WEI Reort 2019

World Energy
Investment 2019
iea.org/wei2019
1 | World Energy Investment 2019 | IEA 2019. All rights reserved.

Message from the Executive Director
The World Energy Investment (WEI) report is the world’s Nevertheless, several mismatches are emerging
benchmark for tracking investment trends across the between the current trends and the capital needed
energy sector. Now in its fourth edition, the report ahead, requiring a harder look at the risks facing
continues to enhance its role as a timely and valued investment across different sectors and countries.
analytical tool - with a new look and feel - to help inform
decision making by governments, industry and the Current market and policy signals are not incentivising
financial community alike. the major reallocation of capital to low-carbon power
and efficiency that would align with a sustainable energy
Our latest report emphasises the opportunities for the future. In the absence of such a shift, there is a growing
energy system to attract the scale and types of possibility that investment in fuel supply will also fall
investment that would align with a more secure and short of what is needed to satisfy growing demand. And
sustainable energy system. to meet sustainable development goals, more
investment is needed in the regions that face the highest
It highlights some notable trends. In 2018, more than two economic and financial constraints, such as in sub-
dollars in every ten invested worldwide in energy goes Saharan Africa.
towards powering Asian economies, while another dollar
finances oil and gas supply in North America. There have Financing our energy future requires policy makers to
been dramatic efforts to improve business models, cut better understand the risks faced by investors and to
costs, and attract capital, yielding a more agile upstream design and implement policies that allow for the efficient
industry, more cost-effective renewables investment and allocation and management of these risks, which are key
new ways to finance energy efficiency and electric determinants of the cost of capital. Where governments
mobility. – and in some cases, public financial institutions –
provide such frameworks, the private sector responds.

All of this requires timely, reliable and authoritative data
and analysis. That is why we are releasing WEI-2019 a full
two months earlier than last year, in a modernised digital
format that more effectively conveys the key
information. This is part of an updated investment portal
that synthesises the Agency’s key insights on energy
investment throughout the year. The WEI-2019 package
represents our latest step in support of the ongoing
digitalization of the IEA.
Investment made today in energy infrastructure will

leave its mark for decades to come. Achieving the goals
of the IEA Sustainable Development Scenario will require
a combination of policy and financial know-how to
increase the flow of bankable clean energy projects
around the world. At the IEA we support sound and
sustainable policy making with good data, but also
advice, training, and capacity building, to help achieve
these aims.
Dr Fatih Birol
IEA Executive Director

Table of contents
Overview and key findings …..……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………7

Energy investment by sector .…………………………….……………………………….………………………………………………………………..…..……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………8
Energy investment by geography .…………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………..…..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………17
Implications of today’s energy investment trends .……………..……….………………………………………………………………..…..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………25
Energy end-use and efficiency..…..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………35

Energy efficiency investment ..………………………….……………………………….………………………………………………………………..…..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………36
Trends in end-use markets ………...….……..…………………………………………….………………………………………………………………..…..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………42
Power sector ..………………………………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………49

Overview of power investment trends …..……….……………………………….………………………………………………………………..…..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………50
Implications of power investment ………...……….………………………………….………………………………………………………………..…..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………61
Costs and project development ..……………………..……………………………….………………………………………………………………..…..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………66
FID trends for power generation ….……..…………………………………………….………………………………………………………………..…..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..71
Networks and battery storage ……….……..…………………………………………….………………………………………………………………..…..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………75
Fuel supply ..….………………………………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………81

Investment in upstream oil and gas ..…...……….………………………………….………………………………………………………………..…..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………82
Investment in oil and gas midstream and downstream ..……………………..………………….…………………………………..…..……………………………………………..…………………………………………………………………………………………103
Coal supply investment …………….……..…………….…………………………………….………………………………………………………………..…..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………110
Biofuels investment ……….………………...……..…………………………………………….………………………………………………………………..…..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………113
Financing and funding trends ..…..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………116

Cross sector financing trends …………..…...……….………………………………….………………………………………………………………..…..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………117
Trends in oil and gas financing ..……………………………………………….…………………..………………….…………………………………..…..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………125
Trends in power sector financing …………….……..….…………………………….………………………………………………………………..…..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……132
Trends in energy efficiency and distributed renewables financing ……….……………….………………………………..…..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………148

Table of contents
R&D and new technologies ......…..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………156

Investment in energy RD&D …….………..….....…….………………………………….………………………………………………………………..…..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………157
Trends in investment for early-stage technologies ..………………………………………………….…………………………………..…..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………162
Annex …………………………………......…..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………168
Acknowledgments ….………………………………………………………………..……………………..………………….…………………………………..…..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…169
Methodology and scope ………….……..…………….…………………………………….………………………………………………………………..…..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………171
References ………………..…….…………….…...……..…………………………………………….………………………………………………………………..…..……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…172

Executive Summary
In 2018, global energy investment stabilised at over Benchmarking today’s trends against future needs
USD 1.8 trillion after three years of decline. More suggests stepping up energy supply investment in any
spending on oil, gas and coal supply was offset by lower scenario. But the opportunities and risks vary greatly,
spend on fossil-fuel based generation and renewable depending on the pathway that the world follows.
power. Efficiency spending was unchanged. Power still
attracted the most investment, exceeding oil and gas for Today’s investment trends are misaligned with where the
a third year in a row. world appears to be heading. Notably, approvals of new
conventional oil and gas projects fall short of what would
China was the largest market for energy investment in be needed to meet continued robust demand growth.
2018, but its lead narrowed. The United States and India
increased the most over the past three years, but other There are few signs in the data of a major reallocation of
regions have been less dynamic, reflecting lower oil capital required to bring investment in line with the Paris
prices (Middle East), rebalancing between old and new Agreement and other sustainable development goals.
parts of the system (Europe) and financing risks (sub- Even as costs fall in some areas, investment activity in
Saharan Africa). low-carbon supply and demand is stalling, in part due to
insufficient policy focus to address persistent risks.
Energy supply spending has shifted broadly towards
projects with shorter lead times, partly reflecting investor In the Sustainable Development Scenario, the share of
preferences for better managing capital at risk amid low-carbon investment rises to 65% by 2030, but
uncertainties over the future direction of the energy advancing from today’s share of 35% would require a
system. Investment purchasing power has risen over step-change in policy focus, new financing solutions at
time in some sectors. Adjusting for cost declines, consumer and bulk power levels and faster
renewable power investment is up 55% since 2010, and technological progress, including more RD&D, amid
cost changes have damped the impact of less oil and sustained spend on electricity grids.
gas spending since 2014.

Overview & key findings

Overview and key findings
Energy investment by sector

Overview of energy investment (9-11)
Energy investment cost and project trends (12-16)

After three years of decline, global energy investment stabilized in 2018
Global energy investment in 2018 and change compared to 2017
1 000
USD (2018) billion
-1%
900 +1%
800
Battery
700 storage
Downstream
600 Networks midstream &
refining
500
400
Renewable Upstream Stable
300 power
Industry
+2%
200 -1%
Transport
Nuclear
100
Fossil-fuel Buildings
power
0
Power sector Oil & gas supply Energy efficiency Coal supply Renewables for
transport and heat
Note: Investment is measured as the ongoing capital spending in energy supply capacity and incremental spending on more efficient equipment and goods (in energy
efficiency). The scope and methodology for tracking energy investments is found in the Annex of this report as well as at iea.org/media/publications/wei/WEI2019-
Methodology-Annex.pdf. Renewables for transport and heat include biofuels for transport and solar thermal heating. Electricity networks include transmission and
distribution.

Despite a downtick, power was again the largest sector for investment
Global investment in the power sector compared with oil and gas supply
1 200
USD (2018) billion
1 000
800
600
400
200
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Power sector Oil & gas supply

Investment was driven by higher upstream oil & gas and coal supply spending while
that in energy efficiency was stable and renewables spending edged down
In 2018, global energy investment remained relatively A 4% rise in upstream oil & gas spending was
stable, at over USD 1.8 trillion (United States dollars), underpinned by a higher oil price, and a shift to shorter-
following three years of decline. More spending in cycle projects and shale. Spending plans for 2019 point
upstream oil and gas and coal supply was offset by to a potential new wave of conventional projects; for the
lower spend on fossil-fuel based generation and moment, project approvals are below the level needed
renewable power. Investment in energy efficiency was to match robust demand.
relatively stable.
Energy efficiency spending was stable a second year in a
For the third year in a row, power exceeded oil and gas row, with limited progress in expanding policy coverage.
supply as the largest investment sector. While partly due Despite soaring EV sales, transport efficiency has
to shifting costs in both sectors, the trend also reflects stagnated, while spending in buildings dipped.
the growing importance of electricity, whose demand
growth in 2018 was nearly twice as fast as overall energy Investment in coal supply increased by 2% – the first
demand. such rise since 2012 – although the total remains a long
way below the peak levels reached at the start of the
A 1% fall in power investment stemmed from less decade.
spending on coal power in the People’s Republic of
China (“China”) and gas power in the United States. Investment in renewable heat and transport edged
Renewables investment edged down, as net additions to down, but spending on new biofuels plants grew.
capacity were flat and costs fell in some technologies,
but was also supported by plants under development.
Lower solar PV investment in China was partly offset by
higher renewable spend in some areas (e.g. United
States, developing Asia).

Changing costs have reshaped the investment landscape in some areas
Capital costs in selected energy-related sectors
120 Upstream oil

2010 = 100
and gas
100 Solar PV
(utility-scale)
80 Onshore wind
Battery
60 storage
(utility-scale)
LEDs
40
20
0
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Note: LEDs = light-emitting diodes, PV = photovoltaic. Capital costs reflect global weighted average costs of components or commissioned projects in a given sector.
Source: IEA analysis with calculations for solar PV and wind costs based on IRENA (2019).

Lower costs dampened the impact of less upstream spending since 2014…
Investment in upstream oil and gas – actual spend vs implied investment at constant 2018 cost levels
Actual investment Implied investment at

constant 2018 costs
900 900
USD (2018) billion
800 800
700 700
600 600
500 500
400 400
300 300
200 200
100 100
0 0
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

…while adjusted for costs, renewables investment is up 55% since 2010
Investment in renewable power – actual spend vs implied investment at constant 2018 cost levels
Actual investment Implied investment at

constant 2018 costs
400 400
USD (2018) billion
350 350
300 300
250 250
200 200
150 150
100 100
50 50
0 0
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

There has been a broad a shift towards projects with shorter lead times…
Trends in project development and investment timelines for oil and gas supply and power generation
Average time to market for conventional Average power generation construction time
oil and gas projects (capacity weighted)
6 6
years
years
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
2010-2014 2015-2016 2017-2018 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Deepwater Offshore shelf Onshore Thermal power Renewable power All generation

…as industry seeks to limit long-term risks in a changing energy system
In recent years there has been a broad shift in favour of In oil and gas and renewables, a dollar of investment
projects with shorter construction times that limit capital buys more than in the past. Adjusting investment to 2018
at risk. For upstream oil and gas and power generation, cost levels shows a rising trend in spending activity for
the industry is bringing capacity to market on average renewable power, up around 55% since 2010. For oil and
more than 20% faster than at the start of the decade. gas, cost reductions have damped the impact of falling
This reflects better project management and improved investment since 2014.
economics for shorter cycle technologies as well as
industry competition. Prices for some efficient goods, e.g. LEDs and electric
vehicles, have continued to fall, and many energy
In power, capital cost declines – reflecting technology efficient investments are already cost-effective with
progress and deployment location – have been most relatively short payback periods. Still, policy, market, and
evident in solar PV (-75% since 2010), onshore wind financing-related challenges have acted as barriers to
(-20%) and battery storage (-50%). In offshore wind, increased spending on efficiency.
capital cost declines for commissioned projects have
been less dramatic, but rising utilisation rates and lower Changes are not evident in all areas, with little recent
financing costs have driven prices in auctions to new progress in improving costs or project cycles for nuclear;
lows. carbon capture, utilisation, and storage; building
retrofits; and some large-scale grid projects.
After declining 30% over 2014-16, a slight rebound in
upstream oil and gas costs in the last two years was
lower than the increase in oil prices. With more spending
on shale and faster time to market for conventional
projects, the industry is now better able to react to
changing market conditions.

Energy investment by geography

Country and regional trends (18-22)
Energy investment by income segment and population (23-24)

The United States accounted for most growth in energy supply investment
this decade
Changes in energy supply investment, 2010-18
China United States Rest of World
100 100 100

USD (2018) billion
50 50 50
0 0 0
- 50 - 50 - 50
- 100 - 100 - 100
- 150 - 150 - 150
- 200 - 200 - 200

2010-18 2010-18 2010-18
Power sector Fuel supply Net change in energy supply investment

China remained the largest market for total energy investment in 2018
Energy investment by sector in selected markets in 2018
Fossil fuel
China supply
United States
Power sector
Europe
Energy
Middle East
efficiency
Russia
Renewables
for transport
India and heat
Southeast Asia
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
USD (2018) billion

Investment in India has grown the most over the past three years
Energy investment by sector in selected markets, 2015 and 2018
450
Renewables for
transport/heat
400
USD (2018) billion
Coal supply
350
Oil and gas

300
250 Energy Efficiency
200 Electricity networks
150
Renewable power
100
Thermal power
50
0
2015 2018 2015 2018 2015 2018 2015 2018 2015 2018 2015 2018
United Southeast sub-Saharan
China Europe India
States Asia Africa

China, the United States & India are driving some key investment trends…
More than two dollars in every ten invested in energy high investment in renewable power and nuclear. Energy
goes to powering Asian economies; another two dollars efficiency spending has risen by over 6% the past three
divides between oil and gas and power in North America. years.
These shares have grown in recent years.
Among major areas, energy investment has risen mostly
The United States has been responsible for most of the rapidly in India the past three years, up 12%. In 2018,
growth in energy supply investment this decade, with renewable spending continued to exceed that for fossil
increases in both oil and gas, supported by more fuel-based power, supported by tendering for solar PV,
spending on shale, and in the power sector. While oil and and from 2017 wind, amid uncertain financial
gas spend has moderated somewhat in the past three attractiveness of new coal power, though spending in
years (even as it grew strongly from 2017 to 2018), that coal supply rose somewhat. While transmission spending
for electricity networks rose. Compared to 2015, is expanding, investment in distribution has not grown.
investment in renewable power and gas power remained
relatively stable, but at high levels. Meanwhile,
investment in energy efficiency has declined over the
period.
China remained the largest market for energy

investment in 2018, but its lead narrowed. While
spending is increasingly driven by low-carbon electricity
supply and networks, total investment declined by 7%
over the past three years due to lower spend on new
coal-fired plants, down over 60%, outweighing relatively

…but each region has its own story, often one of lower spending
Investment growth was stable or declined in other major the horizon, with some of the largest national oil
regions during the past three years. In some areas this companies announcing higher capital budgets for 2019
reflects a response to lower oil prices (e.g. Middle East), (see Fuel Supply).
an ongoing rebalancing between old and new parts of
the system (e.g. Europe) as well as persistent financing Southeast Asia energy investment is down almost one-
risks that have held back more robust levels of spending fifth since 2015. Most of the fall stemmed from lower oil
to address strong demand growth (e.g. sub-Saharan and gas supply spending while that for renewables and
Africa, Southeast Asia). coal power registered increases. Energy efficiency
accounts for only around 5% of investment and has not
Energy investment in the European Union has declined grown significantly.
by 7% over the past three years, but the share of
spending going towards low-carbon energy has risen to In sub-Saharan Africa, investment has declined 15%
nearly 60%. Energy efficiency has been the lone growth compared with three years ago, with less oil and gas
area for spending. Renewable power spending has spending offsetting a small increase in renewables.
slowed, in part from falling costs, but accounts for over Investment in capital intensive low-carbon technologies
80% of generation spending. remains hampered by insufficient regulatory framework,
challenging project development, persistent financial
Investment in the Middle East is down by one-fifth over strain for utilities and a limited pool of public finance.
the past three years, one of the largest declines globally,
led by a retrenchment in oil and gas spending, which
outweighed higher spending on power, particularly in
solar PV and gas generation. Some rebound may be on

Energy investment was mostly in high and upper-middle income regions…
Energy investment and population by region, classified by current income level
Share of 2018 Share of

investment population
2015
High-
income
2018 42% 16%
Upper-
middle
income 44% 41%
Lower-
middle
to low- 14% 42%
income
0 250 500 750 1 000

USD (2018) billion
Note: Income categories are defined on the basis of gross national income/capita (current USD) thresholds from World Bank (2019). High-income = > USD 12 055; Upper-
middle income = USD 3 896-12 055; Lower-middle to low-income = < USD 3 895.
Source: IEA analysis with calculations for income and population are based on World Bank (2019).

…but a shift towards lower income segments is needed
There is a strong link between income levels and energy Lower-middle and low-income countries accounted for
investment. Nearly 90% of energy investment in 2018 less than 15% of energy investment in 2018 despite
was concentrated in high- and upper-middle income containing well over 40% of the world’s population. In
countries and regions. These areas also tend to benefit recent years, the fastest investment growth within this
from relatively well-developed financial systems (see group has come from India with rising power sector
Financing and funding trends). spending, while spending in sub-Saharan Africa has
declined, mostly due to less investment in fuel supply.
High-income countries, with just over 15% of the global
population, accounted for over 40% of energy Looking ahead, the largest investment needs remain
investment in 2018. Investment in this group is down concentrated in currently high- and upper-middle
somewhat from five years ago, largely due to lower income countries and regions, in part reflecting
spending in Europe and Japan, but rose in 2018 with continued investment to replace and upgrade aging
stronger spending in fuel supply and the power sector assets. However, to meet sustainable development
predominantly in the United States. goals, overall spending needs to grow from today’s
levels and to rebalance towards the fast-growing needs
Energy investment in recent years has also declined in of lower-middle and low-income countries.
upper-middle income countries and regions, with an
increase in Mexico outweighed by falls in China, the
Middle East, Brazil, the Russian Federation, and some
Southeast Asia countries. Three years ago, this group
comprised over 45% of energy investment.

Implications of today’s energy investment trends

Is energy supply investment aligned with objectives for energy security and sustainability? (26-30)
Is investment in low-carbon energy enough to meet sustainability goals? (31-34)

Energy supply investment needs to rise under any scenario, but major capital
reallocation would be needed to meet sustainability goals
Global energy supply investment by sector in 2018 compared with annual average investment needs 2025-30
by scenario
Fuel supply = 50% Power = 50%

Oil supply
2018 Gas supply
Coal supply
Fuel supply = 50% Power = 50%
Annual Biofuels for transport

average
2025-30 Fossil fuel power
(NPS)
Fuel supply = 35% Power = 65% Nuclear
Annual Renewable power

average
2025-30
(SDS) Electricity networks
& battery storage
0 500 1 000 1 500 2 000

USD (2018) billion
Note: NPS = New Policies Scenario; SDS = Sustainable Development Scenario. Oil & gas supply includes upstream, midstream and downstream investment.

Continued robust demand growth for oil and gas would require a sharp pick-up in
approvals of new conventional upstream projects
Crude oil and gas conventional resources sanctioned
Crude oil Gas
25
Billion boe
20
15
10
0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 NPS SDS 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 NPS SDS
Annual avg. Annual avg.
2018-25 2018-25
Note: NPS = New Policies Scenario; SDS = Sustainable Development Scenario.

Source: Historical sanctioned resources based on Rystad Energy (2019)

Gas power remains in the mix; while the coal fleet continued to grow in 2018,
sustainability goals point to a swift FID phase-out for unabated plants
Final investment decisions (FIDs) for coal-fired & gas-fired generation versus annual average needs 2025-30 by
scenario
Coal-fired power Gas-fired power
100
GW
80
60
40
20
0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 NPS SDS 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 NPS SDS
2025-30 2025-30
Note: NPS= New Policies Scenario, SDS=Sustainable Development Scenario. FIDs for coal-fired and gas-fired generation capacity in NPS and SDS does not include plants
equipped with carbon capture.
Source: IEA analysis with historical FID data based on McCoy Power Reports (2019).

Output from low-carbon power investment is not keeping pace with demand;
a doubling of renewables spending is needed in the SDS
Expected generation from low-carbon power investments and annual investment needs by scenario
Expected new generation from Investment in low-carbon power

low-carbon power investment
900 900
TWh
USD (2018) billion

800 800
700 700
600 600
500 500
400 400
300 300
200 200
100 100
0 0
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2018 NPS SDS
Renewable power Nuclear Demand growth 2025-30 2025-30
Note: Generation is based on the expected annualised output of the capacity associated with investment in a given year. TWh = terawatt hour. NPS = New Policies Scenario;
SDS = Sustainable Development Scenario.

Energy investment is misaligned with where the world appears to be heading,

and also far out of step with where it needs to go
Compared with the annual average investment required For the power sector, the 2018 investment total is
for 2025-30 in IEA scenarios, total energy supply comparable to the projected needs in the NPS but more
investment needs to step up significantly, even with than one-third lower than required in the SDS.
changing costs. But the gaps differ starkly by sector and Both scenarios would require a sizeable reallocation of
scenario, reflecting variations in the pathways for energy capital, especially in the accelerated decarbonisation
security and sustainability. and electrification that marks the SDS, which would
require a doubling of renewable power spending, more
For fossil fuel supply, the lower levels of oil spending investment in nuclear and a rising level of spending on
seen since 2014 would need to taper further to be electricity networks.
consistent with the Sustainable Development Scenario
(SDS), i.e. a trajectory consistent with the Paris While a shift in spending is required in energy supply,
Agreement. However, investment levels fall well short of investment needs also rise for demand. Energy
what would be needed in a world of continued strong oil efficiency and end-use play increasingly important roles
demand – as in the New Policies Scenario (NPS). in transport and heat – sectors responsible for over 70%
of final energy consumption and over half of global
For gas supply, today’s investment falls short of the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The relative lack of
levels projected in both the SDS and NPS, while for coal policy attention given to these areas points to a broad
supply the opposite is true: current spending need for more focus and activity.
comfortably exceeds the levels required by the late
2020s in both scenarios. More spending on biofuels is
needed in both scenarios.

Total investment across low-carbon energy – including supply and efficiency – has
stalled in recent years and needs a rapid boost to keep Paris in sight
Global investment in low-carbon energy, including efficiency, and electricity networks compared with investment needs (SDS)
Investment in low-carbon energy Share of total energy investment

(supply & demand) and grids
2 400 70%
USD (2018) billion
2 100 60%
1 800
50%
1 500
40%
1 200
30%
900
20%
600
10%
300
0 0%
2015 2016 2017 2018 Annual average
Annual 2015 2016 2017 2018 Annual
Annual average
average
2025-30 (SDS) average
2025-30 (SDS)
2025-30 2025-30
Low-carbon energy (SDS) Electricity networks (SDS)
Note: Low-carbon energy investment includes energy efficiency, renewable power, renewables for transport and heat, nuclear, battery storage and carbon capture
utilisation and storage. SDS = Sustainable Development Scenario.

The role of efficiency and distributed resources highlight the importance of

low-carbon financing solutions at both consumer and bulk power level
Global investment in low-carbon energy by sector and by level of deployment
Investment by low-carbon sector Low-carbon investment by level of deployment
700 700
USD (2018) billion
600 600
500 500
400 400
300 300
200 200
100 100
0 0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2015 2016 2017 2018
Renewable transport and heat Renewable power

Energy efficiency Nuclear Utility level End-use and distributed level
Battery storage CCUS
Note: Utility-level assets include plants producing energy for commercial sale. End-user and distributed assets are those typically purchased or deployed at the consumer
level. CCUS = carbon capture, usage, and storage.

Government energy RD&D spending is rising, but not keeping up with GDP
Spending on energy RD&D by national governments, with preliminary 2018 data, and as a share of GDP
30 0.10%
USD (2018) billion
% of GDP
25
0.08%
20
0.06%
All major economies
15
0.04%
10
0.02%
5
0 0.00%
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018E 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018E
Rest of World China Japan, Korea, Australia, NZ Europe United States
Note: RD&D = research, development and demonstration, as defined by the IEA Guide to Reporting Energy RD&D Budget/Expenditure Statistics, 2011.

A step-change in policy focus, financing solutions and technology progress would

be required to get investment onto a sustainable pathway
Investment in low-carbon energy – both in supply and This raises a dichotomy in financing energy transitions.
demand – was relatively stable at around USD 620 billion Utility-level assets tend to benefit from larger deal sizes
in 2018. Spending growth has stagnated over the past and standard structures that attract interest from banks.
two years, compared with 3% growth in 2016. The share Investments at end-user level tend to be much smaller
of low-carbon in total energy investment stayed at near and depend on the credit worthiness of consumers and
35%. Investment in electricity grids – an enabler for clean small and medium-sized enterprises, with portfolio
energy transitions – has decreased modestly the past aggregation often needed to access larger pools of
two years. capital.
Low-carbon spending in 2018 was marked by To meet long-term sustainability goals in the SDS, even
unchanged investment in energy efficiency and nuclear, with changing costs, low-carbon investment would need
while that for renewable power edged downwards. to grow two-and-a-half times by 2030, with its share
Battery storage investments grew by almost half, but rising to 65%. Although the needs in networks are
were the equivalent, in dollar terms, to just over 1% of comparatively less, the regulated nature of grids points
total grid spending. Spending on renewables for to a need for sustained policy commitment for
transport and heat declined slightly, with more biofuels appropriate levels of investments that supports growing
investment offset by lower spending on solar heating shares of variable renewables.
installations.
Just over half of low-carbon investment was in assets

typically purchased or deployed at the end-user level –
due to the role of energy efficiency but also distributed
energy resources.

Energy end-use and efficiency

Energy efficiency investment

Overview of energy efficiency investment (37-38)
Sectoral trends in energy efficiency investment (39-41)

Despite the need for significant increases in energy efficiency investment in the
coming years, growth stalled in 2018…
Global investment in energy efficiency by region
300
Other
USD (2018) billion
250
200 Other Asia Pacific
150 China
100
Europe
50
North America
0
2015 2016 2017 2018
Note: An energy efficiency investment is defined as the incremental spending on new energy-efficient equipment or the full cost of refurbishments that reduce energy use. The
intention is to capture spending that leads to reduced energy consumption. Under conventional accounting, part of this is categorised as consumption rather than investment.

…as spending for efficient buildings fell for the first time in four years
A total of USD 240 billion was invested in energy vehicle standards in India (2018) and the European Union
efficiency across the buildings, transport, and industry (2020) are expected to support more efficiency-related
sectors, the same level as the previous year. This spending.
stagnation of energy efficiency investment growth was
largely the result of lower spending on energy efficient Due to higher incremental prices of electric vehicles (EV),
buildings. Yet energy efficiency investment needs to EV sales growth is having an increasing impact on overall
increase significantly in the near-term to meet global transport efficiency investment. But, as battery prices
sustainability goals and reduce the overall effort required fall, this price gap is narrowing.
from energy supply measures.
The overall investment trend reflects slower progress for
The buildings sector is still the largest destination of energy efficiency outcomes, with 2018 marking the third
energy efficiency expenditures. However, for the first consecutive year in which the improvement rate for
time since the World Energy Investment started energy efficiency has slowed. An underlying factor was
publishing estimates, growth in investment in buildings the static energy efficiency policy environment in 2018,
energy efficiency has faltered. In 2018 it declined by 2% with lacklustre progress on implementing new efficiency
to USD 139 billion. policies or increasing the stringency of existing policies.
Transport energy efficiency grew modestly between

2017 and 2018, mainly in freight. Global car sales were
stable in 2018, with a continued rise in market share by
less-efficient light-duty trucks. Heavy-duty vehicle sales
rose in Europe, China, and the United States, while new

Investment in industrial energy efficiency remained relatively stable…
Global investment in industrial energy efficiency by region
40
USD billion
30
20
10
0
2015 2016 2017 2018
China North America Asia and Pacific Europe Other
Note: For the industry sector, the incremental investment includes both an estimate of industry investments in equipment to realise energy intensity gains and investment
in energy management systems to unlock system-wide efficiencies.

…as growth in China has offset a continued decline in US spending
Investment in industrial energy efficiency was less than in China, which is the result of ongoing structural change
USD 40 billion in 2018. While total investment in in the Chinese economy, as well as in Europe and
industrial energy efficiency has been relatively constant North America.
since 2015, the market composition has shifted. China
represented 37% of the total in 2018, up from a quarter in India is an emerging source of industrial energy
2015. North America, which comprised 17% in 2015, was efficiency investment in the Asia and Pacific region,
below one tenth of the total in 2018. which grew by nearly 5%. Modernisation of industrial
facilities coupled with strong mandatory government
This trend reflects the continuing modernisation of the policy, through the Perform, Achieve, Trade (PAT)
Chinese industrial sector and ongoing efforts to improve Scheme, are important factors driving greater levels of
energy efficiency, as driven by wide-reaching investment.
government mandates. China’s active and substantial
energy service company (ESCO) industry has also been
an important driver, with favourable policies
encouraging investment in industrial energy efficiency
delivered by ESCOs (see section on Financing and
funding trends).
At just over 45%, heavy industry represents a smaller

share of global industrial energy efficiency investment
than in 2015, when it was nearly half of the total. This
largely reflects the continuing slowdown in the
construction of new energy-intensive industrial facilities

In the buildings sector, energy efficiency investment is falling far short of the
significant growth needed to meet sustainability goals
Global investment in energy efficient buildings dipped non-residential buildings investment has declined. As a
by 2% to under USD 140 billion in 2018. Even as China result, buildings efficiency spending has risen 33% since
and the United States remained relatively stable, 2015 to around USD 27 billion in 2018, though the level
spending has decreased in Europe, particularly in remained stable from 2017.
Germany.
In the United States, total incremental spending on
Europe’s decline in investment stemmed largely from a buildings energy efficiency has been broadly unchanged
significant reduction of government support for energy in recent years. Overall investment in construction,
efficiency measures compared with 2017. In France and however, has risen in the residential and non-residential
the United Kingdom, two of the larger European markets sectors, with an average nominal growth of 3.8% since
for energy efficiency, investment remained stagnant, 2015, reaching USD 1.4 trillion. Therefore, the share of
while in Germany it fell. While the government budget total construction investment that is dedicated to
for grants and loans to energy efficient home reducing energy use in buildings in the United States is
construction and renovation was revised down in 2018, it in decline, and currently stands at just 2%.
remains a key driver of the large energy efficient building
market in Germany.
In China, efficiency investment has increasingly tracked

the total investment in real estate, as efficiency
standards have tightened in recent years. Real estate
investment has risen by around 6% per year on average
since 2015 to over USD 1.8 trillion in 2018. During this
period, residential construction has increased, while

Trends in end-use markets

Sales of end-use goods for transport and heating and cooling (43-46)
Trends in energy efficient certificate markets (47-48)

Electric car sales continued to soar, with nearly 70% growth in 2018…
Electric passenger light duty vehicle sales and market share, from the forthcoming IEA Global Electric Vehicle Outlook
2.5 3%
Rest of World
Million
2.0
Japan and Korea
2%
1.5 North America
Europe
1.0
1% China
0.5 Share of total sales
0.0 0%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018e
Note: Includes passenger cars and passenger light trucks. Includes plug-in hybrids, battery electric vehicles and fuel cell electric vehicles. Share of total sales represents the
total sales of electric vehicles in countries listed in IEA Global Electric Vehicle Outlook as a percentage of total passenger car sales in those same countries.
Source: (IEA 2019b, forthcoming).

…China’s sales more than doubled, taking the global total to almost 2 million
Global electric passenger car sales reached almost Sales in the United States rose faster than the rate of the
2 million vehicles in 2018, a nearly 70% increase global market, a big increase compared to just 24%
compared to 2017 and the strongest rate of growth since growth the year before. This was spurred by the release
2013. The stock stood at more than 5 million at the end of the Tesla Model 3, of which 134 000 were registered
of 2018 (details will be available in the forthcoming IEA in 2018. Japan is the only major electric car market where
Global EV Outlook 2019). sales decreased.
China, the world’s largest electric car market by far, With 26 million new units in China in 2018, electric two-
drove the overall trend. Over 1.1 million electric cars were and three-wheelers still outsell electric cars by more than
sold in 2018, similar to the total number of all cars sold in ten times. Around 92 000 electric buses were added to
Mexico that year, and comfortably surpassing all the new the global fleet in 2018. Globally, electric cars and buses
cars registered in Africa. While electric car sales sold in 2018 are expected to offset 0.1 million barrels
increased, overall passenger vehicle sales in China per day (mb/d) of transport oil demand growth.
declined in 2018. Electricity demand from electric vehicles (including two-
and three-wheelers) sold in 2018 is estimated to be
Europe and the United States were the second- and around 12 TWh per year, 1% of 2018 global power
third-largest electric car markets, with sales of 385 000 demand growth.
and 360 000 units, respectively. In Europe, Norway
remains the global leader in terms of electric car sales
penetration, approaching 50% in 2018, more than 2.5
times as high as the next highest country, Iceland.
Norway was also the leader in terms of sales volumes,
followed by Germany, the United Kingdom and France.

Air conditioner sales grew 16% in 2018 to their highest ever level…
Global sales of electrical equipment for building cooling and heating
Global air conditioner sales Global heat pump sales
200 18
Million units
16
160 14
12
120
10
8
80
6
4
40
2
0 0
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
China North America Europe Japan India Other Asia Other
Note: Heat pump sales are those for primary use in heating, and include air-to-air and air-to-water heat pumps
Source: IEA analysis with calculations partly based on BSRIA (2018) and company and industry association disclosures.

…while Europe and North America sustained the growth in heat pump sales
Global air conditioner sales grew by their largest annual could reduce cooling energy consumption by as much
increase, with 16% growth to over 175 million units in as three to five times.
2018. Annual variations in sales are linked to weather
patterns and the exceptional growth in 2018 was driven Heat pump sales remain an order of magnitude smaller
in part by extreme weather and prolonged heat waves. than air conditioner sales, but maintained nearly 10%
annual growth. This was despite a slowdown in China as
Much of the growth in air conditioner sales was led by policy incentives waned. North America became the
India, North America (especially Mexico), Brazil, the largest heat pump market again. Overall, heat pumps
Middle East, and China. China’s market remains the comprise around 2.5% of the sales of global building
world’s largest and is not yet saturated. heating equipment, but this share is growing.
Rising demand for space cooling is already putting Since 2016, growth in heat pump sales has been pushed
enormous strain on electricity systems in many by Europe and Japan. European sales have been
countries, as well as driving up emissions. Space cooling boosted by market incentives, including the eligibility of
can represent as much as 50% or more of peak heat pumps to count towards EU renewable energy
electricity demand on hot days in regions with high air targets.
conditioning demand. CO2 emissions from cooling have
tripled since 1990 to 1.1 billion tonnes, equivalent to the
total emissions of Japan.
There is huge scope to reduce the gap between the

most energy efficient air conditioners on the market and
the market average, which is often only half as efficient.
Improved regulations and more efficient supply chains

Prices stayed volatile in energy efficiency certificate markets in 2018…
Trends in prices for white certificates for energy efficiency in four markets around the world
500
Index (January 2014 = 100)
400
300
Dots indicate policy interventions to change market rules
200
100
18
17
7
16
6
14
15
4
8
17
16
14
15
18
1
1
1
1
p
ay
n
p
p
ay
p
p
ay
ay
ay
n
n
n
Ja
Se
Ja
Ja
Ja
Ja
Se
Se
Se
Se
M
M
M
M
Italy France Victoria New South Wales
Note: France data is a weighted average of Fuel Poverty certificates and Classic certificates, weighted by volume. Dots indicate major policy interventions to change the
market rules. These include (from left to right): changes to the eligibility of lighting projects in New South Wales, Australia; reservation of 25% of the French market for fuel
poverty certificates; tightening of eligibility criteria in Italy; changes to eligibility of lighting projects in New South Wales and Victoria, Australia; cap on certificate prices in Italy.
Source: IEA analysis with calculations based on EMMY (2019); GME (2019);TFS Green Australia (2018).

…as policy and rule changes continue to shape price trends
Trends in the price of white certificates were mixed peak following a tightening of the project eligibility
across global markets, affecting the returns from eligible criteria. Demand for eligible projects and certificates
energy efficiency projects. White certificates allow remains strong, with prices not falling below the cap
energy savings from efficiency projects to be traded in following its introduction.
European and Australian markets by obligated parties,
generally final energy suppliers, such as electricity and In the two Australian markets of Victoria and New South
gas retailers. They have been in operation for just over Wales, prices in 2018 rose after changes to the relative
ten years, and policy makers are continuing to learn how value of lighting projects prompted clamour for existing
to make them more effective. certificates, but then fell back.
White certificate prices remain volatile, largely due to In France, company targets have been increased, and
policy interventions that change market rules and raise prices for classic certificates have risen faster than those
or lower prices. Policy makers intervene in the markets to dedicated to fuel poverty projects. Year-on-year price
stop price declines and encourage investment in rises can indicate that these markets are moving up the
different project types, for example those with higher cost curve of efficiency projects, improving returns for
social value, or to limit the costs to consumers. One eligible projects.
reason behind the periods of low or declining prices is
the banking of certificates from low-hanging fruit
projects, such as lighting, between trading periods to
reduce future liability.
The Italian white certificate market has been through a

period of high volatility, which ended in 2018 after the
introduction of a price cap in response to a high price

Power sector

Power sector
Overview of power investment trends

Global power investment by sector (51-55)
Renewables spending compared with cost-adjusted investment (53)
Power sector by geography (56-60)

Power sector
Global electricity investment declined by 1% in 2018…
Global investment in the power sector by technology
900
USD 2018 (billion)
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Battery storage Electricity networks Renewable power Nuclear Fossil fuel power
Note: Investment is measured as the ongoing capital spending in power capacity. The scope and methodology for tracking energy investments is found in the Annex of
this report as well as at iea.org/media/publications/wei/WEI2019-Methodology-Annex.pdf.

Power sector
…due to lower capital spending on coal and gas power, solar PV and distribution
Global investment in the power sector by technology
250
USD (2018) billion
2016
200
2017
150
2018
100
50
0
r
n
s
er
er
d
er
n
er
ge
ea
le
io
io
in
P
w
ow
w
w
ra
ab
iss
ut
W
cl
lar
po
po
po
o
Nu
il p
r ib
ew
m
So
st
o
as
al
s
st
dr
O
en
ry
Co
an
G
Di
Hy
t te
rr
Tr
Ba
e
th
O
Note: Gas and oil-fired generation investment includes utility-scale plants as well as small-scale generating sets and engines. Hydropower includes pumped hydro storage.
Source: IEA analysis with calculations for solar PV, wind and hydropower based on costs from IRENA (2019).

Power sector
Total renewable power spending has been relatively stable over time but, after
adjusting for cost declines, investment activity is up by 55% since 2010
Investment in renewable power – actual spending vs investment at constant 2018 cost levels
Renewable power investment Renewable power investment at constant 2018

costs
350 350
USD (2018) billion
300 300
250 250
200 200
150 150
100 100
50 50
0 0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Solar PV Wind Hydropower Other renewables Total renewables
Source: IEA analysis with calculations for solar PV, wind, and hydropower based on costs from IRENA (2019).

Power sector
Overall, despite a recent dip spending on low-carbon power and grids…
Global power sector investment dipped by 1% to just plants under development. Despite a generally stable
over USD 775 billion in 2018, with lower capital spending profile for overall investment, a dollar of renewables
on generation. Investment in electricity networks edged spending continues to buy more capacity than in the
down, although investment in battery storage surged by past. Adjusting the time series to 2018 cost levels shows
45% from a relatively low base. a rising trend over time, with renewables investment
activity up by 55% since 2010.
Investment in coal-fired power declined by nearly 3% to
its lowest level since 2004, mainly due to lower spending On a cost-adjusted basis, investment activity increases
in China and India. Final investment decisions (FIDs) for were strongest in solar PV and wind, benefitting from
new plants declined to their lowest level this century and falling costs and higher deployment, particularly versus
retirements were at near record levels. Nevertheless, the five years ago, though this trend paused in 2018. The
global coal power fleet continued to grow, due to net difference in spending and cost-adjusted investment
additions in developing Asian countries (see below). was less evident in hydropower, where additions have
slowed and a greater part of development has been in
After rising to a decade high in 2012, gas-fired power higher cost areas.
spending slowed, notably in the Middle East and North
Africa (MENA) region and in the United States, where a
large pipeline of projects has been realised in recent
years. Gas power spending in Europe remained near its
lowest level this century.
Renewables-based power investment edged down by

1%, as net additions to capacity were flat and costs fell in
some technologies, but spending was also supported by

Power sector
…their combined share rose to nearly 85% of power sector spending
Solar PV spending fell by around 4%, while wind Electricity grids spending dipped by 1% from less
investment remained flat. The dip in solar PV was a investment in distribution, although that for transmission
contributor to the downward movement in renewables continued to rise. US investment grew strongly while
investment, largely due to policy changes in China, China’s dipped. Grid investment in both India and
where the government is seeking to promote more cost- Europe rose by around 5%.
effective and system-friendly investment. Outside of
China, renewables spending in the rest of the world grew Investment in battery storage rose by 45% to a record of
by almost 5%. over USD 4 billion in 2018, driven by strong increases in
both grid-scale and behind-the-meter batteries, which
In India, solar PV spending exceeded that for coal power were the majority of installations.
for the first time, supported by government auctions. In
the United States, solar PV and wind investment rose Overall, low-carbon power generation (renewables and
almost 15%, supported by corporate procurement, which nuclear) comprised nearly three-quarters of generation
comprised nearly a quarter of spending (see Financing spending. The share of low-carbon generation plus
and funding trends). Offshore plants were one-fifth of networks and storage, key enablers for power system
wind spending - FIDs in Europe rose to the second- flexibility, reached nearly 85% total power spending.
highest level ever.
Nuclear power investment edged up as new grid-

connected plants in 2018 grew threefold, 80% of them in
China. Construction starts rose to 6 GW none of which
were in China, but were much lower than capacity
additions. Spending on the long-term operation of
existing plants was 13% of the total.

Power sector
Power investment is shifting towards emerging & developing economies…
Global investment in the power sector by region, classified by current income level
900
USD 2018 (billion)
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Lower-middle income to low-income Upper-middle income High-income
Note: Income categories are defined on the basis of gross national income/capita (current USD) thresholds by region, as of 2018, from World Bank (2019).

Power sector
…however, the United States saw the largest growth in the past three years
Change in power sector investment in major countries and regions, 2015-18
20
USD (2018) billion
15
10
-5
- 10
- 15
- 20
- 25
United India SE MENA SSA Russia Brazil China Japan European
States Asia Union
Fossil fuel power Nuclear Solar PV & wind Hydro and other renewables
Networks Battery storage Net change 2015 - 2018
Note: MENA = Middle East and North Africa; SSA = sub-Saharan Africa; other renewables = bioenergy, geothermal, solar thermal electricity, and marine.

Power sector
In 2018, China remained by far the largest market for power investment
Power sector investment by major countries and regions, 2018
Generation Networks & battery storage
China
United States
European Union
India
MENA
SE Asia
Japan
Russia
SSA
Brazil
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

USD (2018) billion
Coal Gas & oil Nuclear Solar PV Wind Hydro Other RE Transmission Distribution Battery storage
Note: MENA = Middle East and North Africa; SSA = sub-Saharan Africa; other RE = other renewables (bioenergy, geothermal, solar thermal electricity, and marine).

Power sector
In most regions, low-carbon sources were the largest part of generation spending…
In 2018, upper-middle-income countries – with over 40% In the United States, power investment rose by 7% in
of the world population (including China and much of 2018. Gas-power investment fell from near five-year
Southeast Asia and Latin America) – comprised nearly highs while renewables (two-thirds of generation
45% of power investment, a share that has been stable spending) jumped 16%, with deployment driven by
over the past five years. Lower-income markets – also falling costs in solar PV and wind, the availability of
40% of the population – saw their share rise to over 17%, federal tax credits, state portfolio standards, and
largely due to India. Power investment has fallen slightly corporate procurement. Grid investment increased by
in high-income countries since 2016. 8% in support of reliability and resilience goals.
Asia has accounted for nearly three-quarters of the Power investment in the European Union declined by 4%
growth in power sector investment over the last decade, in 2018, and Europe is investing almost half than it did in
with China alone accounting for nearly half. Over 2015- 2010. Its share of global power investment has halved to
18, however, the United States registered the largest around 15%, though this partly stems from spending on
growth in power sector investment, mainly due to higher relatively higher-cost renewables in the early part of the
spending on the grid. decade.
Although China continues to account for more than a

quarter of the total, its power investment declined by 7%
in 2018, the first fall this century, largely due to a
continued reduction in spending on coal power, but also
from lower solar PV and grid investment. The fastest
growing power investment markets in the world, on a
percentage basis, were Australia, Mexico, India, and the
United States.

Power sector
…while fossil fuel power investment played a bigger role in the MENA region,
and Southeast Asia
Renewables in Europe accounted for three-quarters of risen by nearly 40%, while in Southeast Asia it has
generation investment in 2018, even as spending fell to remained around the same level, in part due to risks
its lowest level since 2007. Investment in wind power related to grid development, financial performance of
projects in Europe declined but remained the largest incumbent utilities and the poor bankability of
source, and offshore wind projects accounted for renewables projects in markets such as Indonesia and
around half of wind investment. In Europe, there is Vietnam.
increased interest from industry in financial risk
management strategies for renewables, amid changing In sub-Saharan Africa, power investment grew 8% in
policies and increasing roles for sources of remuneration 2018, though has grown over 80% since 2010. This
outside of government schemes (see section on growth has all come from generation, over 65% of which
Financing and funding trends). was in renewables. Spending on grids – critical for
electrifying a large part of the population without access
In India, total renewable power investment topped fossil and connecting new generation – has stagnated. In
fuel-based power for the third year in a row, supported many countries, investment is hampered by weak
by tendering and uncertain financial prospects for new regulatory frameworks, lengthy project timelines,
coal power. Grid investment rose by 4%, with one-fifth persistent financial strains on utilities and limited public
increase in transmission, but spending in distribution finance.
remained flat.
The MENA region and Southeast Asia were the two main
areas where investment in fossil fuel power was higher
than renewables. But the growth rates differ starkly – in
the past five years, MENA power sector investment has

Implications of power investment
The generation impact of low-carbon power investments (62)
Power investment compared with projections in IEA scenarios (63-65)

Power sector
Despite recent progress, the expected output from low-carbon power investments is
not keeping pace with demand growth
Expected generation from low-carbon power investments compared to electricity demand growth
900
TWh
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Solar PV & wind Hydro & other renewables Nuclear Demand growth
Note: Expected generation is based on the expected annualised output of the capacity associated with investment in a given year. TWh = terawatt hour. NPS = New Policies
Scenario; SDS = Sustainable Development Scenario.

Power sector
Power investment in 2018 was lower than projected annual spending in the IEA
scenarios
Global investment in the power sector by technology compared with investment needs in IEA scenarios
Coal power
2018
Gas power
Oil power
Annual
Nuclear
average
2025-30
(NPS)
Solar PV and wind
Hydro and other

Annual renewables
average
2025-30 Grids and battery
(SDS) storage
0 200 400 600 800 1 000 1 200 1 400
USD (2018) billion

Power sector
Across all regions, a boost in generation spending would be needed to support

energy transitions, particularly in low-carbon sources
Power generation investment by region compared with annual investment needed in the SDS (2025-30)
180
USD (2018) billion
160 Fossil fuel

power
140
Nuclear
120
100
Renewables
80
60
40
20
0
2018 SDS 2018 SDS 2018 SDS 2018 SDS 2018 SDS 2018 SDS
Southeast sub-Saharan
China United States Europe India
Asia Africa
Note: SDS = annual average investment from 2025-30 in the Sustainable Development Scenario.

Power sector
Overall, current investment in power is poorly aligned with future needs

and challenges
Power investment was almost 15% below the average Investment in nuclear power was only 3% less than the
annual needs for 2025-30 as projected in the NPS but needs under the NPS but nearly 40% less than spending
over 35% less than the annual needs in the SDS. The required in the SDS, with the largest gaps in Europe, the
2018 data suggest a continued need for capital United States, and China.
reallocation to meet energy security and sustainability
goals, not only to bring in more low-carbon power but Renewables spending in 2018 was lower than projections
also to ensure that renewables-rich systems can operate under both scenarios – nearly 15% compared to the NPS
with sufficient flexibility. but 50% compared with the SDS. While the largest gap is
seen in wind, more renewable spending would be
In 2018, coal power investment, at under USD 60 billion, needed across all technologies and geographies in the
decreased 3% compared to previous year. This was still SDS, despite falling costs.
higher than the levels projected in IEA scenarios, with
the largest differences found in Asia, particularly in Investment in grids and battery storage was also lower
China, India, and Southeast Asia. than in both scenarios, by around 30%. Gaps were most
acute in areas with large electrification needs (e.g. India
Spending on gas-fired generation in 2018 was also and sub-Saharan Africa), where utilities challenge to
higher than projected in the scenarios, but by less than recover their fixed costs and set the adequate cost
coal, a reflection of the flexibility value of gas in the reflective tariffs.
power system. The largest difference was in the United
States. In Europe, where investment in thermal capacity
of all types has slumped, gas power investment would
need to rise (NPS) or be sustained (SDS).

Power sector
Costs and project development

Trends in construction duration and capital costs for power generation (67-70)

Power sector
Generation spending and additions have tended towards shorter-cycle projects
Total generation investment by construction duration and capacity-weighted construction times by sector
Investment by construction duration Average power generation construction time

(capacity weighted)
350 5
Years
USD (2018) billion
300
4
250
3
200
150
2
100
1
50
0 0
2013 2018 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
More than 3 years 3 years or less Thermal power Renewable power All generation
Note: Construction times are measured as the duration from final investment decision to commissioning.

Power sector
Meanwhile, cost declines continued for variable renewables
Change in global weighted average capital costs for newly commissioned power capacity, 2010-18
180 180
2010 =100
160 160
140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Onshore wind Offshore wind Coal power Gas power

Solar PV (utility) Battery storage (utility) Nuclear Hydropower
Note: Utility = utility-scale

Source: IEA analysis with costs for solar PV, wind, and hydropower based on IRENA (2019).

Power sector
Industry has improved development times for some technologies…
A growing share of power generation investment has lower costs ahead, combined with better financing
been in projects built in three years or less and average terms (IEA, 2018a) and increased capacity factors - with
construction times for new capacity have fallen. This the use of more advanced turbines and sites moving
trend is helped by policy support for renewables and (in further out to sea - have driven auction prices lower (IEA,
some countries) for flexibility, improvements in project 2018b).
development and economics for some technologies, as
well as industry competition and a greater focus on risk Developers have generally improved construction times
management. for solar PV and wind. This partly reflects deployment in
areas with faster timelines but also technology and
This shift is consistent with recent progress in capital project design improvements and the increased role of
cost reductions, which have mostly occurred in variable competitive bidding in policies. Still, barriers before and
renewables (and batteries), benefitting from technology after construction – e.g. permitting, land acquisition, and
progress. the timely signing of Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs)
and grid connections – persist in some markets.
It is important to remember that cost curves for all
technologies depend strongly on the location of
deployment and annual pricing dynamics in equipment
markets.
Capital costs for solar PV continued to decline in 2018

and are down three-quarters since 2010. Capital costs
for onshore wind are down 20% since 2010. In offshore
wind, dramatic capital cost declines have not yet
appeared in operating projects, but expectations of

Power sector
…but progress has been slower for larger, more complex projects
The average costs for thermal power have changed little seeking business abroad is putting some downward
since 2010, but some new trends are emerging. pressure on pricing for new coal power plant costs in
places like Southeast Asia.
Gas power (CCGTs) is one area that has benefitted from
recent improvements in project development and For hydropower, where costs are location specific, the
equipment pricing. These improvements have stemmed share of deployment in China has decreased over the
from intense competition among suppliers and past decade, raising the global weighted average. Within
engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) different regions, costs have changed little. Construction
companies in the face of a slowing global market times for new capacity have risen, reflecting generally
combined with the increased modularity and larger plant sizes but also land and water management
standardisation of project designs. requirements that can increase project complexity.
Costs and construction times have generally increased

for coal power, reflecting in part larger plant sizes and
more complex project designs. A growing share of coal
power investment is in high-efficiency plants with
advanced pollution control systems, responding to local
concerns over air quality but locking in potentially large
future emissions of CO2.
However, with the slowing of China’s domestic coal

power additions, industry sources have reported that
increased competition from Chinese EPC companies

Power sector
FID trends for power generation

Final investment decisions for dispatchable power generation (72-74)

Power sector
Final investment decisions for new coal power plants declined again
Coal-fired power generation capacity subject to an FID
By region By plant type
120
GW
100
80
60
40
20
0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
China India Southeast Asia Rest of world Subcritical High efficiency
Note: GW = gigawatt.
Source: IEA analysis with calculations based on McCoy Power Reports (2019)

Power sector
FIDs for gas power dropped too and approvals remained at low levels
for nuclear and hydropower
Gas-fired power generation capacity and low-carbon dispatchable generation subject to an FID
Gas-fired power FIDs FIDs for dispatchable low-carbon power
100
GW
80
60
40
20
0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
US MENA Southeast Asia China Rest of world Hydropower Pumped hydro Nuclear
Source: IEA analysis with calculations based on McCoy Power Reports (2019) and IAEA (2019)

Power sector
Overall, FIDs for large-scale dispatchable power have fallen 55% since 2010
FIDs (i.e. decisions to start construction for the first time) FIDs for gas-fired power also dropped for the third
for the main sources of large-scale dispatchable power – consecutive year, by nearly 15%, though remained twice
coal, gas, nuclear, and hydropower – fell by a quarter in as high as those for coal. The largest declines in gas FIDs
2018 to 90 GW, 55% lower than in 2010. were in the MENA region (-50%), where there is excess
capacity in the power system, and the United States
In 2018, coal-fired power FIDs declined by 30% to 22 GW, (-30%). In contrast, they grew in China by 70%, and for
their lowest level this century. Most FIDs are now for the first time more gas-fired power capacity was
high-efficiency plants, with inefficient subcritical plants sanctioned than that of coal.
comprising only 10%. The largest fall in FIDs was in China,
but levels in Southeast Asia were their lowest level in 14 FIDs for the largest sources of low-carbon dispatchable
years. India was the largest market, now largely oriented generation – hydropower and nuclear– were 40% lower
towards supercritical technology, but levels were 80% than in 2017. Construction starts for new nuclear power
lower than in 2010. plants rose by 50% in 2018, none of which were in China,
but were lower than grid connections. Pumped hydro
In China, the central government has made efforts in accounted for the majority of hydro projects taking FID
recent years to restrict permitting and plant in 2018 for the first time.
construction, amid signs of overcapacity and local air
pollution concerns. There is some uncertainty over the
capacity under construction in China, which could affect
investment levels ahead – reports suggest some plant
sites, where activity was previously suspended, may be
resuming construction.

Power sector
Networks and battery storage

Investment in electricity networks (76-78)
Investment in stationary battery storage (79-80)

Power sector
Global investment in electricity networks has stalled the past two years…
Investment in electricity networks
By region By transmission/distribution
350 350
USD (2018) billion
300 300
250 250
200 200
150 150
100 100
50 50
0 0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
United States China India European Union Rest of the world Transmission Distribution
Note: Investment in electricity networks is calculated as capital spending for installed lines, associated equipment and refurbishments.

Power sector
…but spending on digital grid technologies has continued to rise
Investment in electricity networks by equipment type
350 100%
USD (2018) billion
300
80%
250
60%
200
150
40%
100
20%
50
0 0%
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Rest of networks Power equipment

Smart meters Smart grid infrastructure
EV chargers Share from digital grid infrastructure (right)
Note: Two- and three- wheeler EV charging stations are excluded from the analysis. Smart grid infrastructure comprises utility automation equipment at substation level.

Power sector
Increases in grid spending were registered in the United States, Europe & India
Investment in electricity grids dipped by 1% in 2018; the European Network of Transmission System
China and the United States were nearly half of Operators identified USD 10 billion of annual
spending. transmission spending needs through 2030, implying a
notable boost from current spending levels.
Global spending on transmission grids, around 30% of
network investment, has risen steadily during the last India’s grid spending grew to over USD 20 billion, led by
five years, supported by the connection of more transmission, while distribution moderated. The Central
generation, the system integration of variable Electricity Authority recently identified needs for USD 40
renewables, and large-scale interconnection projects, billion of transmission spending in the next three years,
though in some areas, constraints associated with 60% higher than current levels.
permitting planning and project development remain
investment challenges. Investment in digital grid technologies rose by almost
10% to USD 35 billion. Most of this was in smart meters
Grid investment in the United States increased by 8%, and grid automation equipment, but spending on EV
with around 60% of spending in the distribution grid. charging stations rose by 60% to over USD 3 billion, with
Regulators continue to emphasise grid resilience and reports of utilities, automotive companies and oil
reliability. The potential downsides of underspending companies moving to invest more in the space.
were in the spotlight in California with wildfires related to Spending on traditional equipment remained the largest
a lack of maintenance and replacement of distribution part of investment at nearly 45%.
assets at the end of their lifetime.
Spending in the Europe Union rose by 8%, largely due to

investment in transmission. In their long-term planning,

Power sector
Investment in stationary battery storage surged to over USD 4 billion…
Investment in stationary battery storage
Grid-scale battery storage Behind-the-meter battery storage
2.5 2.5
USD (2018) billion
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
United States Europe Australia Japan Korea China Rest of the world
Source: IEA analysis with calculations based on Clean Horizon (2019), China Energy Storage Alliance (2019) and BNEF (2019).

Power sector
…and capacity additions continued to far outpace cost declines
Investment in battery storage rose by 45% to a record of Average costs for commissioned grid-scale battery
over USD 4 billion in 2018. This was driven by strong projects declined in 2018 to under USD 400 per kilowatt
increases in both grid-scale and behind-the-meter hour (kWh), with an average duration of 4 hours. Behind-
batteries, which were the majority of installations. the-meter projects saw more significant declines to near
USD 800/kWh. For both types, 35-40% of the cost was
Capital spending on grid-scale battery storage increased associated with the battery pack, suggesting a
by 30% compared with 2017, totalling more than 1.2 GW significant role for other factors (e.g. mounting
installed in 2018 . Deployment in Europe (particularly the equipment, cabling, and labour) in overall costs.
United Kingdom) and the United States comprised half
of 2018 investment, supported by capacity mechanisms While pumped-hydro projects remained the largest part
and contracts. China was the region with the largest of new electricity storage, lithium batteries continued to
growth, as it registered a fourfold increase compared to be by far the largest part of battery deployment. In
2017. parallel, grid and ancillary services remained the main
application of these deployments, but there has been
Behind-the-meter investment jumped by 60% in 2018, rising investment in batteries directly integrated with
almost reaching 1.9 GW of capacity added last year. variable renewables plants (see Financing and funding
Korea led 2018 capacity additions, supported by tariff trends).
designs that aimed to shift peak demand in the industrial
and commercial sectors – charging during low-load
hours and discharging during peak hours benefitted
from price discounts and premiums compared with the
prevailing retail prices.

Fuel supply

Fuel supply
Investment in upstream oil and gas

Overview of upstream investment (83-86)
Conventional resources sanctioned (87-89)
Upstream investment by region and company (90-95)
Shift towards shorter-cycle projects (96-97)
Investment in exploration and resource discoveries (98-99)
Upstream investment cost indices (100-102)

Fuel supply
Upstream oil and gas investment is set for another modest rise in 2019
Global upstream oil and gas investment
Investment in nominal terms Implied investment at 2018 cost
800 800
USD billion (nominal)
USD billion (cost adjusted)

-25%
+6% -12% vs 2014
+6% peak
600 -26% +4% 600
400 400
200 200
0 0
2019E
2010
2011
2012
2015
2018
2016
2017
2014
2013
2011
2018
2016
2017
2014
2013
2019E
2010
2012
2015
Fuel supply
Shale remains dynamic, but the investment focus is shifting to conventional assets
In 2018, companies spent in aggregate slightly more but this is being offset by a more subdued outlook for
than the guidance they provided to the market, most of the pure shale players, for whom the priority is
encouraged by rising oil prices throughout the year (until now to live within their means.
the last quarter). We have revised upwards our 2018
estimates for the rise in global upstream spending in The signs in 2019 are that the balance of spending is
2018, from 5% to 6%. starting to shift again. In our assessment, the fastest
growth in upstream investment this year is set to be in
Our estimate for global upstream investment in 2019 is conventional projects, rather than in shale. This also
USD 505 billion, a 6% increase in nominal terms (a 4% means that some upstream markets that have been in
increase in real terms) on the previous year. Three years the shadow of the United States in recent years are
of modestly higher spending still leave this figure nearly starting to move back into the limelight.
USD 300 billion lower than the peak reached in 2014.
Adjusted for declining upstream costs, the reduction in

spending is less stark. The 35% reduction in nominal
spending from 2014 to 2018 turns into a much smaller
12% fall in activity.
The main upstream story of the last few years has been a
shift in spending towards shale (tight oil and shale gas) in
the United States. The investment landscape for shale
remains dynamic with the arrival at scale of the majors,

Fuel supply
Shale has levelled off at around a quarter of total upstream spending
Share of global upstream oil and gas investment by asset type
2000-2009 4% 37% 46%
2010-2015 17% 36% 36%
2016 13% 41% 38%
2017 21% 32% 39%
2018 26% 27% 40%
2019E 24% 28% 41%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Shale/tight oil Offshore conventional Onshore conventional Other
Note: Offshore and onshore indicated in the chart include investment in conventional offshore and onshore assets.
Source: IEA analysis with calculations from Rystad Energy (2019) and company reports.

Fuel supply
Conventional spending is turning the corner
The reaction of the large, conventional operators to There are signs in the 2019 guidance that conventional
lower prices since 2014 has had four main components: spending in general, and offshore investment in
particular, may be turning a corner. This is being led by
• Maximise revenue from existing operations; the
the Middle East and Latin America.
share of brownfield spending has risen, up to 67% of
the total in 2018 from less than 60% in 2016.
Shale assets have rapidly increased their weight in global
• Cut costs wherever possible. upstream investment this decade, reaching 26% of the
• A greater focus on smaller assets that can be total in 2018. For 2019, we expect a marginal decline in
brought to market more quickly, notably shale. this share, to 24%, as the reduction of investment
• Defer spending on more complex new projects until anticipated by shale pure operators is only partially
they are redesigned and simplified to be compensated by rising spending in shale basins
competitive at lower prices. announced by some of the majors.
These changes were reflected in the composition of

upstream spending. Conventional oil and gas projects
remain the predominant channel for investment, but
their two-thirds share of the total in 2018 was a historical
low. Within this segment, spending on offshore projects
has been squeezed hard; the offshore share in upstream
spending fell by over 10 percentage points between
2016 and 2018.

Fuel supply
Time for a rebound in conventional project approvals? (1/2)
Crude oil and gas conventional resources sanctioned by asset type
Crude oil Gas
25
Billion boe
20
15
10
0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 NPS SDS
SDS 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 NPS SDS
SDS
2018-25 2018-25
Offshore Onshore
Note: The NPS and SDS show the annual average of sanctioned resources between 2018 and 2025 under the IEA New Policy Scenario (NPS) and Sustainable Development
Scenario (SDS) respectively.
Source: IEA analysis with historical sanctioned resources based on Rystad Energy (2019).

Fuel supply
Time for a rebound in conventional project approvals? (2/2)
Crude oil and gas conventional resources sanctioned by key region
Crude oil Gas
25
Billion boe
20
15
10
0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 NPS SDS 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 NPS SDS
2018-25 2018-25
Middle East Russia Africa North America South America Other
Note: NPS and SDS show the annual average of sanctioned resources between 2018 and 2025 under the IEA New Policy Scenario (NPS) and Sustainable Development
Scenario (SDS), respectively.
Source: IEA analysis with historical sanctioned resources based on Rystad Energy (2019).

Fuel supply
The offshore sector is showing clear signs of life
The last three years (2016-18) saw very low levels of The renewed attraction of offshore projects is linked to
conventional oil and gas resources being sanctioned for the precipitous decline in break-evens over the last few
development. Approved conventional oil resources years due to lower costs for offshore supplies and
averaged 7 billion barrels of oil equivalent (boe), 60% services, shortened timing to bring first oil and gas into
lower than the previous five years, while conventional production as well as simplified and standardised project
gas resources, at 8.3 billion boe, were 40% lower. designs.
If oil and gas demand continues to grow as in the NPS, ExxonMobil expects its Guyana and Brazil’s Carcara
then there would need to be a substantial increase in deepwater projects to give an internal rate of return (IRR)
resources sanctioned for development to keep the in excess of 30%. Total anticipates its Angola offshore
market in balance. Guidance from companies suggests projects to achieve an IRR in excess of 20% at an oil price
that such an acceleration in new project approvals is of USD 50/barrel.
indeed possible in 2019.
Companies are only moving ahead with their highest-

value projects, but several are expected to go ahead.
Many of these are offshore: in the Gulf of Mexico,
Guyana, the North Sea, and Brazil as well as large
integrated liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects, such as
the expansion of the Qatar terminals and the sanctioning
of gas fields in the Rovuma basin off Mozambique.

Fuel supply
After strong growth in 2017 and 2018, the rise in US upstream investment is
expected to take a pause in 2019….
Change in upstream investment by selected region, 2018-2019
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
-2%
-4%
US Russia Europe Middle East Africa South America

Fuel supply
…and the Middle East and Latin America are seen leading the spending growth
Our estimates point towards rising spending in 2019 in With the exception of Rosneft, large Russian companies
almost all key producing regions. In the Middle East, are set to keep upstream spending around or slightly
some of largest national oil companies (NOCs), including below the levels in 2018 (in dollar terms). Investment
Saudi Aramco, Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, Qatar activity will be shaped in practice by the OPEC+
Petroleum, and Kuwait Petroleum Corporation, have agreement, as well as by anticipated changes to Russia’s
signalled their intention to step up their upstream upstream tax regime.
activity in order to sustain oil production levels and meet
rising domestic gas needs. Overall investment by NOCs remained quite resilient
during the downturn and their spending is expected to
Upstream spending in Latin America is expected to rise in 2019. Chinese NOCs have announced large
increase in 2019 by just above 10%, driven mainly by increases in their capital budgets, and this will help keep
Brazil, Guyana, Argentina and Colombia. In its five-year the overall share of NOCs in total upstream investment
strategy, Petrobras unveiled higher spending, and at around 43% in 2019, close to historical highs.
several international companies are increasing their
activities in Brazil’s offshore.
Investment is expected to be on the rise again also in

Europe, driven by higher spending in the North Sea,
including the first phase of the massive Johan Sverdrup
field. African upstream spending is also set to trend
higher after a very subdued period in recent years.

Fuel supply
Upstream investment in 2019 varies by company
Expected upstream oil and gas investment in 2019 by company type (and 2019 vs 2018 change)
35 70%
30 60%
25 50%
USD billion
20 40%
15 30%
10 20%
5 10%
0 0%
-5 -10%
- 10 -20%
- 15 -30%
Occidental
EOG
Pioneer
Shell
Sinopec
GazpromNeft
BP
Total
PetroChina
Lukoil
Gazprom
Apache
Chevron
Anadarko
Conoco
ExxonMobil
Continental
Rosneft
CNOOC
Eni
Majors Chinese big 3 Large Russian companies Large US independents % change YoY (right axis)
Note: CNOOC = China National Offshore Oil Corporation

Source: IEA analysis with calculations based on company reports and guidance

Fuel supply
The share of NOCs in total investment remains close to record highs
Global upstream oil and gas investment by company type
Estimated change % from 2018 to 2019 Share of upstream investment
100%
Majors 28% 28% 27% 26% 25% 24%

30% 29%
80%
10% 14% 16%

14% 13% 17%
14% 16%
NOCs 60%
40% 44%
US US 37% 37% 36% 38% 43% 43%
42%
independents
20%
Others 20% 20% 21% 19%
19% 17% 16% 17%
0%
-10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019E
Majors NOCs US independents Others
Note: Data for 2019 are IEA estimates based on company guidance, consultations with industry experts, and other sources.
Source: IEA analysis with data based on company reports and Rystad Energy (2019).

Fuel supply
Diverging company trends in investment activity in the United States
The share of the United States in global upstream In contrast, international oil companies have maintained
spending has risen from 17% to 24% over the last ten or increased their upstream US plans. Exxon and
years, but this upward trend is likely to be checked in Chevron have made the Permian Basin a centrepiece of
2019. their strategies, while Shell and BP are increasing their
positions. This will give the majors a much greater role in
There are divergent investment trends between the US US supply and could encourage further consolidation in
independents and the majors. Increased demands for the sector.
capital discipline and investor returns are putting a cap
on spending by the independents, especially for those As a result, 2019 is on track to be the first year where
companies operating exclusively in shale plays. investment growth in shale assets passes from
However, the impact on production is likely to be independents to big oil companies. This is a remarkable
mitigated by a decrease in the inventory of drilled but change for a sector which has until now been dominated
uncompleted wells (DUCs) and further operational by smaller operators. The growing footprint of large
efficiency. players means that investments might become less
volatile.
Pioneer, Continental, WPX Energy, Parsley Energy,
Centennial Resource Developments, Apache, and Noble
all announced spending cuts for 2019 (while maintaining
robust production growth projections). Our assessment,
based on guidance provided by pure-shale operators
and US independents, suggests that upstream
investment from this group in 2019 could be lower by
some 6% than in 2018. For the moment, the
commitment to capital discipline appears to be holding
despite higher prices.

Fuel supply
The majors are making their mark on shale
Upstream investment by majors, adjusted for cost inflation
100%
Conventional
onshore
80%
60% Oil sands
40%
Offshore
20%
19% 21%
10% 10% 9% 12% Shale/tight oil
7% 8%
0%
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019E
Source: IEA analysis with calculations based on IEA upstream investment cost indices, company reports and Rystad Energy (2019).

Fuel supply
The shift to shorter-cycle conventional projects continues…
Time to market and average resource size of projects by FID year
Time to market Average resource size
6 500
Million boe
Years
5
400
4
300
3
200
2
100
1
0 0
2010-14 2015-16 2017-18 2019-20E 2010-14 2015-16 2017-18 2019-20E
Deepwater Shallow water Onshore
Note: Time to market indicates the time from final investment decision (FID) to production start-up. We examine conventional oil and gas projects (i.e. excluding
unconventional resources such as shale/tight oil) whose sanctioned resource volumes are 50 million boe or more.
Source: IEA analysis with calculations based on disclosures by company announcements and Rystad Energy (2019).

Fuel supply
…reflecting industry preferences to limit upfront capital outlays and reduce

exposure to longer-term risks
The emphasis on shorter cycle projects highlighted in The overall result is a shift away from large, bespoke
previous editions of the World Energy Investment Report projects (often characterised by delays and cost
(see IEA, 2018a) continues in 2019. There remains a overruns) towards smaller, standardised ones, with a
preference among many operators to limit upfront strong accompanying focus on efficiency and capital
capital spending, accelerate paybacks, and reduce discipline. This also means that the oil and gas industry is
exposure to long-term risks. Greater exposure to shale is increasingly relying on assets that generate cash flow
one aspect of this, but companies are also rethinking the more quickly but also that deplete at a more rapid pace.
way they approach conventional projects. This could increase the possibility of market volatility.
Since the 2014 downturn, the oil and gas industry has
moved away from its traditional focus on larger-scale,
capital-intensive projects with long lead times. The trend
has instead been to fast-track the execution of smaller
projects or to divide large projects into multiple phases.
Lead times for new projects have fallen sharply.
In the offshore sector in particular, projects are moving

from the final investment decision to first production
much more quickly than they used to, and at lower
costs. This experience is now encouraging operators to
sanction new and larger projects. Based on guidance
announced by companies, we expect that in 2019 and
2020 the average size of offshore projects will increase
by over 20% but without a corresponding increase in
time-to-market.

Fuel supply
Discoveries are at record lows, but exploration may be turning a corner…
Global conventional resources discoveries and exploration spending as % of total investment
60 30%
Billon boe
50 25%
40 20%
30 15%
20 10%
10 5%
0 2009
2004
2003
2016
2017
2000
2001
2002
2005
2008
2014
2013
2019E
2006
2007
2010
2011
2012
2015
2018
Oil discoveries Gas discoveries Exploration spending (right axis)
Source: IEA analysis with calculations based on Rystad Energy (2019).

Fuel supply
…and investment in exploration could see a slight uptick in 2019
After many years of decline, investment in exploration is The contraction of exploration activities translated into a
set to rise to USD 60 billion in 2019, an increase of 18%. massive reduction in discovered resources. Between
Nonetheless, the share of exploration in total upstream 2014 and 2018, the discoveries of conventional crude oil
investment remains almost half the level in 2010. amounted on average to 5.2 billion boe per year, two-
thirds lower than the average of the previous decade
Companies started to reduce exploration investment (and over one-fifth of the oil discoveries since 2015 were
even before the 2014 oil price collapse, but the in one country, Guyana). The trend was similar also for
downturn accelerated the trend, and spending in the gas discoveries, at 5.0 billion boe per year in the 2014-18
sector almost halved between 2014 and 2018. While period versus 15.1 billion boe in the previous decade.
companies are expected to keep spending on
exploration under close control also in 2019, the However, some signs of recovery have already been
anticipated increase would be the first one since 2010. evident in Q1 2019, with important offshore discoveries
in Guyana (again), South Africa, and Angola.
Similar to other parts of the upstream industry, the
exploration sector has undergone significant structural
changes in recent years. Budget cuts and financial
constraints have driven the deployment of more efficient
rigs and a decline in the cost of seismic surveys,
ultimately leading to an overall reduction in the average
project break-even.

Fuel supply
Upstream costs have edged higher, but with few signs of overheating…
Upstream oil and gas cost indices
Global Upstream Investment Cost Index (UICI) US Shale Upstream Cost Index
160 30%
YoY change
2005=100
140 20%
120 10%
100 0%
80 -10%
60 -20%
40 -30%
20 -40%
0 -50%
2005
2008
2014
2013
2019E
2006
2007
2009
2010
2011
2012
2015
2018
2016
2017
2006
2007
2009
2016
2017
2005
2008
2014
2013
2019E
2010
2011
2012
2015
2018
Drilling cost (right axis) Completion cost (right axis)
Production cost (right axis) Exploration cost (right axis)
UICI (left axis) US Shale cost index (left axis)
Fuel supply
…with overall costs still more than 20% below the peaks reached in 2014
Change in selected cost components, % change from 2014 to 2018
Global upstream investment cost US shale investment cost
Materials Construction Labour
Project management Extraction Labour
Construction labour OCTG
Engineering Sand andchemicals
Services Electricity
Vessels Pressure pumping
Products Fuel
Land rigs D&C services
Offshore rigs Drilling rig
Total Total
-60% -40% -20% 0% -60% -10% 40%
Notes: OCTG = oil country tubular goods; D&C = drilling and completion.
Fuel supply
Doing more with less – oil and gas industry keeps costs in check
Following a 3% rise in 2018, global upstream costs are Costs in the shale industry are affected by a different set
expected to rise by around 1% in 2019. This overall trend of factors. We expect cost inflation in 2019 of around 5%
is the product of two diverging factors: on the one hand, – lower than the 12% seen in 2018.
increased upstream activities and the consolidation of
the service industry are supporting higher costs; on the The key inflationary components for shale activities in
other hand, companies continue to target cost savings 2019 are shortages of personnel, which push costs
with limited pricing concessions to service companies, higher in the drilling and completion (D&C) services
helped by the continued overhang in the market for component, and drilling rigs, where the market for high-
some services and equipment. spec rigs remains tight even though the level of activity
is also slowing somewhat.
The picture varies across regions and sectors. The steep
fall in prices in the offshore industry has finally halted, The costs of pressure pumping and proppants are
although they remain at very depressed levels. For most expected to taper off as a large increase in sand supply
equipment and services, cost inflation is still limited, from new local production sites is helping to keep
while materials including cement and steel are declining pricing and transportation costs down in the Permian
on the back of weaker economic fundamentals. Basin.
Costs for the conventional upstream sector are still

significantly below the levels seen in 2014. Rig rates, both
onshore and offshore, are over 30% lower, but all key
cost components are showing a significant discount
compared with the pre-downturn levels.
Fuel supply
Investment in oil and gas midstream and downstream

LNG and other infrastructure (104-105)
Oil refining investment (106-109)
Fuel supply
The logjam of new LNG project approvals has been broken…
World LNG liquefaction capacity and investment by country/region
Sanctioned capacity by FID year Investment in sanctioned projects

50 40 700
35 600
USD (2018) billion

Bcm per year
Bcm per year

40
30
500
30 25
400
20
20 300
15
200
10
10
5 100
0 0 0
2016
2017
2014
2013
2019Q1
2010
2011
2012
2015
2018
2016
2017
2019
2014
2013
2010
2011
2012
2015
2018
2024
2023
2020
2021
2022
Europe Russia North America
Middle East Africa Others
Australia Cumulative capacity (right axis)
Note: The investment estimates correspond to the actual spending in a given year and are calculated considering 53 projects sanctioned since 2000 up to April 2019.
Source: IEA analysis with calculations based on company reports and websites.
Fuel supply
…and 2019 could be a big year for new gas infrastructure
After a two-year lull, four new LNG projects have been In the United States, the shale revolution has triggered
sanctioned since mid-2018 (three in North America and the development of several new pipelines. Texas and the
an FLNG in offshore West Africa). These projects will add prolific Permian Basin is the epicentre of the
almost 60 billion cubic metres (bcm) of nominal development of new pipelines, mainly aimed at
liquefaction capacity by 2025, with overall investment of connecting rising oil and gas production from the basin
over USD 40 billion. to the Gulf Coast.
A bullish outlook for gas demand is encouraging The construction of new oil pipelines has been prioritised
companies to consider the sanctioning of additional LNG so far in the Permian, but the lack of evacuation capacity
plants. The ones considered most likely to reach FID in for associated gas production has raised concerns as a
2019 include the 45 bcm capacity expansion announced possible constraint for further oil supply growth. The
by Qatar, the Arctic LNG 2 project in Russia, and the debottlenecking of gas supply in the Permian is
ExxonMobil-led consortium in Mozambique Area 4, expected by end-2019 with the entering into operation
among others. If all those projects reach FID this year, of the 20-bcm/yr Gulf Coast Express pipeline.
2019 will represent a historical record for decisions on
LNG capacity expansion.
Recent years have seen also a wave of new major

pipeline projects. Gazprom led developments, with three
major pipelines announced to be completed and
operational by end of 2019: the 55 bcm/yr Nord Stream II
to Germany through the Baltic Sea; the 38 bcm/yr Power
of Siberia to China, and the Turkstream connecting
Russia and Turkey through the Black Sea with two
15.75 bcm/yr lines.
Fuel supply
Refining investment continues to rise, led by Asia and the Middle East...
Investment in oil refineries (greenfield and upgrades) by region
50 2.5 North America

USD billion
mb/d
Central and South
40 2.0 America
Africa
30 1.5 Europe/Eurasia
Other Asia Pacific

20 1.0
China
10 0.5 Middle East
Annual gross capacity

addition (right axis)
0 0.0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Note: The figures reflect estimates of ongoing capital expenditures over time and do not include maintenance capex.
Fuel supply
…in part to adapt to changing characteristics of demand and supply
Net growth in refining capacity by unit type, 2014-18
50% Adapt to growing

light feedstock supply
40%
Minimise
residue yields
30%
Increase middle-distillate
yields
20% Sulphur
removal
10%
0%
Primary Condensate FCC Coking Hydrocracking Hydrotreating
distillation splitter
Upgrading units
2.0 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.3 3.1
Absolute capacity growth (mb/d)
Note: FCC = fluid catalytic cracker
Fuel supply
Refiners are responding to the IMO 2020 regulation in diverse ways
Non-exhaustive examples of IMO-related refining investments

Type Description Examples
Residue Removes sulphur from vacuum • SK Innovation: building a vacuum residue

desulphurisation residue and produces more LSFO desulphurisation facility to be operational from
2020
Upgrading Adds residue cracking units to • ExxonMobil: investing in refinery upgrades in the
reduce HSFO production and United Kingdom (Fawley) and Singapore (Jurong)
increase lighter products • S-OIL: commissioned a residue upgrading complex
production in 2018
Solvent de-asphalting Processes heavy fuels to clean • Shell: commissioned a new SDA unit at its Pernis
(SDA) middle distillates and provides refinery in 2018
increased crude flexibility • Neste: started up an SDA at its Porvoo plant
• Hyundai Oilbank: operating an SDA unit at its
Daesan plant
Yield adjustments Adjusts configuration in favour of • Mostly in the United States

gasoil relative to gasoline by
redirecting some of the
atmospheric gasoil and residue
streams away from FCCs
Note: HSFO = high-sulphur fuel oil, LSFO = low-sulphur fuel oil, FCC = fluid catalytic cracker. The IMO regulation limits the sulphur content in marine fuels to no more than
0.5% from 2020.
Source: Press research.
Fuel supply
Refiners are gearing up for changing market environments
After rising from a dip in 2015, refining investments have • Upgrading capacities grew by 9% between 2014 and
remained high, reflecting a wave of investment decisions 2018 to minimise the production of heavy residue.
in recent years. Capital spending on refining units (new Investments in coking and hydrocracking units were
units and upgrades) and maintenance amounted to USD higher, reflecting refiners’ efforts to target more
43 billion and USD 24 billion, respectively. This is middle distillates production (such as diesel).
expected to result in large amounts of new capacity
coming online in 2019 and beyond, suggesting • Tightening product quality standards, such as the
potentially greater competition in the refining sector in Euro emissions standards and the International
the years ahead. Maritime Organization’s sulphur cap, underpinned
growing investments in desulphurisation units, which
Around 70% of the investment in refining units in 2018 are set to grow rapidly in the coming years.
was made in Asia (where regional product demand is
growing) and the Middle East (where companies are • Condensate splitter capacities registered a strong
pursuing vertical integration). Several companies in the 42% growth, primarily in the United States, Iran, and
Middle East, such as Saudi Aramco, are also pursuing Korea in light of a growing light feedstock supply.
investment opportunities in growing Asian markets, such
as China, India, Korea, and Malaysia.
In addition to primary distillation capacity, refiners are

increasingly investing in various upgrading and
desulphurisation units to adapt to changing demand,
supply, and regulatory environments:
Fuel supply
Coal supply investment

Investment in coal supply and change 2018 vs 2017 (111-112)
Fuel supply
Coal supply investment increased for the first time since 2012…
Investment in coal supply by selected country and region
50
USD (2018) billion
40
30
20
10
0
China India Australia Rest of world
2017 2018
Fuel supply
…but the divestment movement is gathering momentum
In 2018, global investment in coal supply increased by Rising coal prices and soaring seaborne coal trade over
2% to USD 80 billion as investment ramped up in almost the last couple of years are providing signals to coal-
all the major producing regions (China, India, and exporting companies to increase capital spending, but
Australia). This was the first increase since 2012, although there are few signs of a strong pick-up in spending. The
investment remains far below the peaks reached in the stronger capital discipline put in place during the 2013-15
early 2010s. The investment was almost all for sustaining price downturn has relaxed, but expansionary capital
production levels rather than opening new mines. expenditures are scarce, in particular for greenfield
projects.
China, accounting for 45% of global coal production,
remains the key driver of total investment in the sector. The divestment movement – where investors allocate
China’s investment in coal supply increased to over USD capital away from the coal sector – is gaining steam.
45 billion in 2018 after five consecutive years of decline. China’s State Development & Investment Corporation,
Most investments were aimed at sustaining production some Japanese trading companies, and QBE, the largest
and increasing productivity and safety by closing unsafe, Australian insurer, announced the end of exposure to the
inefficient mines and replacing them with more efficient sector. Glencore, the world’s largest coal exporter,
ones. declared a coal production cap, in response to investor
pressure.
Coal supply investment in India grew by 5% in 2018,
underpinned by policy favouring domestic production
while reducing imports as much as possible, amid a
substantial growth of coal consumption driven by
economic growth and higher power demand.
Fuel supply
Biofuels investment
Investment in biofuel production capacity (114-115)
Fuel supply
Biofuels investment has risen somewhat from recent low levels…
Investment in biofuel production capacity
40 8%
USD (2018) billion
35 7%
30 6%
25 5%
20 4%
15 3%
10 2%
5 1%
0 0%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 NPS
NPS SDS
Annual avg.
2025-30
Investment in new production capacity Share in fuel supply investment (right axis)
Note: Biofuels include crop based ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) biodiesel, hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO), among others.
Source: IEA analysis with estimates based on data from IEA (2018c) and F.O. Licht (2019).
Fuel supply
…but the sector needs further policy support to achieve the SDS trajectory.
In 2018, investments in transport biofuels production Biofuels investment represented less than 1% of the total
capacity increased by 12%, led by China where 10% investment in fuel supply. In absolute terms, the
ethanol blending is to be rolled out nationwide, and the investment in 2018 was 70% below its level from a
United States where most investment went towards decade ago when investment was boosted by policy
adding production capacity at existing plants. Brazil saw support and rapid market expansion in Europe and the
stable capacity additions, with record ethanol demand in United States.
2018 and the RenovaBio biofuel policy due to
commence in 2020. A stagnation in investment over the past several years
was led by the “blend wall” effect in the United States,
The increase was partly offset by a decline in investment which refers to structural challenges relating to vehicle
in Europe, largely due to a weakening long-term outlook suitability and fuel distribution infrastructure for higher
for policy support for conventional biofuels in the ethanol blends, challenging economic conditions in the
updated Renewable Energy Directive, and in Southeast Brazilian market and policy uncertainty in Europe,
Asia where countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia combined with lower oil prices from late 2014.
have production overcapacity.
Investment in the sector would need to increase six fold
Investment in ethanol production capacity accounted in the next decade to achieve the trajectory in the SDS,
for 80% of the biofuels investment over the last five indicating the importance of increased policy support to
years, one-tenth of which went to advanced ethanol scale up sustainable biofuel deployment and facilitate
(cellulosic ethanol). The remaining 20% was in biodiesel innovation for advanced biofuels.
and the growing trend of investment in hydrotreated
vegetable oil production.
Financing and funding trends
Cross-sector financing trends

Energy investment and financial sector development (118-119)
Key theme: Risks, returns, and investment across energy sectors (120-124)
Access to capital is critical to supporting energy investment…
Energy investment, classified by financial sector development and the role of foreign direct investment (FDI) in the economy
+ 45%
Higher-
level Energy investment in
2018
Level of
financial sector + 50%
development Mixed-
and role of FDI in level
the economy
Average annual
+ 60% investment needs
Lower- 2025-30 (SDS)
level
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1 000 1 100 1 200
USD (2018) billion
Note: Financial sector development in a given country or region is assessed as the share of private credit to gross domestic product (GDP) and the share of stock market
capitalisation to GDP. FDI = foreign direct investment; the role of FDI is assessed by the share of net FDI inflows to GDP. SDS = Sustainable Development Scenario.
Source: IEA analysis with calculations for financial system development and FDI are based on World Bank (2019).
…and gaps are largest in the least financially developed markets
Energy investment has a strong link with country-level A quarter of spending was in areas with lower levels of
financial conditions. Deep availability of capital from development, where state-backed capital plays a
private institutions, liquid capital markets, and access to stronger role. This category covers a wide spectrum. In
domestic and foreign sources, complemented by limited India, the availability of private credit has increased
public finance, are hallmarks of a supportive enabling substantially in recent years. In contrast, Indonesia and
environment. much of sub-Saharan Africa, outside of South Africa, are
more constrained for capital, particularly for early stage
In 2018, one-third of energy investment was project preparation.
concentrated in areas with both well-developed financial
systems and good access to foreign capital (higher- Looking ahead, investment gaps are largest in areas
level). This category includes markets such as the United currently with mixed or lower-level financial conditions,
States, a number of European countries. and Australia, i.e. those areas with relatively high capital constraints in
where private credit, equity markets . and foreign their economies. In the SDS, 70% of energy investment is
sources of capital all play a relatively strong role in the projected in such regions, meaning that the need to
economy. boost investment in sustainable energy is highest in the
regions with the least-developed financial sectors.
Around 40% of investment was in economies with mixed
conditions. Some large markets, such as China, have
relatively well-developed domestic financial systems but
lower levels of FDI in the economy. Others, such as Brazil
and Mexico, have benefitted from rising shares of FDI in
recent years but have relatively constrained domestic
finance. Countries in Southeast Asia are highly mixed.
Key theme: Risks, returns, and investment across energy sectors
Energy investment decisions are made with an eye While increased investment activity by power companies
towards profitability but also by perceptions of risk and in renewables and grids is reflected in this report’s data,
business factors. Recently announced intentions by capital reallocation is less evident in the data for the oil
some actors to shift their capital allocations to a different and gas industry. So far, oil and gas activity in power has
mix of fuels and technologies merit a look at some of the come more from company acquisitions (e.g. in solar PV,
financial and non-financial drivers. EV charging, and batteries), while capital spending on
renewables has remained less than 1% of that for fuels.
The two main reasons given for capital reallocation are:
1) to invest more in sectors seen as supporting energy Slides 121-122 illustrate how returns and risks for
transitions or, 2) to invest less in areas now perceived as investments by listed companies in different energy
riskier. For example, a few European oil and gas majors sectors are evolving by comparing two measures: the
now plan to invest more in power, while many utilities, profitability of investments (ROIC) and the cost of
whose portfolios were previously oriented towards financing them (WACC). The difference in the metrics
thermal power, have boosted activity in renewables, provides an indicator of an industry’s ability to create
grids, and end-use services. A number of financial shareholder value, a driver for any decision to access
investors have signalled restrictions on financing coal and allocate capital.
assets.
The SDS includes a modest overall increase in

investment but a major capital reallocation towards low-
carbon power and grids. However, today’s energy
market trends are not at all consistent with the SDS, with
rising emissions and insufficient deployment of many
clean energy technologies (IEA, 2019c).
Over time, the oil and gas industry has shown higher, but volatile, return on
investment; in power-related sectors, returns have been steadier, but lower
Return on invested capital (ROIC) and after-tax weighted average cost of capital (WACC) for listed energy companies
Top oil & gas companies Top power companies Top smart grid companies
(by production) (by renewables ownership) (by revenues)
30% 30% 30%
25% 25% 25%
20% 20% 20%
15% 15% 15%
10% 10% 10%
5% 5% 5%
0% 0% 0%
-5% -5% -5%

2006 2010 2014 2018 2006 2010 2014 2018 2006 2010 2014 2018
ROIC WACC
Note: The samples contain the top 25 listed energy companies (in 2018) by oil and gas production, power companies by ownership of solar and wind capacity and companies
involved in investing and supplying smart grid assets, by total revenues. Companies based in China and Russia are excluded from the analysis. Industrial conglomerates, with large
business lines outside of energy are also excluded. Return on invested capital measures the ability of a company’s core business investments to generate profits, expressed as
operating income adjusted for taxes divided by invested capital. The weighted average cost of capital is expressed in nominal terms and measures the company’s required return
on equity and the after-tax cost of debt issuance, weighted according to its capital structure. The tax rate is assumed at 35% for all companies.
Source: IEA analysis with calculations based on company data from Thomson Reuters Eikon (2019) and Bloomberg (2019).
The cost of capital has trended downwards for the power companies, but has
recently risen for the oil and gas companies
Drivers of weighted average cost of capital (WACC) for listed energy companies
Top oil & gas companies Top power companies

(by production) (by renewables ownership)
15% 15%
12% 12%
2018 capital structure:
50% equity/50% debt
9% 9%
2018 capital structure:

75% equity/25% debt
6% 6%
3% 3%
0% 0%
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Cost of equity Cost of debt (before tax) Cost of debt (after tax)
Note: The samples contain the top 25 listed energy companies (in 2018) by oil and gas production and power companies by ownership of solar and wind capacity.
Companies based in China and Russia are excluded from the analysis
Source: IEA analysis with calculations based on company data from Thomson Reuters Eikon (2019) and Bloomberg (2019).
Recent financial metrics appear more favourable for power companies investing
in energy transition…
The financial measures show that the oil and gas and Returns on investment for top power companies, ranked
power sectors are very different in terms of profitability by current ownership of solar PV and wind, declined over
and financing. Historically, oil and gas has been the past decade, with weaker profitability for thermal
characterised by higher returns, higher cost of capital, generation exposed to lower wholesale prices. Returns
and greater volatility. More capital-intensive power has improved somewhat in the past three years, benefitting
shown lower profitability but with lower cost of finance from investments in assets with more contracted
and a degree of market volatility that is more balanced revenues (e.g. renewables) as well as higher power
with regulated assets. prices.
Over time, returns on investment for top oil and gas Declining funding costs partly cushioned lower returns in
companies (majors and E&P by current production) power, where debt plays a bigger role. Debt became less
dropped from high levels as market fundamentals and costly with lower interest rates but also from the
oil prices weakened. This was followed by a recovery in improved maturity and risk profile of renewables. With
the past three years, thanks to higher prices, cost increases in US rates in 2018, debt financing costs rose.
reductions and careful project selection. But required equity returns fell over time from reduced
volatility, indicated by a declining industry beta.
Industry funding costs, which reflect a strong share of
equity, were stable until 2014 when market data showed
a rising return on equity required by investors. This
stemmed, in part, from an increase in volatility, or
systematic risk, associated with company stock prices,
as expressed by a higher beta.
…but signals do not appear adequate for the major reallocation of capital needed
in SDS
Smart grid companies (illustrating another part of the So far, many oil and gas companies (e.g. in the United
power supply chain) have seen more consistent, positive States) are seeing operational improvements and a focus
performance, buoyed by sustained demand for new on higher-return core assets as a better recipe for long-
equipment and regulatory support for networks. Funding term profitability than investing elsewhere in energy.
costs reflect a high influence of equity given a focus on
technology development. Supportive policy frameworks have been instrumental in
encouraging investment in renewables, but there are
Putting the pieces together, the recent movement in questions over how these policies will evolve and what
financial metrics suggest better performance, on this might mean for risk allocation between public and
average in terms of average shareholder value creation, private actors (see Key theme on Financial risk-
by power industries focused on energy transitions than management for renewables).
by oil and gas companies. This may help to explain the
interest by some oil companies in cross-sector In sum, current market signals are not incentivising the
investment, with potential benefits from diversification major reallocation of capital needed to reach the goals
and new business development. of the SDS. This also suggests a need for better
understanding of the evolution of the risks, returns,
However, investment decisions in the energy sector are financing sources, and other factors that would
shaped by complex factors that are difficult to quantify, accelerate energy transitions.
including demand expectations, human capital and
supply chain issues, business synergies, as well as the
financial and reputational risks from potentially stronger
climate policies.
Trends in oil and gas financing

Financial performance of oil & gas majors and US independents (126-129)
Key theme: Profitability and productivity of the US shale industry (130-131)
The financial conditions of oil and gas majors improved in 2018
Majors indicative source of finance and free cash flow
40
USD billion
30
20
10
- 10
- 20
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Change in equity Asset sales Change in debt Free cash flow
Note: Free cash flow is cash from operating activities less capital expenditure. It excludes change in working capital.
Source: IEA analysis with calculations based on company filings and Bloomberg (2019), Bloomberg Terminal.
High dividend yield has been a factor in attracting long-term equity investment in
majors, but recent total return has trended below the market
Equity performance of majors and global listed companies by selected sector
Dividend yield Annual total return
6% 50%
40%
5%
30%
4%
20%
3%
10%
2%
0%
1% -10%
0% -20%
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Global market avg. Oil majors Utilities Financials Industrials Tech&comm
Note: Tech&com=technology and communications. The charts Include all listed companies in the world with over USD10bn (United States dollars) of market capitalisation
as of 15 April. The dividend yield and annual total return by sector are the averages weighted with market capitalisation in each year. The total return refers to the sum of
the share price change and dividend during a given year divided by the share price at the beginning of the year.
Source: IEA analysis with calculations based on company filings and Bloomberg (2019), Bloomberg Terminal.
US independents have reduced dependence on external fundraising
US E&P independents indicative source of finance
60
USD billion
40
20
-20
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Change in equity Change in debt Asset sales
Note: Includes data on 48 US E&P independent companies.

Sources: IEA analysis with calculations based on company filings and Bloomberg (2019), Bloomberg Terminal.
Oil and gas companies have focused on reducing leverage and improving
shareholder value creation
Since mid-2016, the majors have enhanced their Independent US shale companies have typically relied
financial conditions due to a combination of higher oil on new debt, selling assets or issuing new equity for
prices, improvements in operational efficiency, and cost financing their operations. But their call on external
reductions. In 2018, free cash flow reached almost financing has been reduced since 2016, thanks to
USD 90 billion, a level not seen since 2008. efficiency in their activities, cost reductions, and a more
disciplined approach to balancing the investment and
The improvement in financial conditions has also cash flow generated by their own activities.
allowed the majors to reduce the high leverage levels
reached during the downturn period while returning While shale companies in aggregate overspent also in
value to shareholders. After having increased their debt 2018, the ratio between capex and cash flow has
by more than USD 115 billion during 2014-16, in the last constantly declined from almost 2 in 2015 to just over 1
two years, companies have decreased their debt in 2018. Furthermore, shale companies have paid back
exposure by around half of this amount. debt and began to return cash to their shareholders via
share repurchases.
During the 2014-18 period the majors maintained high
dividend levels, compared to other industries,
distributing nearly USD 50 billion per year on average to
shareholders. They also re-introduced share buybacks; in
the 2018, these reached the highest level since 2014.
Nevertheless, on a total return basis, the oil majors
underperformed the market benchmark during this
period, with relatively high dividends partly offset by
bouts of weaker share prices.
Key theme: Profitability and productivity of the US shale industry
US light tight oil production, investment and free cash flow
160 8
USD billion
Million barrels per day

120 6
80 4
40 2
0 0
- 40 -2
- 80 -4
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019E
Free cash flow Capex Production (right axis)
Source: Calculations based on IEA (2019a), company filings, Rystad Energy (2019), and Bloomberg (2019), Bloomberg Terminal.
Will the shale industry finally be profitable in 2019?
In mid-2018, we anticipated that the shale industry was • The pressure coming from investors makes
on the verge of finally achieving a positive free cash flow independents very likely to stick to anticipated
for the entire year. The US shale sector indeed showed guidance, indicating cash flow neutrality on average
significant improvements in the financial sustainability of at WTI USD 50-55/barrel prices. Although WTI prices
its operation, with its cash flow rising by about 50% while have increased by more than 30% in Q1 2019,
investment increased by only 20%. Ultimately, the shale companies reiterated their commitment to previous
industry as a whole did not turn a profit in 2018. Two plans.
main factors during the second half of 2018 led to this
result: • Takeaway capacity in the Permian is less of a
constraint as new pipelines are entering operation.
• Shale companies accelerated spending throughout
the year as a response to oil prices steadily increasing • The large accumulation of drilled but uncompleted
throughout the first nine months of 2018. wells (DUCs) can represent an additional source of oil
growth with a limited injection of capital. Preliminary
• Bottlenecks in the evacuation pipeline capacity from data show that the number of DUCs completed in the
the Permian meant large price discounts from the Permian has been accelerating since February 2019.
West Texas Intermediate (WTI) price, lowering
financial income for shale operators.
Assuming no significant decline in the current level of oil

price (WTI price of USD 60/barrel), we estimate the shale
industry be on track to finally achieving profitability in
2019 for three main reasons:
Trends in power sector financing

Sources of finance and funding trends for power investments (133-136)
Key theme: How does financial risk management change for renewables as they move beyond subsidies? (137-147)
Most power sector investments are made on company balance sheets but project
finance has grown in importance for renewables investments
Global power sector investment by primary source of finance and project finance for renewable power
Primary sources of finance for power, 2018 Renewable power project finance
70
60
USD 2018 billion

50
40
USD 775 billion
30
20
10
0
2013 2018
Balance sheet Thermal power Utility-scale renewables
finance: Distributed power Grids & battery storage United States Europe Asia
Project Thermal power Utility-scale renewables Africa Latin America Other
finance: Grids & battery storage
Note: Project finance data are based on disclosed deals and transaction values are adjusted to an actual spending basis.
Source: IEA analysis with calculations for project finance based on data from IJGlobal (2019), WindEurope (2019), and US DOE (2018).
Power investments rely on policies and contracts to manage market risks; for
renewables these are increasingly set by competitive mechanism
Global power sector investment by main remuneration model and remuneration mechanisms of renewable power
Global power sector investment Remuneration mechanisms:

by main remuneration model, 2018 utility-scale renewable power
300
USD 2018 billion

250
200
USD 775 billion 150
100
50
0
2013 2018
Wholesale market pricing
Distributed generation (retail/regulated tariff) Wholesale market pricing
Regulated networks Contracted pricing based on competitive mechanism
Regulated/contracted utility-scale generation Contracted pricing based on administrative mechanism
Note: Investments classified under wholesale market pricing may include capacity remuneration mechanisms, which were not separated in the analysis. Remuneration for
distributed generation is largely determined by the design of retail electricity tariffs.
Investment in electricity networks strongly depends on regulatory frameworks that

enable utilities to recovery their fixed investment costs
Electricity grid investment per capita versus cost recovery ratio for major utilities in selected markets
1.30
Brazil
Malaysia
1.20 Korea
Vietnam Saudi Arabia
Japan United States

1.10
Cost recovery ratio
Germany France
1.00
Thailand
South Africa
China
Indonesia
0.90
Mexico
0.80 India
Other sub-Saharan Africa

0.70
0 50 100 150 200
Electricity network Investment (per capita)
Note: Data reflect the latest available year for the cost recovery ratio. The size of the bubbles corresponds to the total level of network investment (transmission and
distribution). Cost recovery is measured as the ratio of total operating revenues to total operating costs (including depreciation) plus net financing costs for reference
utilities and excluding explicit subsidy payments. China = the People’s Republic of China .
Source: IEA analysis with calculations for cost recovery based on financial statements of reference utilities in each market. Cost recovery ratios for the United States are
based on EEI (2017) and sub-Saharan Africa excluding South Africa are based on Kojima and Trimble (2016).
Overall, there is a strong link between policies and financing for power
About 85% of power investments in 2018 were financed pricing. In many countries with competitive wholesale
on the balance sheets of utilities, independent power markets, short-term price signals alone remain too low to
producers, and consumers (for distributed generation). trigger investments in the most capital-intensive assets
The use of project finance for financing new projects has (IEA, 2018c).
grown in recent years, with its largest contribution now
in the utility-scale renewable power sector. The average In 2018, around 45% of utility-scale renewables spending
debt-to-equity ratio in project finance has generally been was in projects whose contractual remuneration is
around 80:20. determined by competitive mechanisms. These are
mostly government schemes - such as auctions, which
Project finance plays a significant role in the United play an increased role in Europe, India and have started
States where recent tax code changes have not in China, among others – but include other
undermined the availability of tax equity for solar PV and arrangements, such as corporate procurement, which is
wind. In Europe, while project financing for onshore wind growing rapidly (see below).
has been stable, that for offshore wind has grown as the
maturity of the technology has increased and the risks Grids investment depends on planning and regulation;
have fallen, thanks to competitive bidding for long-term on a per capita basis, it is highest in those markets with
contracts and, in some markets, system operators cost reflective tariff setting and utilities who can
assuming grid connection risks. Renewable project adequately recover their fixed costs.
finance has also spread into Australia, Japan and Latin
America, boosted by policies to help manage the risks.
Over 95% of power sector investment was made by

companies operating under fully regulated revenues or
long-term contractual mechanisms to manage the
revenue risk associated with variable wholesale market
Key theme: How does financial risk management change for renewables as they
move beyond subsidies?
Cash flow certainty is critical for renewable projects to extending beyond the horizon of support (some
manage risks and facilitate finance. Nearly all utility-scale incentives are available for only 10-15 years); as well as
investments to date benefit from long-term pricing unexpected regulatory changes.
under policy schemes – e.g. auctions for contracts and
feed-in tariffs – and physical power purchase In competitive power markets, industry and finance
agreements with utilities subject to purchase obligations. players are increasingly required to have strategies,
Looking ahead, most investments benefit from such beyond subsidies, for solar PV and wind projects to
policies (IEA, 2018b, 2018c). manage potential revenue exposure to short-term
market pricing over their lifetime. At the same time,
However, governments face trade-offs in addressing there is a growing trend among non-energy corporations
investor risks, affordability concerns and system-friendly to procure renewable power directly, independent of
development. For example, European market design government plans (IEA, 2017).
efforts seek greater integration of variable renewables
into markets, and there has been a policy shift from Slides 138-147 illustrate structures and mechanisms that
feed-in tariffs to auctions for market premia and investors are adopting in response to these trends and
contracts-for-differences, which provide revenue assess implications for financing renewables. Successful
certainty, but can increase marketing risks. In the United use of these options depends strongly on the underlying
States, the Production Tax Credit (PTC) is being phased regulatory framework, electricity market design and
out over time for new wind plants. financial system.
Developers can also face risks in the context of existing

policy schemes. These may occur when there are
mismatches in project capture prices and reference
prices used to determine remuneration (which can arise
under a contract-for-differences); in project operations
Examples of commercial & financial options to manage market risks for

utility-scale renewables
Physical PPA – a bilateral commercial contract where a Proxy revenue swap – a bilateral financial contract
counterparty (usually utility) purchases at a set price and where a counterparty (e.g. insurance company) provides
takes physical delivery of power from a generator. a hedge against variable project revenues from
Physical PPAs are common in both competitive and uncertain production volume, timing of generation and
regulated market structures (though the terms and rules electricity prices. 5-10 year swaps have been used in the
can differ greatly) with the duration of contracts for solar United States and Australia.
PV and wind plants typically ranging from 10-25 years.
Forward contracts – standardized financial contracts for
Financial PPA – (i.e. corporate/synthetic/virtual PPA and electricity traded on market exchanges for settlement at
contract-for-differences) – a bilateral financial contract a future date, involving fewer transaction costs than
where a counterparty agrees to a fixed purchase price, bilateral options. Where available, electricity forward
but does not take physical delivery. Generators sell into contracts are traded liquidly usually only 1-2 years ahead,
wholesale markets and the difference between the but other commodities (e.g. gas) have liquidity further
reference market price and agreed fixed price is into the future.
reconciled between parties. Financial PPAs are used in
the United States, Europe and other power systems
where third-parties transact and are often coupled with
the sale of renewable certificates or guarantees of origin.
Financial hedge – a bilateral financial contract where a

counterparty (often a bank) provides fixed payments in
exchange for a variable power price based on a pre-
determined settlement point. Bank hedges of up to 12-13
years have been used in the United States.
Financial options can help renewables manage market price risk, but such
arrangements can also increase project complexity
Illustration of policy and commercial mechanisms to manage market price risks over the lifetime of a wind farm
20-year economic lifetime
Wind project under long-

term policy scheme or Feed-in tariff or long-term physical PPA
utility offtake
Wind project under long- Deviation between project

term policy scheme with Contract-for-differences awarded by auction capture price and revenue
marketing responsibilities based on CfD reference prices
Wind project under policy Production tax credit Financial PPA with corporation Indicative sources of
scheme that covers a portion
remuneration
of lifetime remuneration Financial hedge with bank Power market pricing
Wind project primarily using Power market

Financial PPA (corporation A) Power
pricing Financial PPA
commercial/financial market
Renewable (power trader)
arrangements Financial PPA (corporation B) pricing
certificates
Government or utility- Financial mechanism Unhedged wholesale

backed mechanism provided by third-parties market pricing
Investment decisions for “merchant” projects depend on options for risk

management as well as supportive policy frameworks and market design
Select renewable power projects with business models reportedly based on “merchant” or “unsubsidized” pricing
Status (reported Reported business model and financial risk Policy & regulatory enablers and
Project Market
operation date) management features other revenue streams
Willow Springs
United States Wholesale market sales with bank financial Production tax credit & state-led
Onshore wind Operating
(Texas) hedge transmission programme (CREZ)
(250 MW)
Port of Hirtshals
Construction Wholesale market sales with financial PPA Auction framework for development
Onshore wind Denmark
(2019) from trading company rights
(17 MW)
Hollandse Kust
Zuid–1&2 Auction framework for development
Construction Wholesale market sales; no reported
Netherlands rights; TSO provision of grid
Offshore wind (2023) commercial risk management features
connection
(750 MW)
Talasol
Wholesale market sales with 10-year Partially financed by European Fund
Solar PV Spain Announced
financial PPA with undisclosed counterparty for Strategic Investments
(300 MW)
York Solar PV United Construction Wholesale market sales; hybridisation with Ability to sell grid and ancillary
(35 MW) Kingdom (2019) 27 MW battery storage services to TSO
Notes: Merchant projects are those whose revenues are derived primarily from short-term wholesale market pricing; TSO = transmission system operator.
Financial PPAs with corporations have boosted renewables spending in some areas,
though investment is small compared to total power needs
Renewable power investment based on corporate PPAs
Renewable power investment Renewable power investment based on corporate PPAs

based on corporate PPAs (US and Europe)
16 300
USD (2018) billion
12
200
100
4
0 0
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Cumulative Investment level
investment that would account for
10% of C&I demand
United States Mexico Europe Australia India Other
Notes: C & I = commercial and industrial electricity demand in the United States and Europe; PPA = Power Purchase Agreement.
Scaling up corporate PPAs would tap into a much larger pool of buyers, but this can
raise credit risk and credit evaluation challenges
Credit ratings of the top corporate buyers, utilities and of all corporate debt in the United States and Europe
Top corporate buyers and utilities All corporations
100% 100%
80% 80%
60% 60%
40% 40%
20% 20%
0% 0%
Top 10 corporate Top 10 utilities United States Europe
renewable buyers (by sales)
in 2018
Prime/high investment grade Medium investment grade Non-investment grade
Note: Credit ratings in the graph on the right correspond to the entire outstanding corporate debt market the United States and Europe.
Source: IEA analysis with calculations for credit ratings based on company data from Thomson Reuters Eikon (2019).
Use of financial contracts combined with selling on wholesale markets is prevalent

among new US wind farms, complementing tax credits
Share of US wind installations, by commercial structure
100%
Financial
hedge or
unhedged
80%
Financial PPA
60%
Physical PPA
or utility-
40% owned
20%
0%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Note: Projects also benefit from the production tax credit, which is available for the first 10 years of project operations.
Source: IEA analysis with calculations based on Bartlett (2019).
In some markets, exchange-traded forward contracts can hedge power prices in the
future, but liquidity is limited beyond the first few years ahead
Forward prices for baseload power with open interest, by calendar year, for select European markets
60
EUR/MWh
55
50
45
40
= open interest of 10k
contracts
35
30
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Germany France Italy Netherlands Nordic market Spain
Note: Open interest describes the liquidity and activity level for a given product in the market. It is measured by the number of contracts or commitments outstanding in
futures and options trading on an official exchange at any one time.
Source: IEA analysis with calculations based on data from EEX (2019) and Nasdaq (2019).
Pairing utility-scale renewables with batteries provides a technological option for

managing market risks; investment remains small but is growing
Global investment in variable renewables plus battery storage and share of grid-scale battery storage installations by application
Investment in renewables + battery storage projects Grid-scale battery storage installations

(utility-scale) by application, 2018
0.6
USD (2018) billion
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Capactity provision
Demand shifting and bill reduction
Hybridization with renewables
0.0
Grid and ancillary services
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Microgrids
Source: IEA analysis with calculations based on Clean Horizon and China Energy Storage Alliance (2019).
Summary: financial risk management options can work alongside policies to

increase the flow of bankable renewables projects…
Accounting for investments based on risk allocation projects depends on the long-term outlook for market
among private and public actors is challenging. But prices, on the system operator taking on the risks
understanding potential risks and availability of tools to associated with developing and funding the grid
manage them is key to financing. connections (up to 15% of the project cost), as well as
anticipated enhancements in turbine technology.
While few projects have proceeded based on wholesale
pricing alone, there is growing interest in finance and Of the arrangements described here, corporate PPAs
technology arrangements to manage risks in have emerged as the largest, and their investment grew
competitive markets. These options can act as a by one-third in 2018 to nearly USD 15 billion, now
complement to policy-based remuneration and provide accounting for over 5% of global solar PV and wind
investment opportunities when availability of physical spending. Their use by large consumers with suitable
PPAs may be limited. However, as they can raise project demand profiles and strong credit ratings has allowed
complexity and require private actors to take on more for more debt financing. Still, making a larger energy
risk, they have potential implications for financing costs, impact would require a lot more investment – e.g. a
with more reliance on equity and less on debt, which is sevenfold growth in cumulative spending would be
less able to absorb pricing volatility. More research is needed to cover 10% of current commercial and
needed in this area. industrial demand in the United States and Europe. This
suggests involving a greater pool of companies, which
Financial risk management options are no substitute for could raise challenges in credit risk evaluation and
supportive regulations, appropriate market design and project structuring.
technology development. For example, several offshore
wind developments in Europe plan to operate based
solely on short-term pricing, but the viability of these
…but an evolution of project complexity and risk allocation with their use also has
the potential to impact renewable financing costs
Corporate PPAs have grown in areas (e.g. the United reportedly offer longer contracts on a bilateral basis and,
States, Europe) with regulations for contracting and industry interest has grown in the use of gas forward
reselling power; utilities who provide billing, balancing, contracts, which have longer-dated liquidity and can be
and physical delivery services; and certification that structured to provide a proxy for electricity prices (Aydin,
facilitates additionality. In the United States, renewable C., F. Graves and B. Villadsen , 2017).
tax credits have enhanced their use. Still, these contracts
(typically 10-15 years) may not fully manage risks over a The ability of financial contracts to manage market risks
project’s lifetime. depends on their tenor and how they are structured.
Even with a fixed-price contract, projects may still be
Other bilateral options have garnered interest. Bank exposed to basis risk, arising when the price at the
hedges were used in a quarter of 2018 US wind settlement point differs from the local price available to
installations, enabling projects to manage price risks the plant, or profile risk, when the timing of revenues
from selling output in wholesale markets and received by the plant deviates from that of the
complementing the production tax credit (available to contractually determined price.
projects for 10 years). In Australia, a solar PV project
reached financial close in 2018 based on a proxy Finally, some renewables projects have been paired with
revenue swap with an insurance company. storage, enabling some dispatchability; this accounts for
10% of grid-scale battery installations. Business models
Use of exchange-traded forward contracts is currently for such plants are complex, relying on a mixture of
more limited. In European markets, futures only allow for capacity contracts, grid services provision and wholesale
baseload power price hedging (currently at EUR 30-50 market sales.
[EUR]/megawatt hour for 2023-24), and liquidity is
limited more than 2 years out. Still, some energy traders
Trends in energy efficiency and

distributed renewables financing
The role of ESCOs in energy efficiency investment (149-150)
Trends in business and financing models for distributed solar PV (151-152)
Trends in green bonds for low-carbon energy (153-155)
The market size of energy service companies is around USD 30 billion…
Breakdown of the ESCO market by region, business model, and client
Global ESCO market size Shares of contract types Market size by customer type
20 20
USD billion
15 15
10 10
5 5
EPC guaranteed savings
EPC shared savings

0 0
Energy service contract
ic
ied
EU
US
r
a
e
e
th
in
bl
at
th
Bo
if
Ch
Pu
iv
O
ss
Both guaranteed and shared savings
Pr
cla
Un
Unclassified
Note: EPC = energy performance contract. Guaranteed Savings guarantee a certain savings on the client’s energy bill with the ESCO taking the technical risk and the client securing the funds to
pay contractually determined fees to the ESCO. With Shared Savings, the ESCO can provide financing, as well as project development and implementation costs, with the energy savings shared
between the ESCO and the client.
Source: IEA (2019, 2018d).
…and China’s ESCOs are increasingly engaging the private sector
The market for energy service companies (ESCOs) – who Globally, nearly half of ESCO investment is for private
provide energy services and energy efficient equipment sector customers. Most agreements between customers
to end users – is growing steadily. The global value of the and ESCOs are underpinned by energy performance
ESCO market (by energy performance contract revenue) contracts that clarify ongoing payments and commit the
was nearly USD 30 billion in 2017, up 8% since 2016. ESCOs to installing equipment and guaranteeing
Much of this growth is occurring in China, the largest savings.
market by far.
Digital technologies, such as sensors and smart meters,
Government policy remains a key driver of ESCO that provide real time information on equipment and
activity. In China, policy incentives have driven ESCO system performance, along with analytics and remote
engagement in the private sector, while government monitoring, can improve measurement and verification
procurement rules have been a barrier to further (M&V) of energy savings in ESCO projects. More
development in the public sector. accurate information and improved M&V could further
facilitate financing of ESCO projects and boost
In North America, public sector asset owners are able to investment in the sector.
obtain debt on favourable terms to finance ESCO
contracts. In Europe, where the ESCO market is 10% of
the global total, the European Commission recently
clarified the terms under which an EPC can be
accounted for off-balance sheet. The impact that these
changes will have on the European ESCO market is still
to be seen.
Payment and financing options for distributed solar PV have diversified in the United
States…
Payment mechanisms, securitisations, and the cost of capital for distributed solar PV in the United States
Installations by payment mechanism

ABS issuance WACC (large DPV project portfolios)
(top 3 third-party installers)
1.4 2.5 12%
USD billion
GW
1.2 10%
2.0
1.0
8%
1.5
0.8
6%
0.6
1.0
4%
0.4
0.5
0.2 2%
0.0 0.0 0%
2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018
Consumer owned Cost of debt WACC
Leases and power purchase contracts
Return on equity US 10-y treasury rate
Notes: ABS = asset back securities; WACC = weighted-average cost of capital; DPV = distributed solar PV; WACC is reported for mid-cost systems and is expressed on an
after-tax basis.
Source: IEA analysis with calculations for payment mechanisms based on company reporting; ABS issuance data is based on Climate Bonds Initiative (2019); WACC data
is based on Feldman and Schwabe (2018) and Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (2019).
…which have helped to keep the cost of financing stable
Investment in distributed solar PV in the United States loans, which spreads the financing costs and risks
was around USD 15 billion in 2018, the second largest among more investors. In 2018, a record amount of
market after China and the market has remained one of asset-backed securities based on US distributed solar PV
the most dynamic in terms of installations, despite projects was issued, over USD 2 billion, equal to around
relatively higher capital costs compared with the global 15% of primary financing.
average. In addition to policy support at the federal and
state level, the availability of finance has continued to These developments have helped to keep the cost of
improve, with more players and products entering the financing relatively stable. Broadly, the cost of financing
market. for large portfolios of distributed PV projects remained
stable in 2018 and was slightly lower compared with two
While fewer installations are now made by the top years ago, even as US benchmark interest rates rose,
developers, payment mechanisms for distributed solar with somewhat more debt used to finance projects and
PV in the United States continue to evolve towards an increased diversity of equity sponsors.
increased consumer ownership, compared with entering
into leasing arrangements or PPAs with third parties. This
reflects the better availability of financing options for
consumers and the desire by developers to ease upfront
capital expenditures. A number of financial institutions
now offer solar loans, which have helped to facilitate
direct ownership.
Developers and financing companies are also using the

secondary markets to refinance the leases and contracts
on their balance sheets as well as their portfolios of solar
Continued growth in green bonds has supported the financing of energy efficiency
and renewables…
Global green bond issuance in the energy sector by intended use of proceeds, 2014-18
180
Other
USD billion
160
140 Renewables
120
Mixed-use
100 bonds
80
Energy
efficiency
60
40
20
0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Note: Green bonds included are those labelled under the Climate Bonds Taxonomy and Certification Scheme. Allocation by energy end use follows Climate Bonds Initiative
conventions.
Source: IEA analysis with calculations based on data provided by Climate Bonds Initiative (2019).
…but issuance for energy efficiency leveled off in 2018…
Green bonds for energy efficiency, by sector and region, 2014-18
By energy efficiency sector By region

60
USD billion
50
40
30
20
10
0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Infrastructure Utilities Real estate North America Europe Asia and Pacific Other
Note: Green bonds included are those labelled under the Climate Bonds Taxonomy and Certification Scheme. Allocation by energy end use follows Climate Bonds Initiative
conventions. Infrastructure includes, for example, transport infrastructure developers, such as airports and public transport, and manufacturers of EVs. Real estate and housing
includes real estate investment trusts, PACE ABS and mortgage lenders.
Source: IEA analysis with calculations based on data provided by Climate Bonds Initiative (2019).
…and overall issuance of green bonds for energy remained stable
Overall green bond issuance for the energy sector – Green bond issuance for energy efficiency remained
which acts as an important source of secondary strong in the Asia Pacific region and Europe, while the
financing in connecting the debt capital markets to decline stemmed largely from a decrease in the
companies and projects in energy and other sectors that United States.
have environmental benefits – rose to nearly USD 170
billion in 2018. In the United States, there was much less issuance
based on loans used in property assessed clean energy
Growth, at only 3%, slowed significantly compared to the (PACE) financing, which facilitates the repayment of
near doubling experienced in 2016 and over 80% growth loans for energy efficiency improvements through
in 2017, which was boosted by high transaction volumes property taxes. There was a large decrease in overall
for mortgage-backed securities arising from the US PACE applications in 2018 due to the application of new
Federal National Mortgage Association’s Green Rewards consumer protection laws and the consequent barriers
programme for energy and water efficiency faced by contractors.
improvements for multi-family housing in the United
States.
Green bond issuance for energy efficiency, which was

the leading sector in 2017, declined by 8% in 2018 to just
over USD 45 billion. Historically, renewables and mixed-
use bonds have dominated green bond issuance in the
energy sector. In 2018, mixed-use bonds again captured
the largest portion of the market.
R&D and new technologies
Investment in energy RD&D

Trends in public RD&D spending (158-159)
Trends in corporate RD&D spending (160-161)
Government energy RD&D spending grew 5% in 2018, led by China and the United
States
Spending on energy RD&D by national governments, with preliminary 2018 data
30
USD (2018) billion
Rest of World
25
Japan, Korea, Australia,

20 New Zealand
Europe
15
10 North America
5 China
0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018E
Notes: RD&D = research, development and demonstration, as defined by the IEA Guide to Reporting Energy RD&D Budget/Expenditure Statistics, 2011.
This trend reflects recent pledges and commitments by governments
Preliminary information indicates that governments The EU research budget is approved for multi-year
around the world spent around USD 26 billion (United cycles and annual variations in spending should be seen
States dollars) on energy RD&D in 2018, suggesting a 5% in this context. The commitment to energy research
increase year-on-year, similar to the previous year’s remains high, but actual funding for energy research in
increase. 2018 fell back by around 15%. While R&D spending for
cross-cutting technologies (such as smart grids) rose, it
While indications are preliminary, it appears that was lower in other areas, notably for energy efficiency
spending on the subset of clean energy technologies, and nuclear. Still, as the EU research budget is approved
which Mission Innovation member countries pledged in for multi-year cycles, annual variations do not change
2015 to double over five years, is growing more strongly the overall growth in spending in each funding period.
than total energy RD&D spending.
The five leading countries for public spending on energy
China’s energy research and development (R&D) budget R&D were the United States, China, Japan, France and
grew most in absolute terms in 2018, with spending on Germany. These five countries accounted for around
renewables and higher-performing fossil fuel 70% of all such spending worldwide. RD&D budgets in
technologies increasing the most. The US budget for Denmark and Italy also increased in 2018, while in
energy RD&D increased by more than 12% in 2018, with Germany spending declined 2%.
notable rises for solar energy, hydrogen, and alternative
vehicle technologies. The budget already passed for
2019 continues the upward trend but with lower growth
rates in most areas.
While energy R&D spending by car companies jumped, oil and gas company R&D
has yet to bounce back significantly since 2015
Global reported corporate R&D spending in energy-related sectors
120
USD (2018) billion
Other
100
Oil and gas
80 Thermal power and

combustion equipment
60 Nuclear
Electricity generation and

40 networks
Renewables
20
Automotive
0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018E
Note: Classifications are based on the Bloomberg Industry Classification System. All publicly reported R&D spending is included, though companies domiciled in countries that
do not require disclosure of R&D spending are under-represented. To allocate R&D spending for companies active in multiple sectors, interviews with company decision-makers
and, in the absence of other data sources, the shares of revenue per sector were used. “Other” comprises CCUS, electricity storage, insulation, lighting, other fossil fuels and
smart energy systems.. Depending on the jurisdiction and company, publicly reported corporate R&D spending can include a wide range of capitalised and non-capitalised
costs, from basic research to product development and, in some cases, resource exploration. It is not unusual for the development of like-for-like substitution products and
problem-solving for well-established technologies to dwarf research into new technology areas.
R&D budgets also increased for companies active in energy storage, energy
efficiency, nuclear and combustion technologies
The sample of listed companies active in energy Corporate R&D spending by companies in the oil and
technology sectors for which 2018 data is currently gas and other fossil fuel extraction sectors showed 1%
available increased their annual energy R&D spending, growth in real terms in 2018, the first increase in R&D
by around 4% (including automakers). The total energy spending in this sector since 2014. Spending remains
R&D spending of this sample reached nearly USD 94 45% below 2014 levels, however, and is not rising
billion in 2018. Excluding transport, two-thirds of the total significantly as a share of revenue.
corporate energy R&D was in low-carbon sectors.
While the rebound of oil and gas company R&D budgets
Automakers – who typically have much higher R&D is sluggish, that of electricity generation and supply
budgets than energy companies in absolute terms and companies continues to rise. Siemens and General
as a share of revenue – continue to increase their R&D Electric occupied the top spots in the list of the highest
spending as government policies and competitive global energy R&D spenders, with Petrochina dropping
pressures drive higher spending on energy efficiency out of the top three for the first time in a decade. Four of
and electric vehicles. Automakers were the biggest the top ten are Chinese companies, and five are in the
contributors to the growth in corporate energy R&D electricity sector.
spending technologies in 2018.
This trend is notable among major European and US car

and auto parts companies, whose R&D spending rose by
around 7% on average in 2018, compared to 4% for
Japanese and Korean firms. However, the increasingly
global presence of Chinese automakers is reflected in
their R&D spending, which rose more than 20% on
average.
Trends in investment for

early-stage technologies
Trends in venture capital and corporate investment in energy start-ups (163-166)
Investment in new technologies (167)
A record year for venture capital investment in clean energy
Global venture capital investment in energy technology companies

USD (2018) billion
8 Other energy
7 Other clean energy
6
Energy efficiency
5
Other renewables
4
Bioenergy
3
Solar
2
Transport
1
0
Avg.Avg.
2007- 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
11
2007-11
Note: Includes Seed, Series A, and Series B financing deals. Transport includes alternative powertrains and fuel economy but does not include shared mobility, logistics or
autonomous vehicle technology. Bioenergy does not include biochemicals. Other energy includes fossil fuel extraction and use.
Source: Cleantech Group (2019), i3 database.
Venture capital action is in clean mobility, while renewables deals shrank
Venture capital (VC) investment in emerging energy However, excluding large deals (over USD 50 million)
companies (seed, series A and B) reached an estimated raises the US share to over 50%. Only 30 of the 400
USD 6.9 billion. While these sums are much lower than deals (7%) were for companies in China, compared to
those invested in RD&D projects, this is a notable high- 52% in North America and 30% in Europe.
point for VC deals in energy, which are mostly focused
on clean energy technologies. Outside transport, the biggest increases in VC activity by
technology areas were for energy storage, hydrogen,
While solar energy made up a significant share of and fuel cells, as well as technologies for fossil fuel
transactions before the 2012 cleantech bust, recent extraction and conversion. Investment in Zenobe Energy
growth has been driven almost entirely by clean (a battery storage operator), Malta (a developer of
transportation investment. Most of the transport deals thermal storage), Kayros (an energy data and tracking
are in EV technology and services. firm), and Solid Power (a solid-state battery company)
were the biggest deals in these sectors 2018.
Despite the large increase in deal value, the total number
of early-stage VC deals in 2018 was broadly similar to
2017. This indicates a major increase in deal value, driven
notably by deals larger than USD 0.5 billion, such as
those for electric car firms Evelozcity, Youxia Motors,
Xiaopeng Motors, and Byton.
The share of China-based start-ups in total VC value for

early-stage energy technologies overtook the
traditionally dominant United States, with Chinese
companies receiving over half of the deal value.
More companies investing in energy start-ups are from outside the sector
Corporate venture capital and growth equity investments in energy technology companies, by sector of investor
1.4
Non-traditional energy companies
USD (2018) billion
1.2 Other
ICT and electronics

1.0
Transport
0.8
Batteries
0.6
Traditional energy companies
0.4 Energy equipment & service suppliers
Utilities and IPPs

0.2
Oil & gas
0.0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Note: ICT = information and communication technology. Deals types include grant, seed, series A, series B, growth equity, private investment in public equity (PIPE),
coin/token offering, buyout, and late-stage private equity. Unless otherwise stated, deal value is shared equally between multiple investors in a single deal. Energy
technology companies are defined as per the previous chart.
Source: Cleantech Group (2019), i3 database and IEA analysis.
Investments by battery companies were big deals in 2018
Corporate investments in energy technology start-ups, The role of information and communication technology
including corporate venture capital, totalled around USD and automotive companies in energy technology start-
0.9 billion in 2018. While 2018 did not see such high deal ups was less evident in 2018 as their deal value shrank
value as 2017, it remained high by the standards of the back to near-2016 levels.
“cleantech boom” in the period to 2012. This indicates
that large companies see a strategic case for direct However, non-traditional players, notably battery
investment in innovative, nimble technology players. manufacturers, invested more than traditional energy
actors. CATL, a Chinese battery company, and FAW, a
Clean transport companies received the most money car company, were involved in an investment in Byton,
from corporate investors, with Xiaopeng Motors raising an electric car company. CATL also invested in Sila
nearly USD 1 billion in total in 2018 and CityScoot raising battery materials, alongside Siemens.
USD 50 million.
Overall, companies inside and outside the energy sector
Investments by companies from the traditional energy are increasingly using corporate venture capital
sectors declined by 7% in 2018. Those by oil and gas investments as part of a flexible and more open energy
companies and equipment manufacturers offset a much innovation strategy.
larger decline in investments by utilities.
Notable deals were Chevron’s investment in ChargePoint

(alongside AEP and Siemens); Equinor’s in EtaGen gas
generators with AEP and Centrica; and E.ON’s in tado
home energy management.
Signs of interest in CCUS & hydrogen, as battery factories bloom
China’s first large-scale carbon capture, use and storage applications, plus many project announcements for
(CCUS) project, for enhanced oil recovery at CNPC’s Jilin electrolyser projects up to 100 MW in scale, mostly in
Oil Field, was commissioned in 2018. There was also a Europe. Overall, the value of the electrolysers installed in
significant jump in announcements of new CCUS the last two years is around USD 20 to 30 million per
projects that could enter operation over the next year. However, the level of investment is insufficient for a
decade. For the first time since 2010, the number of sustainable and self-financing hydrogen sector for the
CCUS facilities that are operating, under construction or longer term.
in planning around the world rose, reaching 43.
Expansions of battery manufacturing capacity for
In 2018, the United States expanded and enhanced the electric vehicles announced in 2018 are expected to
“45Q” tax credit for CCUS with up to USD 50 per tonne translate into major investments ahead. Large producers
of CO2 permanently stored and USD 35 per tonne of CO2 shared plans for USD 20-30 billion of spending on over
used in enhanced oil recovery. 400 GWh of capacity by the mid-2020s. Production in
2018 was around 70 GWh.
Plans for six new CCUS projects were announced in 2018
in Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. The
focus of new European CCUS projects has shifted
towards capturing CO2 from hydrogen production, with
at least four of these six projects planning to inject of
low-carbon hydrogen in natural gas networks by 2030.
In 2018, strong recent momentum behind hydrogen

projects was maintained, with over 20 MW of
Emirates Steel Parish –Petra Nova Gorgon
electrolysers coming online for energy and climate
(Source: Emirates Steel) (Source: NRG) (Source: Chevron)
Annex
Annex
Acknowledgments
This report was prepared by the investment team in the The report is indebted to the high standard of data and
Energy Supply and Investment Outlook (ESIO) Division of input provided by the Energy Supply and Investment
the Directorate of Sustainability, Technology and Outlook Division (Christophe McGlade); the Energy Data
Outlooks (STO). The report was designed and directed Centre (Roberta Quadrelli); the Energy Demand Outlook
by Michael Waldron (lead on power sector; financing and Division (Laura Cozzi, Brent Wanner, Yasmine Arsalane,
funding). The principal authors and contributors were Stéphanie Bouckaert, Davide D’Ambrosio, Timothy
Simon Bennett (lead on end-use and efficiency; R&D and Goodson ); the Energy Efficiency Division (Brian
new technologies; contributor to financing and funding), Motherway, Brian Dean, Kathleen Gaffney, Sacha
Alessandro Blasi (lead on fuel supply; contributor to Scheffer); the Energy Environment Division (Samantha
financing and funding), Yoko Nobuoka (contributor to McCulloch, Sara Budinis); the Energy Technology Policy
fuel supply, power sector and financing and funding), Division (Timur Guel, Pierpaolo Cazzola, John Dulac,
Pawel Olejarnik (contributor to modelling and data Marine Gorner); and the the Renewable Energy Division
across sectors) and Alberto Toril (contributor to power (Paolo Frankl, Heymi Bahar, Yasmina Abdelilah, Karolina
sector and financing and funding). Tim Gould, Head of Daskiewicz, Pharoah Le Feuvre, Tobias Rinke, Grecia
Energy Supply and Investment Outlook Division, Rodriguez).
provided valuable guidance and input to the key
findings. Eleni Tsoukala provided essential support.
The report benefitted from contributions from other

experts within the IEA: Carlos Fernandez Alvarez (coal),
Jessica Glicker and Joe Ritchie (energy efficiency
investment and financing), Yasemin Aslan, Domenico
Lattanzio and Glenn Sondak (R&D), and Tae-Yoon Kim
(refining and petrochemicals).
Annex
The report also benefited from valuable inputs, Many experts from outside of the IEA provided input,
comments and feedback from other experts within the commented on the underlying analytical work, and
IEA and the OECD, including Neil Atkinson, Toril Bosoni, reviewed the report. Their comments and suggestions
Peter Fraser, Cesar Alejandro Hernandez, Randi were of great value. They include:
Kristiansen, Rui Luo, Nick Johnstone, Armin Mayer,
Jad Mouawad, Keisuke Sadamori, Alan Searl, Paul
Simons, Laszlo Varro, Matt Wittenstein, Mechthild Manu Aggarwal Council on Energy, Environment
Wörsdörfer and Robert Youngman. and Water
Manuel Baritaud European Investment Bank
Thanks also go to Jon Custer, Astrid Dumond, Chris Claudio Dicembrino Enel
Gully, Katie Lazaro, Jethro Mullen, Rob Stone (who Loic Douillet GE
designed the report format) and Therese Walsh of the Monica Filkova Climate Bonds Initiative
Communications and Digital Office. Adam Majoe edited Nathan Frisbee Schlumberger
the manuscript. Francisco Laveron Iberdrola
Antonio Merino Garcia Repsol
We would like to thank the following organisations that Steve Nadel The American Council for an
gave their time to answer questions and respond to Energy-Efficient Economy
surveys covering different parts of the energy Susanne Nies ENTSO-E
investment value chain: ADNOC, Andritz, BHGE, BP, Sanjoy Rajan European Investment Bank
CGN, Chevron, Enel, Engie, Eni, Equinor,, ExxonMobil, Robert Schwiers Jr. Chevron
GE, Hess Corporation, Iberdrola, J Power, KfW, MHPS, Mark Shores ExxonMobil
NEOEN, Occidental Petroleum, Ørsted, Repsol, Saudi Sune Strom Ørsted
Aramco, Schlumberger, Shell and Siemens. Michael Taylor IRENA
Wim Thomas Shell
Julien Touati Meridiam
Graham Weale Ruhr University Bochum
Paul Welford Hess
Annex
Methodology and scope of energy investment tracking in WEI 2019
Type Technologies / sectors covered Description

Oil and gas supply (upstream; oil Investment is tracked based on a bottom-up analysis at
refining ;and downstream- company or project level (upstream oil and gas, oil refining,
Fuel supply transport and LNG facilities), coal LNG facilities, biofuels), government and industry statistics (coal
supply (mining and infrastructure), supply) and product supply/demand analysis (oil and gas
biofuels (production capacity) transport).
Fossil fuel (oil, coal, gas), renewable
Investment in power generation is accounted for as the annual
(wind, solar PV, hydro, biomass,
Power generation investment capital spending that is estimated during a plant’s construction
geothermal, solar thermal, marine)
time.
and nuclear plants
Investment in energy efficiency includes incremental spending

by companies, governments, and individuals to acquire
Energy efficiency investment Buildings, industry and transport
equipment that consumes less energy than that which they
would otherwise have bought
R&D investment is tracked based on a bottom-up analysis of

R&D spending Public and private funding
publicly reported spending data.
Financing arrangements and

Sources of finance instruments used to finance assets Analysis based on reported data on financial transactions.
for energy sector investment.
Note: For a more extensive description of the World Energy Investment methodology, please visit iea.org/media/publications/wei/WEI2019-Methodology-Annex.pdf.
Annex
References
Aydin, C., F. Graves and B. Villadsen (2017), Managing Cleantech Group (2019), i3 database (accessed 28
Price Risk for Merchant Renewable Investments: Role of February 2019)
Market Interactions and Dynamics on Effective Hedging
Strategies, The Brattle Group, Cambridge, Clean Horizon (2019), Energy Storage Project Database,
Massachusetts. https://www.cleanhorizon.com
(accessed 20 March 2019)
Bartlett, J. (2019), Reducing Risk in Merchant Wind and
Solar Projects through Financial Hedges, Resources for Climate Bonds Initiative (2019), dataset provided by
the Future, Washington, D.C. Climate Bonds Initiative.
Bloomberg (2019), Bloomberg Terminal (accessed EEI (Edison Electric Institute) (2017), 2017 Financial
multiple times during March-April 2019) Review: Annual Report of the U.S. Investor-Owned
Electric Utility Industry, Edison Electric Institute,
BNEF (Bloomberg New Energy Finance) (2019), Washington, D.C.
www.bnef.com (accessed 10 April 2019)
BSRIA (Building Services Research and Information

Association) (2018), Heat Pump World Overviews 2016-18
and WWAC World Overviews 2011-17, Bracknell.
China Energy Storage Alliance (2019), webpage,

http://en.cnesa.org/
Annex
References
EEX (2019), webpage, http://www.eex.com/en/ www.mercatoelettrico.org/En/Tools/Accessodati.aspx?R

(accessed 17 March 2019) eturnUrl=%2fEn%2fStatistiche%2fTEE%2fStatisticheTEE.a
spx (accessed 8 April 2019)
EMMY (Registre National des Certificats d’Economie
d’Energie) (2019), Données Mensuelles, IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) (2019), Power
https://www.emmy.fr/public/donnees-mensuelles Reactor Information System (PRIS), IAEA, Vienna, Austria,
(accessed 8 April 2019) https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/home.aspx
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (2019), Fred Economic IEA (2019a), Oil 2019: Analysis and Forecasts to 2024,
Data, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/ (accessed 20 March IEA, Paris, https://webstore.iea.org/market-report-series-
2019) oil-2019
Feldman and Schwabe (2018), Terms, Trends and IEA (2019b, forthcoming), Global Electric Vehicle
Insights on PV Project Finance in the United States, 2018, Outlook, IEA, Paris
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden,
Colorado. IEA (2019c), Global Energy & CO2 Status Report, IEA,
Paris, https://www.iea.org/geco/index.html
F.O. Licht (2019) F.O. Lichts Interactive Data (database),
www.agra-net.com/agra/worldethanolandbiofuels- IEA (2018a), World Energy Investment 2018, IEA, Paris,
report/ https://www.iea.org/wei2018/
GME (Gestore Mercati Energetici [Energy Market

Manager]) (2019), Energy Efficiency Certificates –
Sessions (database), GME, Rome,
Annex
References
IEA ( 2018b), World Energy Outlook 2018, IEA, Paris Kojima, M. and C. Trimble (2016), Making Power
https://www.iea.org/weo2018/ Affordable for Africa and Viable for Its Utilities, World
Bank Group, Washington, D.C.,
IEA (2018c), Renewables 2018: Analysis and Forecasts to https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/25
2023, IEA, Paris, https://webstore.iea.org/market-report- 091.
series-renewables-2018
McCoy Power Reports (2019), Dataset, Richmond,
IEA (2018d), Global ESCO survey 2018, IEA, Paris, https://www.mccoypower.net/
www.iea.org/topics/energyefficiency/escos
Nasdaq (2019) , webpage, https://www.nasdaq.com/
IEA (2017), World Energy Investment 2017, IEA, Paris, (accessed 17 March 2019)
https://www.iea.org/publications/wei2017/
NRG Expert (2019), Electricity Transmission and
IEA (2011), IEA Guide to Reporting Energy RD&D Distribution database, https://www.nrgexpert.com/
Budget/Expenditure Statistics, IEA, Paris,
https://www.iea.org/stats/RDD%20Manual.pdf Platts (2019), World Electric Power Plants Database,
Platts, Washington, D.C.
IJGlobal (2019), “Transaction Data”, web page,
https://ijglobal.com/data/search-transactions (accessed
multiple times during March-April 2019)
IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency) (2019),

Renewable cost dataset, Germany https://www.irena.org
Annex
References
Rystad Energy (2019), UCube (database), Rystad

(accessed multiple times during March-April 2019)
TFS Green Australia (2018), webpage,

https://tfsgreen.com.au/ accessed (accessed 05 April
2019)
Thomson Reuters Eikon (2019) (accessed multiple times

during March-April 2019)
US DOE (United States Department of Energy) (2018),

2017 Wind Technologies Market Report, August 2018,
Washington, D.C.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/downloads/2017-
wind-technologies-market-report
WindEurope (2019), Financing and investment trends:

The European wind industry in 2018, WindEurope,
https://windeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/files/about-
wind/reports/Financing-and-Investment-Trends-
2018.pdf
World Bank (2019), World Bank Open Data, (accessed

15 March 2019) https://data.worldbank.org/
Annex
This publication reflects the views of the IEA Secretariat

but does not necessarily reflect those of individual IEA
member countries. The IEA makes no representation or
warranty, express or implied, in respect of the
publication’s contents (including its completeness or
accuracy) and shall not be responsible for any use of, or
reliance on, the publication.
Unless otherwise indicated, all material presented in

figures and tables is derived from IEA data and analysis.
This publication and any map/figure/table included
herein are without prejudice to the status of or
sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of
international frontiers and boundaries and to the name
of any territory, city or area. Please note that this
publication is subject to specific restrictions that limit its
use and distribution. The terms and conditions are
available online at iea.org/t&c
IEA. All rights reserved.

IEA Publications
International Energy Agency
Website: iea.org
Contact information: iea.org/about/contact
Design in France by IEA - May 2019

WEI Reort 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WEI Reort 2019

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WEI Reort 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

World Energy

1 | World Energy Investment 2019 | IEA 2019. All rights reserved.

2 | World Energy Investment 2019 | IEA 2019. All rights reserved.

Investment made today in energy infrastructure will

3 | World Energy Investment 2019 | IEA 2019. All rights reserved.

Overview and key findings …..……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………7

Energy end-use and efficiency..…..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………35

Power sector ..………………………………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………49

Fuel supply ..….………………………………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………81

Financing and funding trends ..…..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………116

4 | World Energy Investment 2019 | IEA 2019. All rights reserved.

R&D and new technologies ......…..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………156

5 | World Energy Investment 2019 | IEA 2019. All rights reserved.

6 | World Energy Investment 2019 | IEA 2019. All rights reserved.

7 | World Energy Investment 2019 | IEA 2019. All rights reserved.

Energy investment by sector

8 | World Energy Investment 2019 | IEA 2019. All rights reserved.

After three years of decline, global energy investment stabilized in 2018

Global energy investment in 2018 and change compared to 2017

9 | World Energy Investment 2019 | IEA 2019. All rights reserved.

Power sector Oil & gas supply

10 | World Energy Investment 2019 | IEA 2019. All rights reserved.

11 | World Energy Investment 2019 | IEA 2019. All rights reserved.

Changing costs have reshaped the investment landscape in some areas

Capital costs in selected energy-related sectors

120 Upstream oil

12 | World Energy Investment 2019 | IEA 2019. All rights reserved.

Actual investment Implied investment at

13 | World Energy Investment 2019 | IEA 2019. All rights reserved.

…while adjusted for costs, renewables investment is up 55% since 2010

Actual investment Implied investment at

14 | World Energy Investment 2019 | IEA 2019. All rights reserved.

15 | World Energy Investment 2019 | IEA 2019. All rights reserved.

…as industry seeks to limit long-term risks in a changing energy system

16 | World Energy Investment 2019 | IEA 2019. All rights reserved.

Energy investment by geography

17 | World Energy Investment 2019 | IEA 2019. All rights reserved.

Changes in energy supply investment, 2010-18

China United States Rest of World

100 100 100

- 100 - 100 - 100

- 150 - 150 - 150

- 200 - 200 - 200

Power sector Fuel supply Net change in energy supply investment

18 | World Energy Investment 2019 | IEA 2019. All rights reserved.

Energy investment by sector in selected markets in 2018

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

USD (2018) billion

19 | World Energy Investment 2019 | IEA 2019. All rights reserved.

Energy investment by sector in selected markets, 2015 and 2018

Oil and gas

250 Energy Efficiency

200 Electricity networks

20 | World Energy Investment 2019 | IEA 2019. All rights reserved.

China remained the largest market for energy

21 | World Energy Investment 2019 | IEA 2019. All rights reserved.

22 | World Energy Investment 2019 | IEA 2019. All rights reserved.

Energy investment was mostly in high and upper-middle income regions…

Energy investment and population by region, classified by current income level