pakistan (Pakistan’s Central Bank) noted in its 2011 annual report that the nation’s growth potential appeared to have hit a ceiling, due to insufficient energy supplies. While energy demand had increased significantly during the previous ten years, supply had not matched this growth due to the failure to set up viable new power projects to augment supply, failure to increase natural gas, crude oil and coal exploration, failure to build infrastructure for energy imports and failure to incentivise the development of renewable energy sources.

It added: “While failure to articulate a consistent energy policy has affected the country’s economic performance over an extended period, the recent resurgence of circular debt has presented new challenges.”

Going round in circles
Circular debt – essentially a situation where A owes B, who owes C, who in turn owes A – is particularly relevant in the case of Pakistan. That it has staged resurgence in recent months is due in no small part to the non-payment of electricity subsidies by the government, default on payments by energy consumers, and the build-up of payables and receivables within the energy sector itself.

In this year’s budget the government set a target of providing Rs50bn worth of subsidies to power sector consumers. This is now forecast to increase to Rs350bn.

To address the underlying problem the government is considering adopting the Iranian model of restricting fuel and energy subsidies under which market prices are recovered from consumers who are then compensated through a cash grant. Officials argue that since the original tariff subsidy was untargeted, almost 60 percent of the Rs350bn estimated for the current year would go to the domestic sector, where the richest 20 percent of consumers would enjoy about 70 percent of the subsidy.

In addition to the circular debt problem, the nation’s natural gas shortage intensified during 2011, severely impacting power generation as well as overall industrial production (especially of textiles and fertilisers). The Central Bank estimates the gas supply shortfall ranged from 10 to 15 percent of demand. Domestic crude oil production similarly fell short of demand, necessitating imports totalling $12.3bn in the 2011 fiscal year. Nearly 70 percent of domestic crude oil demand is met via imports.

Pakistan finds itself in a vicious circle of exploding population growth prompting higher energy demand, in turn leading to energy resources becoming too expensive for many industries as power supplies prove insufficient. Given the nation witnesses a daily power generation shortfall of 5,000 megawatts needed to meet demand, eight-hour blackouts in urban areas (14 hours in rural ones) are a feature of the economic landscape.

Keeping up with the Saudis
Looking ahead, underground coal gasification (converting coal to gas while still in the coal seam, through burning it off and then bringing the gas to the surface), holds some promise, as does the recent fast-tracking of a decision to bring in natural gas from Iran. But as the Central Bank warns: “…energy requirements shall continue to increase if economic growth is to be sustained. Urgent efforts are being undertaken to set up infrastructure for the import of natural gas as well as generation of electricity. However, the public sector’s ability to finance and execute projects is constrained by low tax revenues, creating a gap which only participation from the private sector and international institutions can bridge.’’

In Tajikistan, meanwhile, the long-standing focus has been on improving the country’s creaking power transmission infrastructure, much of which dates back to the Soviet era. Almost all of the nation’s electricity is generated from hydropower, leaving it with high summer surpluses, but significant shortfalls in winter. In August 2010 the Asian Development Bank (ADB) extended a $122m facility to expand and modernise the nation’s electricity transmission system, which will eventually help boost energy trading with neighbouring countries to meet winter shortages.

The facility was also intended to be used to launch a series of reforms, including restructuring Barki Tojik, the state-owned national utility company, and to make operational improvements across the power sector to address issues such as poor planning and maintenance, low service quality, and weak financial management.

Elsewhere, growing political chaos in Yemen, after almost a year of protests demanding the end of President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s 33-year rule, has since created a power vacuum and brought the country to a virtual standstill and close to the point of civil war.

To compound the problem, Somali pirates have taken advantage of the chaos by ramping up attacks and making Yemeni waters off-limits for several international trading companies. In June 2011 the government was forced to import three million barrels of Saudi-donated crude oil to run its Aden refinery after the main pipeline had been shut, following blasts that subsequently unleashed a fuel shortage which saw people getting killed at dry gas stations.

While the pipeline was eventually repaired, the refinery, which produces mainly for the domestic market, was shut down again in October after consecutive blasts. Saudi officials have since indicated the Kingdom will donate a further 500,000 tonnes to its poverty-stricken neighbour. Under the deal, state oil giant Saudi Aramco would buy oil products from the market, but would ask its supplier to discharge the cargo in Yemen instead of Saudi ports. At best, this initiative will only serve as a stop gap measure.

The Japanese response
Where the political will exists however, energy crises can be resolved, as seen in Japan after the massive earthquake in March 2011. The quake and subsequent accident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant proved to be a major game changer domestically. Aside from embarking upon a major national energy saving exercise (Setsuden) as an immediate response to the quake, the government of then Prime Minister Naoto Kan was, by August, pushing for 20 percent of electricity to be generated from alternative energy sources, such as solar and wind, as a longer term objective. And for good reason, given the destruction of the Fukushima plant led to the shut down of all but 15 of Japan’s 54 nuclear reactors.

In addition, utilities were to be mandated, by legislation, to buy electricity generated from these sources at prices set by the government. Major companies such as Toshiba Corp and Mitsubishi Electric Corp have already announced a collaboration to promote next generation energy-saving housing, using solar panels, as well as home appliances linked to a computer network to save power.

Power-saving targets set during the peak summer season – to avoid a wider collapse of power grids – saw major power users asked to cut consumption by 25 percent (20 percent for small industrial users, 15-20 percent for households).

Offices and private households turned lights off and thermostats up, to a minimum 27C, while office workers moved their shifts to early mornings and weekends to avoid using the electricity consumed at nightfall. Department stores and subway stations turned off their air conditioning units and citizens were encouraged to keep computer usage at a minimum. The initiative proved successful to the point that restrictions on power usage were lifted in September, weeks ahead of schedule.

Tokyo, this time round, had managed to dodge a bullet in terms of avoiding blackouts, as peak use fell below 2010 levels. Clearly it had served as a wake-up call.

Unsurprisingly, public support for renewable energy solutions in a non-oil producing nation such as Japan – and where nuclear power generates over 30 percent of the nation’s energy needs – has moved up the national agenda, not least because the Fukishima accident demonstrated that blackouts are a very real possibility should a similar magnitude quake occur in the future. If the post-quake response in Japan has demonstrated national political will to reserve energy supplies, its absence in Nigeria and Pakistan, at present, means the road ahead may prove to be a long hard slog.

Comments: 0
Join the discussion below

The May – June 2013 Issue

Highest corporate tax
rates in Europe

European countries are scrambling to raise every last penny of funds through taxes. But some countries may have gone too far...

Belgium

Though all business taxes in Belgium can be paid online with little effort and preparation, the rates are still sky-high at 57.7 percent, including a staggering 50.8 percent total rate on profits only in social security contributions.

Belarus

In Belarus, a company spends up to 338 hours annually preparing for and paying ten different taxes and duties. The total tax rate has incredibly been lowered to 60.7 percent, from 117.5 percent in 2008.

France

A company in France pays seven different taxes and duties, the sum of which can amount to 65.7 percent of profits; though President François Hollande has announced a wave of business tax rate cuts coming up.

Estonia

A business in Estonia pays 67.3 percent of profits in tax, 37.2 percent exclusively in social security contributions. The country has gone against the grain in Europe by raising businesses taxes from 48.6 percent in 2008 to the current rates.

Italy

While corporate income tax (IRES) in Italy is limited to 38 percent of taxable profit, a company operating in Italy can expect to pay 14 other taxes and duties, including social security contributions, bringing their total payable tax to 68.7 percent of profits, according to the World Bank.

Norway

Norway taxes motor fuels twice, with a road use tax and a CO2 emissions tax. Combined with strikes in the energy sector that have curbed output, the price of gas at a local pump has soared to $10.12 per gallon.

Turkey

Though Turkey sits on the Suez Canal and neighbours many oil rich countries, the price of a gallon of average gas clocks in at $9.41 in Turkish pumps, because of a 60 percent share of taxes. 

Israel

Like Turkey, Israel is surrounded by oil-rich neighbours, but drills very little itself. Gas prices are controlled by the government, so about half of the $9.28 per gallon goes to taxes.

Hong Kong

There are few gas stations in Hong Kong, but the ones available charge up to 76 percent more per gallon than mainland China, where the government caps the cost of fuel. A gallon at the pumps will cost around $8.61 on the island.

Netherlands

Expensive labour costs make the Dutch petrol prices the dearest in Europe, at $8.26 per gallon; though the 57 percent tax add-ons don’t help.

The credit crisis

8 February 2007
HSBC warns of subprime mortgage losses

2 April 2007
New Century goes bus

14 September 2007
Wholesale markets have dried up

17 March 2008
Rescue of Bear Stearns

7 September 2008
Rescue of Fannie Mae

15 September 2008
Lehman Brothers file for bankruptcy

3 October 2008
US congress approves $700bn bailout

14 February 2009
$787bn stimulus approved by congress

 

The effects of the current financial crisis are global and irrefutable. With the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the domino effect of irresponsible public monetary policies, huge levels of unsustainable debt, and a deregulated financial sector, has escalated to the point where no corner of the globe has been left untouched.

1973 oil crisis

October 1973
Syria and Egypt launch an attack on Israel on Yom Kippur and set off a twenty day war;

1977
US President Carter creates Department of Energy, which develops the US strategic petroleum reserve

 

The Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) used their oil reserves as a weapon with the Arab Oil Embargo against those who supported Israel. By January 1974, world oil prices were four times higher than they were at the start of the crisis, especially in the US, and the shock led to a huge drop in the stock market with NYSE losing $97bn in just six weeks.  The embargo lasted five months, and the effects are still seen today.

German hyperinflation

1922-1923

Hyperinflation
1923 – 1924
Stabilisation

 

The trouble began when Germany missed a repatriation payment, worth about one third of the German deficit in this period. Inflation was already high but by 1923 it was raging. Prices doubled within hours, and by late 1923, it cost 200bn marks to buy a single loaf of bread. People burned money as it was cheaper than buying firewood. Germany eventually regained control of its economy when it introduced the Rentenmark into circulation in 1923, and then the Reichmark in 1924.

The Great Depression

1929-1933
The Great Crash
1934-1939
Recovery and Recession

 

After the decadence of the Roaring Twenties, the 1930s saw the biggest economic slump of all time. The stock market crashed on 29 October 1929, and optimism and decadent living tumbled along with the figures. The GDP fell from $103.6bn in 1929, to $66bn in 1934 and the subsequent years of recovery were the most dramatic in US history.

1907 bankers’ panic

1907
Otto Heinze and his brother Augustus Heinze bought shares of United Copper.

 

The stock market was already cautious over the tight money supply, but the US was thrown into a depression after the stock market fell nearly 50 percent from its peak in 1906. The Heinze brothers thought they could influence market shares but ended up bankrupting lenders that provided the financing to buy the stock. A chain reaction left nine institutions bankrupt. By February 1908, the panic was over and the government created the Federal Reserve system, to prevent banks from exercising too much control over the economy.