Center for Global Development visiting senior associate Jan von der Goltz presents some considerations for advance market commitments in the climate change context.
I will spend most of my time talking about the original AMC concept, and what to learn from it for climate finance; But first, a word on broader pull-mechanisms – what one could call ‘AMC+’: Plenty of opportunities for good clean investments; Much under way.
Tie AMC subsidy to supply commitments Set a hard low tail price ceiling
Industry perceived considerable demand risk Donors have historically over-estimated demand GAVI’s long-term funding contingent upon periodic Board approval
AMC size should be driven by: Knowledge about potential market size (e.g. doses of vaccines, units of micro/pico-hydro); and Some knowledge of the cost curve: how much must be produced and sold to drive down unit cost to point of sustainability.
Not clear that we know the demand curves in clean tech – what if India puts in place solar mission? Perhaps we are doing better on cost curves? Not clear that we know the demand curves in clean tech – what if India puts in place solar mission? Perhaps we are doing better on cost curves? Would you be ready to draw a demand curve like this for your favorite project? Would you be confident in drawing projected MC as a function of units sold? IF TIME, ADD AC/MC GRAPH
Social returns are high; This has been frustrating to finance – especially at scale, and with local O/M Clearly defined need (similar to vaccines); Indivisibilities in research cost, if product is to fit the idea of robust, low-cost, locally maintained energy. (similar to adding relevant strains) At the same time, these are incremental improvements that it may be better to address with an AMC than with X-prizes; (because the demand element/market test ensures that innovations are practically useful) Specification could contain long-term delivery/maintenance requirement to force capacity dedicated to developing countries. AGAIN, MY PURPOSE HERE IS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT PARTICULAR CHARACTERISTICS MATTER, NOT TO CALL FOR THIS SPECIFIC INVESTMENT
(ask yourself when considering a particular technology: would you want to do this with SERIOUS funds?); Product characteristics are less naturally defined than for vaccines: Offer contract for a specific technology? Easier to define which technologies are eligible; Prevent diluting subsidy; Easier to know cost curve. Or request general “off-grid technology with certain generating capacity, at certain cost, and certifiably (by whom) suited for local O/M” Brings in consumer preference; Allows for technology evolution; Best solutions strongly depend on local factors (e.g., storage needs, insolation/wind/biomass availability, O/M capacity)
There may be an instructive analogy with the Pneumo AMC Donors had intimate knowledge of health system capacity and were confident in demand forecasts; Suppliers viewed demand as much more uncertain; This was driven by doubts about government capacity and donor willingness to pay.