Energy Security in the Pacific

Abstract

Energy security is a multifaceted concept, depending on whether the perspective is national or household level, urban or rural, higher or lower income, commercial or individual. Energy security in the Pacific Island Countries and Territories (PICTs) has progressed in some areas such as energy access and renewable electricity generation but less in others such as affordability and energy efficiency, while a significant dependence on petroleum imports remains. New aspects of energy security are emerging, notably climate resilience, transport, and gender. Better data can inform evidence-based decision making but the cost and effort against the available capacities for data collection and analysis must be considered. While continued investment is needed for renewables and energy efficiency, a greater shift in climate finance towards adaptation and development of resilient energy systems in the PICTs is vital. Finance must also be found for securing petroleum supplies and their safe use while they are still needed.

Renewable electricity generation has made progress but dependence on imported petroleum fuels remains significant and climate related risks must also be addressed to strengthen energy security.

1 Introduction

This chapter provides a review of the current status of energy security in the Pacific, with a focus on Pacific Island Countries and Territories (PICTs). First, we examine what energy security means for the Pacific, the data available to assess energy security, and selection of suitable indicators at a regional level. We then present the data available for selected indicators and discuss the implications for different aspects of energy security. The limitations and challenges, and additional indicators that could be used to assess energy security, are then presented. Finally, the chapter touches upon future trends that could affect energy security in both a negative and positive way and makes some recommendations for the way forward.

The concept of ‘Energy Security’ has many aspects and thus has been defined and refined in many ways over the last 20 years (Raghoo et al. 2018). Assessing Pacific energy security should carefully consider the concept from several perspectives (governments, urban dwellers, low-income households, etc.) and both over the short-term and longer term (Johnston 2012). Long-term energy security often focuses on major investments to secure a more reliable supply which aligns with sustainable development and environmental imperatives, while short-term energy security is more about the ability of a given energy system to react promptly to sudden changes in the supply–demand balance (IEA 2021a). The classic International Energy Agency (IEA) formulation focusing on availability, accessibility, affordability, and acceptability does not embed the concepts of risk and resilience or address “security for whom?”, “security for which values?” and “security from what threats?” (Månsson et al. 2014). These are valid questions which are amongst the elements of energy security that this chapter will examine.

All countries are vulnerable to adverse environmental, economic, and financial conditions with low- and middle-income countries particularly vulnerable due to less diversified and robust economies, often geographical remoteness, a higher dependency on development assistance, and constrained human capacity. The Pacific region has a mix of remote high-, middle- and low-income countries with the majority being the Pacific Island Countries and Territories (PICTs).¹ As these 14 countries and eight territories face the greatest challenges in the Pacific in terms of energy security and climate change, this chapter focuses on them.

Due to their status as middle-, low-income and Least Developed Countries² and natural geographic characteristics, PICTs are extremely susceptible to natural disasters, climate change, external economic fluctuations, and shocks (ADB 2021b). They are facing the devastating impacts of climate change including increasing droughts and water scarcity, coastal flooding and erosion, changes in rainfall that affect ecosystems, forestry, and food production and have adverse impacts on human health (IPCC 2021).

The Pacific region is also expected to be increasingly impacted by cyclones. The increasing severity, rainfall, and flooding impacts of these is discussed in Chap. 5. As examples of the economic damage from individual storm events, Vanuatu and Fiji lost 64% (ILO 2015) and 33% (Government of Fiji 2016) respectively of their GDP in 2015 and 2016 when they were hit by Cyclones Pam (Vanuatu) and Winston (Fiji). Four PICTs (Papua New Guinea [PNG], Solomon Islands, Tonga, and Vanuatu) rank in the top ten globally for disaster risk, where very strong exposure to natural hazards combined with poor economic and social circumstances, makes them particularly vulnerable (United Nations University 2016). Amongst other aspects, the vulnerability of PICTs is characterized by a high to very high dependence on development assistance and remittances, a narrow export base, low foreign direct investment, and high poverty rates. PICTs populations are also disproportionately at higher risk of adverse consequences of global warming above 1.5 °C. With a very high proportion of PICT populations being coastal and agricultural communities dependent on food production and coastal livelihoods, they are particularly threatened by climate change induced sea-level rise (IPCC 2018). Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic have exacerbated existing challenges and pose a severe threat to development (ADB 2021b).

This vulnerability is further compounded by very high dependence on imported fuel for commercial energy production (UNDP 2007) and constrained access to reliable, affordable energy. Seven of the ten countries in the Asia and Pacific region most vulnerable to oil price volatility are PICTs (ADB 2009). The PICTs’ geographical isolation and small fuel volumes result in high transport costs which, alongside shocks in fuel prices, can decrease both energy and food security. In July 2008, for instance, the Republic of the Marshall Islands government declared a State of Economic Emergency due in part to high fuel and food prices (CFE-DM 2019).

Petroleum consumption in PICTs has increased from 76,000 barrels per day to almost 110,000 in line with population and GDP growth between 2000 to 2017 (Fig. 3.1). The top four consumers for which data was available, Fiji, Guam, PNG, and New Caledonia, account for about 80% of the total.

Fig. 3.1

Pacific Islands and TerritoriesFootnote

Fuel data was available for American Samoa and other US Pacific Island Territories, Cook Islands, Fiji, French Polynesia, Guam, Kiribati, New Caledonia, PNG, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, and Vanuatu. Population and GDP data available for American Samoa, Fiji, FSM, Kiribati, RMI, Northern Mariana Islands, Nauru, Palau, PNG, French Polynesia, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.

petroleum fuel consumption (USEIA, n.d.)

Recent accurate data showing energy use by sector is not available for the PICTs. While there is limited up-to-date and consistent data on the use of commercial energy, there is nearly no reliable data on non-commercial energy consumption (e.g., wood for cooking).^4,5 Commercial energy consumption in PICTs from 2000 to 2017 (Fig. 3.2) shows a modest 2% average annual increase in commercial energy use in representative PICTs.⁶

Fig. 3.2

Averaged commercial energy consumption in seven PICs 2000–2017 (USEIA, n.d.)

Final commercial energy consumption by sector was estimated at 38.4% transport, 10.9% residential, 41.4% industry, and 9.3% others in 2008 (APEC, ADB 2013). Based on 2017 data from IRENA and USEIA, and power sector fuel consumption from the Pacific Power Association (PPA), commercial energy use has been approximated at 56% transport, 34% electricity, and 10% other uses (see Fig. 3.3). The lack of sectoral data at the national level and the uncertainty and inconsistency regarding final energy consumption by sector demonstrates the need for improved data collection, analysis, and dissemination. The available sectoral breakdowns are qualitative, but access to energy for transport (currently petroleum) is a crucial factor in energy security, although PICT policies and targets have focused primarily on a transition to renewables in the electricity sector as shown in the following sections of this chapter and covered in detail in Chap. 12.

Fig. 3.3

Breakdowns of commercial (petroleum) energy use in the PICTs in 2017

2 What Does Energy Security Mean for the Pacific and PICTs in Particular?

The concept of energy security was developed by the IEA in the 1970s and initially concerned adequate supplies of liquid petroleum fuels, gas, and electricity for the wealthier nations. Today it considers the adequacy of responses to energy supply and distribution problems to maintain or improve reliance. It can be ambiguous, can involve different priorities for different people, government, or organizations and has evolved and is still evolving with time. Governments may assume that less reliance on petroleum imports, a higher percentage of energy from local renewable resources, improved efficiency of energy end-use, affordability, and a wider range of sources for petroleum fuels automatically improve energy security (UNESCAP 2012). However, these goals can often compete and there may be different short-term and long-term dimensions (UNESCAP 2012). Regardless of the definition adopted, changes in PIC energy security over time are not easy to definitively quantify due to incomplete data and multiple ways in which energy security could potentially be defined and measured.

The traditional and most broadly accepted definition is that of the IEA (2021a): “the uninterrupted availability of energy sources at an affordable price” with long-term aspects (timely investments to supply energy in line with economic developments and environmental needs) and short-term (the ability of the energy system to react promptly to sudden changes in the supply–demand balance). In the past, the emphasis was on petroleum and other fossil fuels but recently the IEA has included renewables and promoted the need for reducing vulnerability by improving resilience to a wide variety of shocks, including natural disaster and geopolitical conflicts.

Despite evolution in the IEA approach, there is no consensus on a definition of energy security (Ebinger 2011) in part because the concept depends on where in society one sits: governments tend to emphasize measures to mitigate supply disruptions (e.g., through supply diversification or energy stocks), private citizens and small business want reliability and affordability, and urban communities want to avoid power disruptions. For low-income groups and rural communities, a limited basic supply of commercial fuel and electricity can empower women and girls, lead to better education for children, and improve health and healthcare. For the poor, energy security is also often about guaranteed access.

In Australia, the Clean Energy Council defines energy security in relation to the electricity grid or power system and includes “the grid’s capability to react and recover securely to major events such as faults or generation tripping” while the Federal Government takes a broader definition, that energy security consists of “adequate, reliable and competitive supply of energy across the electricity, gas and liquid fuel sectors, where reliability is the provision of energy with minimal disruptions to supply” (Australian Government 2012).

Only in the last decade has there been much discussion of what energy security means for PICTs with the concept becoming associated in part with the transition to renewable energy and linked to climate change mitigation. On the other hand, until recently PICT energy policies, strategies, and plans either did not mention at all or placed little emphasis on adaptation to climate change for energy systems. This is starting to change with the new regional Framework for Energy Security and Resilience in the Pacific (FESRIP: 2021–2030),⁷ which was endorsed by the region’s leaders at the 2021 Pacific Island Forum (PIFS 2021).⁸

FESRIP emphasizes energy sector climate robustness and resilience (SPC 2021) and PICT governments are beginning to integrate climate change adaptation into energy plans, for example, the Tonga Energy Road Map Plus Framework (Government of Tonga 2020). However, the identification of increased energy security with increased use of renewable energy and responses to the climate emergency have not been taken up universally across the Pacific region, with the Australian Federal Government’s hesitancy to move away from fossil fuels⁹ at odds with most PICTs and individual Australian states and territories which are setting targets of 100% renewable electricity and making net zero pledges. Additionally, the ban on nuclear power stations in both Australia and New Zealand means that non-fossil fuel transition will necessarily be towards renewables. Therefore, the reality of energy security in the Pacific region and the PICTs remains complex, is evolving and involves several, sometimes competing government and societal aspects, such as reliability, cost, availability, and universality of supply versus affordability and climate action versus national security considerations.

The PICT’s Framework for Action on Energy Security in the Pacific (FAESP): 2010–2020 (SPC 2010), stated that, “Energy security depends on the availability, accessibility, affordability, stability, and uses of energy” and “Energy security exists when all people at all times have access to sufficient sustainable sources of clean and affordable energy and services to enhance their social and economic well-being”. This definition is highly ambitious, and not easy to quantify and therefore measure progress over time. The 2020–2030 FESRIP does not provide a definition but specifies that its focus is on “improving energy sector robustness and resilience to adverse climate change and natural disasters …, universal access to secure, robust, sustainable and affordable electricity, transport fuel and household energy services that are increasingly supplied by renewable resources, with improved energy efficiency, upgraded energy infrastructure and improved technologies”. Those aspects most commonly used to describe energy security or used alongside energy security and other joint objectives in the FESRIP and PICT national energy frameworks, roadmaps, strategies, and policies include:

• Reliability of supply

• Accessibility

• Affordability

• Efficiency of use

• Environmental quality/Renewable energy

• Resilience

• Adequate institutional frameworks and enabling environment

• Sufficient capacity, technical knowledge, and data availability

Achieving energy security is linked to various socio-economic benefits, including energy for the transport and productive sectors, water, and agriculture in particular. Energy security is also strongly linked to an affordable energy supply for key industries such as tourism which drives the economies of several PICTs. For health, energy has always been a key consideration, with an emphasis on electricity as vital for good functioning of health facilities. This has again been evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, for example for vaccine refrigeration. Lastly, achieving energy security links to a wide variety of socio-economic and environmental targets of the Sustainable Development Goals, as discussed in detail in Chap. 16.

3 Measuring Energy Security in the PICTs

3.1 Energy Security Indicators

A set of 36 quantitative and qualitative indicators was developed in 2011 to provide a means to measure changes or achievements in energy security (SPC 2011a). From these, this paper selects six indicators to discuss the status of energy security in the PICTs. These six indicators have not been chosen to cover all energy security aspects mentioned above but rather are in the opinion of the authors among the more unambiguous indicators and also those for which data are available and reasonably accurate. The six indicators of Table 3.1 are used to exemplify estimates and aspects of energy security in the PICTs.

Table 3.1 Indicators to assess aspects of PICT energy security

3.2 Status of Energy Security in PICTs

Has energy security changed over time in PICs and how? Here we examine selected indicators (Table 3.1) and estimate the current state of energy security in the PICTs based on available data.

Indicator 1: Petroleum fuel imports as a percentage of GDP. This indicator assumes that these are retained imports, excluding re-exports.¹⁰ The data show a mixed situation (Fig. 3.4). Despite an overall reduction in fuel imports by value across the region, heavy dependence remains. For some of the smaller countries the value of fuel imports/GDP have changed by 5% or less – essentially unchanged.¹¹ However, for most, imports as a percentage of GDP have fallen over the period. Using the Caribbean as a benchmark where oil imports average 9% of GDP (CCREEE 2018), most PICTs are similar with 2015 fuel imports in seven PICs accounting for 6 to 12% of GDP. The PICTs have done slightly better overall than the Caribbean, with an average of 7.5% in 2018–2019.

Fig. 3.4

PICT petroleum fuel imports as percentage of GDP (SPC 2017; PRIF 2021a)

Indicator 2: Energy cost as percentage of household expenditure. The value is largely the same for 2009 and 2015 (Fig. 3.5). However, the data collected do not indicate the difference between rural and urban households or between higher and lower-income households. Energy expenditure as a percentage of total household expenditure of low-income households is typically between 2 and 10% in Africa and Asia (Bacon et al. 2010), while low-income households in the United States spend on average between 4 and 14% of their income on energy (USDOE 2018). The share across different income groups in Latin America ranges between 7 and 9% (IADB 2021). PICT data, ranging between 4 and 23% in 2015, is averaged across income groups and so may indicate that households’ energy expenditure is relatively high in many PICTs. This indicator may also signal vulnerability to future energy price changes, and to increases in food and transport costs which are impacted by energy cost increases.

Fig. 3.5

Energy expenditure as percentage of total household expenditure (SPC 2017)

Indicator 3: Changes in the average grid-electricity tariff. After a peak in 2012, residential tariffs across the region had dropped by 2018–2019 (Fig. 3.6). This reflects the trend in world oil prices (PRIF 2021a). However, in some PICTs subsidies and below cost tariffs are still being used to keep electricity price at an affordable level. While there is a role for subsidies for low-income households, below cost tariffs applied too broadly could have negative impacts for energy security as governments have to cover the cost of subsidies. Utilities that do not charge or recover the full cost of supply will be less able to provide consistent and reliable operation and maintenance (O&M) and therefore more reliable electricity in the long run.

Fig. 3.6

Residential utility (grid-connected) electricity tariffs in PICs (SPC 2019; PRIF 2021a)

The mean PICT residential electricity tariff in 2012 was 0.46 USD/kWh, while by 2018–2019, the mean was 0.36 USD/kWh (PRIF 2021a). For commercial users across the PICTs, the mean electricity tariff in 2012 was 0.49 USD/kWh which by 2018–2019 had dropped to 0.41 USD/kWh per kWh (PRIF 2021a). Other categories of users, such as industry and government broadly follow the same pricing trend as commercial users.

The Caribbean, with an average of 34c/kWh (Renewable Energy World 2017) shows that electricity supply in the Pacific for both residential and commercial users is generally more expensive than in a comparable island region which has a far higher per capita GDP. High cost could be a barrier for access to electricity for low-income PICT households, as well as a significant operational cost for businesses.

This indicator is for grid-supplied electricity and does not tell the whole story: in remote communities and smaller islands which are not serviced by a utility grid, the tariff often exceeds USD 1.00/kWh (Mofor et al. 2013). Actual supply cost for both on-grid and off-grid electricity are likely to be higher than the price consumers are paying as many PICTs provide subsidies (whether explicit or indirect) to protect consumers from the full price of power generation (ADB 2021a).

Indicator 4: Percentage of households electrified. This indicator gives a reasonable measure of access to energy, although for many countries, the quality and availability of electricity supply to households and to men and women is not uniform. Grid-connected households enjoy a higher level of service and availability than those connected through off-grid systems where service is often only 4–6 h of supply per day with more frequent and longer interruptions due to lack of fuel and/or O&M. The average electrification rate across the region increased from under 70% in 2000 to almost 90% in 2017 (Fig. 3.7) with many countries at or almost at 100% (Fig. 3.8).

Fig. 3.7

(Source World Bank 2000, 2017; SPC 2012; SPC & PRIF 2019)

Average percentage of population electrified

Fig. 3.8

(Source World Bank 2000, 2017; SPC 2012; SPC & PRIF 2019)

Household Electrification Rates for 14 PICTs 2000–2017

An appropriate step to refine this indicator would be to consider equity of access between men and women and level of service, including, for example, hours of electricity available per day and number and length of outages. Electrification has brought with it, especially in rural areas, access to technologies to assist with water supply (pumps, reverse osmosis, desalination) for both consumption and productive use in agriculture and tourism and with food storage and processing (freezers, small-scale agro-processing mills) and communication technologies (mobile phone, internet) which have enabled micro and small business development, although these benefits need further research to be quantified.

Indicator 5: Renewable energy as a share of electricity generation. PICTs, and small island developing states (SIDS) in general, are often touted as examples of an ambitious transition towards renewable energy so this is a key indicator to measure that progress. Renewable electricity is also seen as a key pillar of diversification of supply with numerous aims, including reduced dependency on fossil fuels, increased reliability of supply, reduced cost, and mitigating climate change. It is difficult to judge whether the increased use of renewables has met all of these aims.

An absolute increase over time in renewable power production (GWh) relative to petroleum-based generation does suggest increased energy security.¹² By this measure, renewable energy generation has remained substantively unchanged at 28% of the PICT total (Fig. 3.9) since 2000. This is about the same as renewable energy generation globally, which was 26% in 2018. However, if two of the largest countries of the fourteen (PNG and Fiji) are excluded, renewable energy as a percentage of generation grew from 14% in 2000 to 21% in 2017, a significant diversification of electricity supply contributing to improved electrical energy security for the twelve smaller countries.

Fig. 3.9

(Source Calculated from data available at https://www.irena.org/IRENADocuments/IRENA_Stats_Tool.xlsb IRENA)

Electricity generation for 19 PICTs from 2000 to 2017 (GWh)Footnote

This graph includes data from American Samoa, Cook Islands, Fiji, French Polynesia, Guam, Kiribati, RMI, FSM, Nauru, New Caledonia, Niue, Palau, PNG, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.

Despite substantial investments since 2000, there is still a heavy PICT dependence on fuel imports (Fig. 3.10) in part because Pacific economies continue to evolve with generally increasing trends in power demand. In Fiji for example, there has been an average annual demand increase of over 3% from 2017–2019 (EFL 2020).

Fig. 3.10

Percentage diesel contribution to PICT electric power, 2016 (URA 2017)Footnote

Vanuatu has two commercial power utilities, UNELCO and VUI.

The two graphs above do not paint the whole picture regarding development of renewable energy in the Pacific. There has been a significant increase in GWh of renewable generation since 2000, with solar PV generation (Fig. 3.11) growing from less than 0.1% of generation to 7.2%. There have been, and are, also ongoing investments in hydropower in several PICTs, notably the 40 MW Nadarivatu hydro in Fiji, and the rehabilitation of hydro in Samoa, both completed, as well as the 15 MW Tina hydropower plant in the Solomon Islands and the 400 kW Brenwe hydro plant in Vanuatu which are under construction (PCREEE 2020). This chapter does not provide details of specific sustainable energy technologies and future trends in the energy transition for the Pacific as these are covered in Chap. 12.

Fig. 3.11

(Source Calculated from data available at https://www.irena.org/IRENADocuments/IRENA_Stats_Tool.xlsb IRENA)

PICT solar PV generation 2000–2017 (GWh)

If PICTs are divided into the larger Melanesian, small-to-mid-sized Polynesian, and smaller Micronesian categories, renewables as a percentage of main-grid electricity generation differ considerably,¹⁵ as illustrated in Table 3.2, reflecting that for the smaller Pacific islands, solar is the main option for renewable energy generation. To reach higher levels of penetration large amounts of energy storage will also need to be installed in the future.

Table 3.2 Renewable electricity in Melanesia, Polynesia, and Micronesia (2017)Footnote

Guam accounts for 85% of Micronesian generation but the above percentages do not change appreciably if Guam is excluded.

Indicator 6: Number of energy and climate policies that promote renewable energy and energy efficiency. Since 2010 there has been a steadily increasing realization of the urgency of promoting sustainable energy among PICTs in both energy and climate change policies (Fig. 3.12). Among the strategies is a commitment to targets for renewable energy electricity production (Table 3.4) and to a much lesser extent energy efficiency. The development of policies which explicitly promote renewables and energy efficiency strengthens the enabling environment for implementation and is an important step in developing the legislation, regulations, standards, and business models required to meet policy objectives. The PICs have also made commitments to RE and EE through their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to the Paris Agreement.

Fig. 3.12

Number of endorsed energy and climate policies promoting renewable energy and energy efficiency

Table 3.3 examines the prevalence in PICs of two other key policy measures which have been successful catalysts for supporting growth in renewables in many countries globally, namely net metering and feed-in tariffs (FIT)¹⁷ (Mofor et al. 2013; Shokri and Heo 2012; El-Ashry 2012; IRENA 2019).

Table 3.3 Feed-in tariffs and net metering in PICs

Table 3.4 Renewable electricity targets and renewable energy generation for selected PICTs in 2000 and 2017

Arguably the policies which have been developed over the last decade have catalyzed development of RE in the power sector (as discussed above). However, there is a significant gap between the targets set and their achievement. This is most easily quantifiable by the most common target set across PICTs which is for electricity generation from renewables. As shown in Table 3.4, although most countries have made progress, the ambitious policy (and NDC) targets are not being achieved (Michalena et al. 2018). Much electricity sector legislation and regulations are outdated and do not reflect recent technological developments, including renewables. Feed-in tariffs are still unclear and usually technology neutral.

When renewable energy and energy efficiency (EE) are pursued together, they result in higher shares of renewable energy, a faster reduction in energy intensity, and a lower cost for the energy system (IRENA 2017). Table 3.5 summarizes some measures put in place by PICTs and indicates that fiscal and regulatory incentives are lacking for energy efficiency, particularly in the buildings sector. Samoa incorporated minimum energy performance standards in its 2017 national building code (SEIAPI 2019) and EE standards have recently been proposed for revised building codes in the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu (PRIF 2021b, c) while Fiji is in the process of developing guidance for energy efficiency in buildings to be integrated into the Fiji building code (GGGI 2022). Renewable energy and energy efficiency should be included in the development or review of building codes across all PICTs (PRIF 2021d).

Table 3.5 Energy efficiency fiscal and regulatory incentives in PICTs

Despite gaps in policy and regulatory measures, EE remains a significant untapped opportunity for a cost-effective increase in energy security in PICTs (Johnston 2012; SPC 2021). Only two major EE regional initiatives have been undertaken over the last decade (ADB 2012; SPC 2011b). Although EE is mentioned in numerous PICT energy policies, there has been a shortage of funding and concrete actions. The slow implementation of EE is incongruous with its potential significant benefits for the PICTs and therefore could be a low hanging opportunity for improvements in the near future. To reach the IEA’s Sustainable Development Scenario by 2040, and a maximum global temperature increase of 1.5–2.0 °C by 2050, improved EE globally must deliver over 40% of the reduction in energy-related greenhouse gas emissions (IEA 2020, 2021b). There have been no assessments of the percentage of PICT energy sector investments which should be dedicated to cost-effective EE to meet PICT mitigation targets and improve energy security, but it is undoubtedly significant.

3.3 Limitations of Current Measurement of Energy Security in PICTs

The energy security indicators above have their limitations. For example, electrification may not be sustained if a grid is highly susceptible to flooding in low-lying areas or to cyclone winds. Off-grid systems may be inoperable for long periods waiting for repairs. Changes in the electricity tariff might not be a true indication of affordability if the consumer price is less than the cost of supply, which in itself creates financial insecurity for the supplier and may make the supply unsustainable in terms of fuel purchase or effective O&M, leading to brown outs or black-outs and even termination of service. The vast majority of the policy objectives and targets developed refer only to the power sector, excluding any commitments for the transport sector (land, maritime, and aviation) which is still 100% dependent on petroleum fuels. Diversification of fuel supply, for both electricity and transport, also needs to be addressed within policies and plans to strengthen energy security and this also needs to be reflected in appropriate indicators.

Some discussion of quantifying other aspects of energy security, such as reliability of supply and efficiency of use and areas for improvement of indicators to measure energy security in PICS, is provided in Sect. 3.5. The indicators above do not paint a clear picture of PICT energy security trends as there is reasonably consistent data across the fourteen countries for only between two and four years for most indicators. Data from SPC’s Pacific Regional Data Repository (PRDR—https://prdrse4all.spc.int/) has been supplemented from various sources but significant gaps remain. For the Pacific territories, information is even more scattered. An ongoing systematic collection of additional data for recent years would improve the ability to analyze trends alongside strengthening capacities and technical expertise in PICTs institutions including collection, management, distribution, and analysis (SPC 2019; ADB 2021b). To plan and act effectively for a more energy secure future, good data are vital.

4 Climate Change and Energy Security

Accounting for, and adapting to, the impact of climate change is essential for the future energy security of PICTs for supply and demand for RE but also for fossil fuels. Bulk fuel storage capacity is a good short- to medium-term security indicator but only if installations account for and mitigate the risks of flooding, sea level rise, and increased intensity of cyclones due to climate change. Energy secure facilities need to be well-maintained and located in areas unlikely to flood,²⁰ with independent certification indicating high resistance to floods and cyclone damage, as it is for renewable installations. In Fig. 3.13 (Climate Central Inc. 2021) for Tonga’s main island of Tongatapu, land shown in red is highly vulnerable to future flooding during the lifetime of new facilities constructed now; any energy facilities located there only provide long-term security if specifically designed for flood conditions, if at all (SPC 2021).

Fig. 3.13

Tongatapu, Kingdom of Tonga land at risk of flooding by 2050 (Climate Central Inc. 2021)

Some types of energy generation may be more vulnerable to adverse climate change than others, as illustrated in Table 3.6. The interface of water resources (Chap. 2) on energy generation and security is also shown to impact oil storage, natural gas, hydropower, and biomass technologies.

Table 3.6 Indicative short-term impacts of climate change on power generation, transmission, and end use in PICs

Short-term vulnerability to climate change, and thus reduced energy security, is exacerbated by Pacific specific practices and environmental conditions. These are (SPC 2021):

• Most electric power lines are overhead and often close to trees, susceptible to high winds and storms.

• Power generation is usually located in low-lying areas and subject to flooding or sea level rise damage.

• Fuel pipes and tanks are often only several meters from the sea, and subject to damage or destruction from storms, and in the longer-term sea-level rise.

• Biomass production for power generation or biofuel conversion is subject to the full range of vulnerabilities of agricultural systems in general, including effects of changing rainfall patterns, temperature changes, and winds.

• Where climate change increases cloud cover or even the speed of cloud movement, PV output can suffer significantly, especially if a single inverter services the entire PV array.

• There is a lack of climate modelling for hydropower generation, where rainfall patterns are changing in catchment areas.

Finally, although the impact of climate change on energy demand is uncertain, there is some evidence that an increase in demand from increased use of air conditioning may arise.

Uncertainty remains around the exact impacts of climate change on energy supply, distribution, storage and generation across fossil fuels, traditional biomass and renewable energy, as well as its influence on demand as there is limited data to assess the above dimensions and technologies. Given the vulnerable status of energy security and the need to plan ahead²¹ to improve resilience and energy security, further investigation into supply-side and demand-side impacts of climate change should be undertaken with urgency and integrated into the appropriate regulations and policies, insurance and financing and risk modelling.

5 Monitoring Progress—Future Challenges and Indicators for Energy Security

This chapter cannot capture all the aspects of energy security in the Pacific. Important aspects not discussed but included in SPC’s energy security indicators, provide opportunities for further assessment of progress including energy intensity (MJ/US$ of GDP), carbon footprint (tonnes of CO₂ emissions/GDP or per capita), and fuel supply security (days of storage). As the PICTs transition to renewables (Republic of the Marshall Islands 2018; Government of Fiji 2018; Government of Tonga 2020; SPC 2021; ADB 2021b), the supply, storage, and distribution of fossil fuels in the interim needs to be secure. For regional security the main fuel re-exporting PICTs should agree to share with the other PICTs in times of supply crisis if tankers are available. The capacity of bulk fuel storage in days or months of consumption is an appropriate indicator of short- to medium-term national energy security if the storage facilities are well-maintained and not in danger of failure in the short-term or to severe threats of climate-induced disruption in the medium- to long-term. An improved measure of fuel security might be storage capacity restricted to those facilities that meet international safety standards, are well maintained, and are resistant to floods and climate change (SPC 2021).

Considering the emergence of resilience to climate change and the transport sector as crucial dimensions of energy security, the indicators used to measure security should be re-assessed at the regional and national level. Indicators examined in this chapter show the limitations of a focus on electricity but also the difficulty in selecting measurable, fair, transparent, and equitable indicators and timely data acquisition. It is further recommended that additional indicators be considered. The following dimensions would enrich the conversation around energy security in the Pacific:

• improved resilience/responsiveness of energy infrastructure to adverse climate change and natural disasters;

• development of energy policies and plans that demonstrate robustness to known and likely risks of future events, not static plans for a fixed objective;

• consideration of both the short to medium-term reality of continued dependence on petroleum fuel as well as the long-term perspective of the shift to 100% renewable electricity (Table 3.4) and net-zero emissions by 2050 (Government of Fiji 2018; Republic of Marshall the Islands 2018);

• more emphasis on how different sectors and demographics of society are affected by energy insecurity (government, business, electricity consumers, the poor, women, etc.);

• attention not only to electricity services but also to the land, maritime, and air transport sectors;

• attention to various risks affecting the energy sector that the region may face in the next 30 years or more (pandemics, tourism²² trends for tourism-dependent PICs), prioritizing those which are considered most likely and with major impacts; and

• improved site environmental management (for coastal and other areas sensitive to climate change, flooding, etc.).

Indicators for these would vary for Government, the commercial sector, urban dwellers, rural people, and rural economic activities. A non-exhaustive list of possible indicators for the different energy security dimensions above are presented in Table 3.7 which could assist to strengthen monitoring of progress towards sustainable energy security.

Table 3.7 Possible future indicators and means of measurement

This is an extensive list yet is far from complete and omits some key areas such as rural non-commercial energy use. Measuring rural biomass use for cooking and agricultural processing, for example, would require surveys (physical measurements) of the quantities used, which are expensive and difficult to carry out across all the PICTs.

Existing indicators (Sect. 3.3) and others developed by SPC (2011a) can also be used alongside the proposed indicators (Table 3.7) to give a fuller picture of energy security in the Pacific in the future. Apart from using a wider selection of indicators, access to accurate, consistent and up-to-date national energy data to measure progress is essential and remains an issue. The need for improved data has been highlighted at numerous meetings of the region’s energy ministers in the past decade, most recently in September 2019 at the Pacific Energy Ministers’ meeting (SPC 2019).²⁴ Having advocated for more indicators it is also important to bear in mind the capacity for data collection and analysis. National staff (including national statistics offices, departments of energy and transport, power utilities, etc.) are already hard-pressed to gather and analyze data in many areas. Therefore, to strike a balance, it may be useful to agree on a minimum set of indicators for which data can be reliably and regularly collected at reasonable cost, and which enable a satisfactory monitoring of progress of energy security.

6 Conclusion and Recommendations

Energy security in the PICTs has progressed in some areas (energy access, renewable power generation, reduction in petroleum imports as a percentage of GDP), and enabling environment (more so for RE than for EE) but arguably not in others such as energy cost and affordability, while other aspects are difficult to assess at this time. It is also clear that there are many different aspects of energy security, and each can take on a different meaning depending on whether the perspective is from the national or household level, urban or rural, higher or lower income, businesses or individuals. The analysis undertaken in this chapter, which aggregated the PICTs, would likely look somewhat different in many respects if the larger countries (PNG, Fiji) are excluded. Therefore, energy security for the PICTs is best assessed and reported on a country-by-country basis and including additional indicators to integrate new aspects of energy security, notably climate resilience, transport, and gender.

Not all of these aspects can necessarily be quantified and measured easily. There needs to be a considered approach to balance the cost and effort against the available capacities and the benefit of the data collected, to optimize the type, quantity, and frequency of data collection against that needed for good, evidence-based decision making. One recommendation on data is to increase support for existing data collection efforts at both national (census, HIES, national energy databases) and regional (PRDR, Pacific Power Association utility benchmarking reports) rather than setting up new initiatives.

To improve energy security, financing and investment is a very important element. Climate finance has become a key part of the investment landscape in RE for electricity in the PICTs. The 2009 commitment by developed countries²⁵ to provide USD 100 bn per year by 2020 to assist developing countries implement adaptation and mitigation actions can contribute to improving energy security development in the PICTs, especially if directed towards both RE and EE plus transport and gender.²⁶ Also important is a shift in climate finance for PICTs from mitigation to adaptation and development of resilient energy systems.²⁷ However, finance must also be found for securing petroleum supplies while they are still needed.

Funding of PICT energy projects has largely been from the public sector and overseas development aid. PICTs have indicatively mobilized over USD 2.2 billion in climate finance in the past 10 years across all sectors (UNDP 2021). The amount of climate finance being accessed by PICTs is increasing but is still well short of the estimated investment needs required to meet NDC targets including in the energy sector, estimated at over USD 3 bn over 10 years (UNDP 2021), while aid dependence arguably reduces energy security, as anticipated future levels and sources of aid flows are not guaranteed.

It is also recognized that public finance alone, whether domestic or international, stands no chance of meeting climate mitigation and adaptation needs, but although globally the private sector has provided the bulk of investment for the energy transition (OECD 2020), in the PICTs, private investment has been slower to mobilize. The continued reliance on donor finance to fund large scale renewable energy projects contributes to the disincentivization of the domestic private sector from investing in renewable energy (UNDP 2021). Strengthening the investment environment such as RE feed-in tariffs and EE fiscal regulatory measures examined earlier in this chapter and introducing measures to also promote investment into resilience and adaptation would support greater private sector participation.

PICTs face difficulties meeting their infrastructure needs (construction and O&M) in general, not just in the energy sector. Investment requirements are high and expected to increase further in the years ahead. Taking Fiji as an example, its climate vulnerability assessment emphasized the need for future infrastructure investment to ensure resilience to climate change and natural hazards and indicated that almost FJD 9 billion will be needed to climate-proof infrastructure, including energy, transport, water, and sanitation over the next ten years. Climate-ready energy infrastructure typically adds 3% to upfront costs globally but typically saves $4 overall for every dollar spent (Global Commission on Adaptation and World Resources Institute 2019). Therefore, to strengthen energy security cost-effectively, every energy infrastructure project going forward needs to find the finance to cover this upfront adaptation cost to lower the long-term adaptation cost to the PICTs. A regional approach and cooperation on best practices, standards, and other areas, could assist in aggregation of projects, increase effectiveness and efficiency, and incentivize private sector investment, particularly for energy in tourism, maritime and land transport, and energy efficiency.