Hydropower financing:current trends and key issues
In the late 2000s the power sector in many countries
experienced a major revolution. The old
vertically-integrated, nationally owned power utilities were unbundled and the
concept of freestanding independent power generating companies (IPPs) was
established. This trend was part of a
wider process of encouraging more private participation in the ownership and
development of infrastructure, including hydropower and multi-purpose water
projects. With this arrangement most
projects were developed using the BOOT model (build-own-operate-transfer) under
which a special purpose private company finances the scheme (usually on a
non-recourse basis) and assumes virtually all of the project risks. In return it owns the infrastructure for the
duration of the concession.
While this formula worked well for the thermal power sector,
it quickly became apparent that the situation is more complicated when it comes
to major water resources projects. In
general the experience with projects such as large hydropower schemes has not
been favourable, with many MOUs being signed between governments and
prospective private developers, but few schemes actually reaching the
construction stage. In many cases the
main problem has been an inability to finance the project.
A number of Case Studies have been undertaken by the
author. Although each is different, it
is possible to detect certain overriding issues which dominate the private
financing scene. They are:
1. RISKS dominate the
availability and cost of finance, and are tending to migrate back to the public
sector.
2. TARIFFS tend to be
higher (than the public sector alternative) due to high soft costs, the
layering of risk, and heavy debt service obligations.
3. FINANCIAL
viability tends to compete with wider economic considerations, and it can
distort the optimisation.
4. The PUBLIC SECTOR
has yet to find a workable model for attracting private participation.
Faced with these problems, there is an increasing tendency
to move towards something that is often referred to as a “Pubic-Private
Partnership” – although this term has no clear definition and can mean
different things to different people.
The objective is to move towards come half-way project structure that
preserves the best of both the traditional public sector model and the
perceived benefits of private sector participation through a BOOT type of
arrangement.
The structuring of a project (in terms of ownership, risk
sharing, etc.) is often dominated by financing considerations. There is no single generic solution that can
be applied to all projects, but the paper will discuss some of the key issues
that arise in selecting the most appropriate financing model for a particular
project.
Comments
Post a Comment