Reducing investment risks is important for fostering investment in the development of solutions for enhancing energy efficiency and reducing the carbon intensity of fuels or other energy carriers used in transport. Risk mitigation is particularly relevant for technologies that face “chicken-and-egg” issues related to the need to deploy new vehicle and refuelling infrastructure jointly.
A number of financial measures involve the public sector in taking risks that would otherwise need to be borne by private investors. Key examples include:
The GHG emissions savings of financial instruments depend on the criteria adopted to define the scope of application of the financial instruments. For example, the ability of advanced market commitments to ensure that GHG emissions from transport fuels are reduced depends on the definition of sustainability criteria allowing advanced market commitments to be applied.
Costs for governments and/or the private sector are primarily related to price differentials that need to be covered to enable technology learning, since technologies that are not yet commercially available at scale are most likely to be hampered by higher costs than alternative options. Additional costs are associated with the risk of technology developments not materialising in time and/or the ability to achieve cost reductions.
Grants require financing by public funds. Commitments involving a producer and a (public or private) buyer to purchase or sell the (low-carbon) energy that will be produced require a higher willingness to pay, at least initially (i.e. before cost reductions due to scale and technology learning are achieved), by the purchaser.
The economic rationale to overcome these costs lies in the opportunities that cost reductions may generate to have access to greater portions of the market. They are most relevant in cases when technology learning can lead to a situation where the technologies benefiting from scale increase and technology learning achieve cost-competitiveness with incumbent ones. Higher willingness to pay and capital injections to enable scale are therefore possibly associated with arrangements between the technology developer and the lender/supplier of capital to share future revenue opportunities.
Besides the main benefit of generating momentum for investments in climate-friendly transport solutions, key co‑benefits of the development of financial instruments that support decarbonising solutions (not only in transport) are well aligned with benefits identified by the European Union Technical Expert Group on sustainable finance for green bonds. These include the following:
The main potentially adverse/negative effects relate to failures in the definition of the criteria defining the scope of application of the financial instruments, for example because of adverse publicity relating to financial support given to activities that fail to be effective in reducing GHG emissions.
European Commission (2019) TEG report on EU green bond standard, https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/190618-sustainable-finance-teg-report-green-bond-standard_en.
European Commission (2019) TEG report on EU taxonomy, https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/190618-sustainable-finance-teg-report-taxonomy_en.
Links
[1] https://www.itf-oecd.org/policy/financial-instruments-support-decarbonisation
[2] https://www.itf-oecd.org/node/26616
[3] https://www.itf-oecd.org/node/26623
[4] https://www.itf-oecd.org/node/25178
[5] https://www.itf-oecd.org/node/25130
[6] https://www.itf-oecd.org/node/26611