IRENA Energy Subsidies 2020

ENERGY SUBSIDIES
Evolution in the Global Energy

Transformation to 2050
TECHNICAL PAPER 1/2020

BY MICHAEL TAYLOR
© IRENA 2020
Unless otherwise stated, material in this publication may be freely used, shared, copied, reproduced, printed and/or stored, provided that
appropriate acknowledgement is given of the author(s) as the source and IRENA as the copyright holder. Material in this publication that is
attributed to third parties may be subject to separate terms of use and restrictions, and appropriate permissions from these third parties may
need to be secured before any use of such material.
ISBN 978-92-9260-125-6
Citation: Taylor, Michael (2020), Energy subsidies: Evolution in the global energy transformation
to 2050, International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi.
About IRENA
The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) serves as the principal platform for
international co-operation, a centre of excellence, a repository of policy, technology, resource and
financial knowledge, and a driver of action on the ground to advance the transformation of the
global energy system. An intergovernmental organisation established in 2011, IRENA promotes the
widespread adoption and sustainable use of all forms of renewable energy, including bioenergy,
geothermal, hydropower, ocean, solar and wind energy, in the pursuit of sustainable development,
energy access, energy security and low-carbon economic growth and prosperity. www.irena.org
Acknowledgements
Nicholas Wagner, a colleague at the IRENA Innovation and Technology Centre, provided key input on the
REmap analysis.
Valuable external review was provided by Ben Caldecott (University of Oxford), Youngjin Kim (University of Sussex),
Doug Koplow (Earth Track), Andreas Kraemer (Ecologic Institute), Wataru Matsumura (International Energy Agency)
and Benjamin Sovacool (University of Sussex) .
Valuable review and feedback were provided by IRENA colleagues Dolf Gielen, Emanuele Bianco, Xavier Casals,
Ricardo Gorini, Paul Komor and Neil MacDonald. The editor of this report was Jon Gorvett.
Michael Taylor heads IRENA's Costs team.
IRENA is grateful for the generous support of the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy of Germany,
which made the publication of this report a reality.
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of IRENA. This publication
does not represent IRENA’s official position or views on any topic.
The Technical Papers series are produced as a contribution to technical discussions and to disseminate new findings on relevant topics. Such
publications may be subject to comparatively limited peer review. They are written by individual authors and should be cited and described
accordingly.
The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of IRENA
or all its Members. IRENA does not assume responsibility for the content of this work or guarantee the accuracy of the data included herein.
Neither IRENA nor any of its officials, agents, data or other third-party content providers provides a warranty of any kind, either expressed or
implied, and they accept no responsibility or liability for any consequence of use of the publication or material herein. The mention of specific
companies, projects or products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended, either by IRENA or the author(s). The designations
employed and the presentation of material herein do not imply the expression of any opinion on the part of IRENA or the author(s) concerning
the legal status of any region, country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of frontiers or boundaries.
CONTENTS
Figures 4
Tables 5
Abbreviations 7
Key findings 9
Executive summary 10
Energy subsidies in 2017 10
Evolution of total energy subsidies to 2050 11
More work needed on total energy subsidies 13
1 S UBSIDIES, PRIVILEGES, UNPRICED EXTERNALITIES AND

THE ENERGY TRANSITION 15
1.2 What purpose do subsidies serve and how to define them? 17
• Different definitions of energy subsidies 20
• Expanding on definitions: Categorising and calculating subsidy levels 23
2 E NERGY SECTOR SUBSIDY ESTIMATES 28

2.1 Renewable energy subsidies 28
• Global renewable subsidy estimates for 2017 31
2.2 Fossil-fuel subsidy levels: Definitions and calculation methodologies matter 38
• Methodology matters: Fossil-fuel subsidies in Germany 39
2.3 Total fossil-fuel subsidies 42
2.4 Nuclear power subsidies 44

• Summary 45
3 TOTAL ENERGY SUBSIDIES IN 2017 AND

THEIR EVOLUTION TO 2050: THE REMAP CASE 47
3.1 Total energy sector subsidies to 2050 48
Conclusions 58
References 61
Annex A: Different definitions of energy subsidies 63
FIGURES
Figure S–1: Total energy sector subsidies by fuel/source and the climate and health costs, 2017 11
Figure S-2: Energy sector subsidies by source excluding climate and health costs in the REmap Case,
2017, 2030 and 2050 12
Figure 1: Global energy sector carbon-dioxide emissions in the Reference and REmap Cases, 2010–2050 15
Figure 2: Negative externalities and their impact on supply and demand 19
Figure 3: Negative externalities and subsidies for fossil fuels – impact on supply and demand 20
Figure 4: IRENA's global subsidy estimates for renewable power generation and biofuels by
country/region, 2017 34
Figure 5: IRENA subsidy estimates for renewable power generation

by country/region and technology, 2017 35
Figure 6: IRENA subsidy estimates for biofuels for transport by country/region and fuel, 2017 36
Figure 7: Subsidies to fossil fuels in Germany from different sources, 2014/2016 41
Figure 8: Total global fossil-fuel subsidies by fuel/energy carrier, 2017 42
Figure 9: Fossil-fuel subsidies by country and fuel/energy carrier, 2017 43
Figure 10: Total energy sector subsidies by fuel/source, 2017 47
Figure 11: Total energy sector subsidies by fuel/source and the climate and health costs, 2017 48
Figure 12: Key energy sector indicators in the REmap case to 2050 49
Figure 13: Energy sector subsidies by source excluding climate and health costs in the
REmap case, 2017, 2030 and 2050 51
Figure 14: Energy sector subsidies by fuel or sector excluding climate and health costs in the
REmap case, 2017, 2030 and 2050 53
Figure 15: Transport sector energy subsidies by fuel/source excluding climate and health costs
in the REmap case, 2017, 2030 and 2050 54
Figure 16: Industry and Buildings sectors: Energy subsidies by fuel/source excluding climate
and health costs in the REmap case, 2017, 2030 and 2050 55
Figure 17: Energy sector subsidies by fuel/source and sector/end-use

(excluding climate and health costs) in the REmap Case, 2030 and 2050 56
Figure 18: Total energy sector subsidies by fuel/source compared to climate and health
cost savings in the REmap Case, 2017, 2030 and 2050 57
4 | ENERGY SECTOR SUBSIDIES

TABLES
Table 1: Different definitions of energy subsidies and their strengths and weaknesses 21
Table 2: A typology of global energy subsidies 25
Table 3: An overview of the common methods of subsidy calculation and their relative merits 27
Table 4: Selected country and regional estimates of renewable energy subsidies in 2017 29
Table 5: Overview of IRENA coverage and calculation methods for country and regional
estimates of renewable energy subsidies in 2017 32
Table 6: Comparison of the level, scope of comprehensive multi-country fossil-fuel subsidy estimates 39
Table 7: Subsidy categories and sources for nuclear power 45
EVOLUTION IN THE GLOBAL ENERGY TRANSFORMATION TO 2050 | 5

ABBREVIATIONS
°C degrees Celsius
CCS carbon capture and storage
CO₂ carbon dioxide
CSP Concentrated Solar Power
EV electric vehicle
G20 Group of Twenty
GDP gross domestic product
GJ gigajoule
Gt gigatonne
GW gigawatt
GWh gigawatt-hour
IEA International Energy Agency
IMF International Monetary Fund
IRENA International Renewable Energy Agency
kWh kilowatt-hour
LCOE levelised cost of energy
MW megawatt
MWh megawatt-hour
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PJ petajoule
PV photovoltaic
RE renewable energy
REmap renewable energy roadmap analysis by IRENA
TWh terawatt-hour
USD United States dollar
VRE variable renewable energy
WB World Bank

KEY FINDINGS
The world’s total, direct energy sector subsidies according to the REmap Case set out by IRENA for
– including those to fossil fuels, renewables and realistic acceleration in the worldwide deployment of
nuclear power – are estimated to have been at least renewables. Total energy sector subsidies in 2050 are
USD 634 billion in 2017. 25 % lower than in 2017 and 45 % (USD 395 billion)
lower than they would be based on current plans and
Total fossil-fuel subsidies in many countries are policies.
dominated by subsidies to petroleum products.
IRENA’s roadmap for more sustainable energy
Subsidies to clean and renewable energy (environmentally development sees a rebalancing of energy subsidies
friendly subsidies) can help to improve the efficiency away from environmentally harmful ones to fossil
of capital allocation across the energy sector. This fuels and towards support for renewables and energy
is because externalities stemming from fossil-fuel efficiency by 2050.
use – notably the costs imposed on society from their
associated air pollution and climate change – are not In the REmap Case, total energy subsidies decline
typically fully priced. from 0.8 % of global Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in
2017 to 0.2 % in 2050.
Yet the continued imbalance remains staggering. In
2017, the costs of unpriced externalities and the direct Greater harmonisation of subsidy calculation
subsidies for fossil fuels (USD 3.1 trillion) exceeded methodologies, definitions of what constitutes
subsidies for renewable energy by a factor of 19. a subsidy and the boundary conditions for the
application of the definition would help provide
By 2050, total, annual energy subsidies could decline greater clarity around both the current level and
from USD 634 billion to USD 475 billion per year, trends in total energy sector subsidies.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The world’s total, direct energy sector subsidies USD 189 billion, or 42 % of the global total. The top ten
– including those to fossil fuels, renewables and countries accounted for 61 % (USD 272 billion) of total
nuclear power – are estimated to have been at least fossil subsidies in 2017.
USD 634 billion in 2017. These were dominated by
subsidies to fossil fuels, which account for around 70% In this analysis, the International Renewable Energy
(USD 447 billion) of the total. Subsidies to renewable Agency (IRENA) has estimated supply-side support
power generation technologies account for around to renewables at around USD 166 billion in 2017.
20 % of total energy sector subsidies (USD 128 billion), Total support to renewable power generation
biofuels for about 6 % (USD 38 billion) and nuclear for was around USD 128 billion in 2017, and transport
at least 3 % (USD 21 billion). sector support added a further USD 38 billion for
biofuels. The European Union accounted for around
The actual level of total energy sector subsidies is, 54 % (USD 90 billion) of total estimated renewable
in all probability, larger due to data gaps. Coverage subsidies in 2017, followed by the United States, with
of sub-national incentives for both fossil-fuel and 14 % (USD 23 billion), Japan with 11% (USD 19 billion),
renewables subsidies is likely not comprehensive, the United States with 9 % (USD 16 billion), India with
while the subsidy value for nuclear in this analysis is a 2 % (USD 4 billion) and the rest of the world with
placeholder value, reflecting the lowest realistic level slightly less than 9% (USD 15 billion). Subsidies for
of subsidies for existing nuclear power generation. renewable power generation were dominant in Japan
(99 %), China (97 %), the EU (87 %) and India (76 %).
Subsidies for biofuels dominated in the United States
ENERGY SUBSIDIES IN 2017 (61 %) and the rest of the world (71 %).
By combining existing estimates of subsidies to Robust estimates of subsidies to existing and new
fossil fuels from the Organisation for Economic nuclear power globally are not available. Scaling up
Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the the lowest estimate of subsidies to existing nuclear
International Energy Agency (IEA), this analysis finds capacity in the United States to a global level, however,
the global total, direct fossil-fuel subsidies in 2017 yields a subsidy figure of around USD 21 billion for
to be at least USD 447 billion. Subsidies to petroleum 2017. This must be considered a placeholder, with the
products dominated the total, at USD 220 billion, possibility that much higher values are realistic; but it
followed by electricity-based support to fossil fuels is also an acknowledgement that a value of zero is not
at USD 128 billion. Subsidies to natural gas and coal a robust assumption. Comparable detailed analysis is
in 2017 were estimated to be USD 82 billion and not available globally, so although the United States
USD 17 billion, respectively. may not be representative of the global experience,
the estimates for existing nuclear subsidies in the
Total fossil-fuel subsidies in many countries are United States per unit of generation, when scaled to
dominated by subsidies to petroleum products. Half global nuclear generation in 2017, could have ranged
of the twelve countries with the largest fossil-fuel from around USD 21 billion to USD 165 billion. This is
subsidies in 2017 had total subsidy levels dominated an area where further additional research is warranted,
by support for petroleum fuels. The top five countries given the absence of comparable cross-country data
for fossil-fuel subsidies in 2017 had total subsidies of on subsidies in the nuclear power sector.

Figure S–1: Total energy sector subsidies by fuel/source and the climate and health costs, 2017
Fossil fuels Nuclear Renewables

2500
2263
2000
1500
2018 USD billion
1000
500 447
366
128
21 38
0
Air pollution Climate costs Fossil fuels Nuclear Renewable Transport
(direct) power
generation
Environmentally friendly subsidies (EFS) to clean and subsidies for fossil fuels (USD 3.1 trillion) exceeded
renewable energy can help to improve the efficiency subsidies for renewable energy by a factor of 19. In
of capital allocation across the energy sector. This this report, subsidies to fossil fuels are referred to
is because externalities stemming from fossil-fuel use as "environmentally harmful subsidies" (EHS) and
– notably the costs imposed on society from their those to energy efficiency, clean and renewable
associated air pollution and climate change – are not energy "environmentally friendly subsidies" (EFS).
typically fully priced. In 2017, a central estimate for the
health costs arising from outdoor pollution generated
by fossil fuel use was around USD 2 260 billion, with EVOLUTION OF TOTAL ENERGY
climate change costs of around USD 370 billion SUBSIDIES TO 2050
assuming USD 11/tonne of CO2 (Figure S-1). Subsidies
to renewable energy, albeit a second-best policy Between 2017 and 2030, total, annual energy sector
response from an economist’s perspective, help to subsidies could decline from USD 634 billion to
reallocate capital investment away from fossil fuels, USD 466 billion per year, according to the REmap
going some way to mitigating the negative impacts of Case set out by IRENA for realistic acceleration in
fossil fuel use in the absence of the full pricing of fossil the worldwide deployment of renewables, and be
fuel externalities. around USD 475 billion in 2050 (Figure S-2). Total
energy sector subsidies in 2050 would therefore
Yet the continued imbalance remains staggering. In be around 25 % lower than in 2017 and 45 %
2017, the costs of unpriced externalities and the direct (USD 390 billion) lower than they would be based

Figure S-2: Energy sector subsidies by source excluding climate and health costs in the REmap Case,
2017, 2030 and 2050
600 100%
90%
29%
500 35%
80%
70% 4%
447 139
400 70%
Share of subsidies
165
6%
2018 USD billion
60%
21 7% 22%
300 50%
27 10%
34 106
40%
47
200
21 30%
41% 44%
20%
100 192 209
166 26%
1 0%
0 0%
2017 2030 2050 2017 2030 2050
Fossil fuels Nuclear Electric vehicles Efficiency Renewables
on current plans and policies. Under the current plans the subsidies to fossil fuels are to support carbon-
and policies (the Reference Case), oil and natural gas dioxide capture and storage (CCS) in industrial
demand would be higher, and there is little progress applications. The share of fossil fuels in total
in the reduction of per unit subsidies to fossil fuels. energy sector subsidies falls from around 70 % in
The increased use of renewables in the REmap Case 2017, to 35 % in 2030 and to 29 % in 2050. In 2050,
brings a subsidy reduction compared to the Reference the subsidies for fossil fuels from CCS in industrial
Case in 2030 of USD 341 billion, or 42 % lower, rising applications (primarily to address process emissions)
to USD 390 billion lower in 2050. Overall, total energy reach USD 126 billion, with over 60 % required for the
sector subsidies in the REmap Case could be around iron and steel sector, 23 % for the cement sector and
USD 10 trillion lower than in the Reference Case over 14 % in the chemicals sector.
the period to 2050.
IRENA’s roadmap for more sustainable energy
Direct subsidies for fossil fuels fall from development sees a rebalancing of energy sector
USD 447 billion in 2017, to USD 165 billion in 2030 subsidies away from environmentally harmful
and to USD 139 billion in 2050 in the REmap Case, subsidies towards environmentally friendly subsidies
as per unit subsidies are reduced and fossil fuel by 2050. As renewable power becomes increasingly
demand declines. Existing subsidy programmes competitive and early high-cost subsidies to solar
are reduced significantly and by 2050 over 90 % of PV, in particular, expire, the subsidies for renewable

power generation decline to USD 53 billion in 2030 and Greater harmonisation of subsidy calculation
are virtually eliminated by 2050, according to REmap methodologies, definitions of what constitutes
projections. With more effort to decarbonise the a subsidy and the boundary conditions for the
more difficult end-use sectors, their share of subsidies application of the definition would help provide
begins to increase. The subsidies needed over and greater clarity around both the current level and
above the Reference Case in Industry by 2050 reach trends in total energy sector subsidies. This would
USD 166 billion1, with USD 100 billion for energy reduce the uncertainty around subsidy estimates’
efficiency and the balance for renewable heat. In the comparability and potentially reduce unnecessary
Buildings sector, subsidies grow to USD 28 billion in duplications of effort. A greater focus on subsidy
2050, predominantly (88 %) for renewable heating, trends in the energy sector would, in turn, allow
cooling and cooking solutions. a more robust, fact-based debate around efforts
to reform energy subsidies. Such discussions are
In the REmap case, total energy sector subsidies crucial as countries strive to meet their respective
decline from 0.8 % of global Gross Domestic Product commitments to meet the climate goals set out under
(GDP) in 2017 to 0.2 % in 2050. The division of total the Paris Agreement. 2
energy sector subsidies as a share of GDP to a quarter
of its 2017 value in 2050 is driven by the decline in total
energy sector subsidies from USD 634 billion in 2015 to
USD 475 billion per year in 2050, at the same time as
global GDP is projected to grow by around 58 %.
MORE WORK NEEDED ON TOTAL

ENERGY SUBSIDIES
Analysis of energy sector subsidies has, in the past,

focussed on fossil fuels. There are relatively few
institutions examining global subsidies to individual
fuels or technologies using a consistent methodology
and accounting approach to their calculation.
Moreover, because these institutions often use slightly
different subsidy definitions and calculation methods,
it can be difficult to compare existing subsidy data on
a like-for-like basis. This can introduce unnecessary
confusion in the minds of key stakeholders and can
divert resources from focussing on policy reform.
1 The subsidies to finance investment in CCS for fossil-fuel operations are in addition to this figure.
2 The historic 2015 climate deal, endorsed by nearly all countries worldwide, calls for limiting the rise in average global temperatures to “well below 2 °C”, and ideally
1.5 °C, during the present century, compared to pre-industrial levels. Every country needs to cut carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions in the energy sector for the world
to achieve these aims, regarded as crucial to avert catastrophic climate change.

1 SUBSIDIES, PRIVILEGES,
UNPRICED EXTERNALITIES
AND THE ENERGY TRANSITION
In order to meet the Paris Agreement objective that To meet the Paris goals, current annual emissions of
the global temperature rise be kept to “well below CO₂ from the energy sector need to fall as soon as
2 °C”, the global energy sector requires nothing short possible, while sustaining a downward trend to net
of a complete transformation, during the coming zero in the shortest time possible.
decades.
The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA),
At the same time, while the political will to avoid in the report Global Energy Transformation: A
dangerous climate change demonstrated by the Roadmap to 2050 (IRENA, 2019a), has provided just
countries of the world in signing the Paris Agreement such a pathway for renewables and energy efficiency,
is welcome, as the IPCC Special Report on “Global outlining the crucial elements for the world to achieve
Warming of 1.5 °C” makes clear, time is of the essence. the Paris goals (Figure 1).1
Figure 1: Global energy sector carbon-dioxide emissions in the Reference and REmap Cases,
2010–2050
Annual energy-related CO2 emissions, 2010–2050 (Gt/yr)
35 Reference Case: 33 Gt in 2050

Buildings Electrification
30 of heat and
Buildings transport w/RE: Renewable
Transport 36% energy and
25 electrification
Transport
District Heat 70% emission deliver 75%
reductions
Renewable of emission
energy:
20 resulting reductions
Power 39%
District Heat from the
REmap Case
15 Energy
Industry efficiency
and others:
Power
25%
10
REmap Case: 9.8 Gt in 2050
5
Industry
0
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Source: IRENA, 2019b.

Note: The chart covers only CO2 emissions from the energy sector; it does not include other greenhouse gas emissions or land use changes.
1 See IRENA (2019a) for more details of how the Reference and REmap Cases discussed in this report are developed.

The IRENA analysis demonstrates that renewable need to understand what is driving these high-level
energy technologies are increasingly cost-competitive changes and how sensitive they are to different
in many geographies and markets and that the energy inputs or assumptions about technological progress,
transition will yield significant economic benefits performance improvements and cost reductions.
(IRENA 2019b).
Policy makers will therefore seek other cost metrics
New-build renewable power generation technologies, that allow them to understand these nuances. These
increasingly without subsidies, will even displace can include, for example, looking at the costs of the
existing coal, or nuclear power plants. This is because transition in different sectors by examining changes in
their total lifetime costs are lower than these older overall electricity system costs, including generation,
plants’ variable operating costs. This trend implies ancillary services, transmission and distribution. Other
that the energy transition is both ecologically and cost metrics can provide greater granularity, helping
economically sustainable. understand in more detail the drivers of overall costs
and how they can be minimised.
Given the urgency of fighting global warming, however,
the transformation of the energy sector will require As an example, examining renewable electricity
the development and deployment of existing and new generation technology data on installed, operational
technologies that today play only a minor role. Some and maintenance costs, technology trends,
of these technologies may, however, have higher costs performance, the cost of finance and the levelised cost
than polluting incumbents, at least initially. Minimising of electricity (LCOE) allows for a deeper understanding
the costs and maximising the benefits of energy sector of what is driving costs in different regions. This may
transformation are therefore important considerations also highlight where policy efforts may be required to
for policy makers, with these needing to be balanced reduce costs. At the same time, specific sub-sectors
against the increasing cost of delaying climate change will be interested in their own energy use and how it
mitigation action. interacts with the others (e. g., the implications for the
transmission and distribution systems of renewable
Many metrics to assess the costs of the energy transition power generation siting).
are available to policy makers, who are interested in
minimising the costs of the energy transition (and With policy makers focused on cost-minimisation,
maximising the benefits). Different metrics also yield the price benchmarks used for long-term decision
different insights, depending on the questions being making need to be accurate and must reflect total
posed and the interest of those asking. costs. Ignoring the health and environmental costs
of incumbent resources can result in sub-optimal
Important metrics that can help inform decision investment decisions. So too can improperly capturing
makers include changes in GDP and net societal and calculating energy subsidies, both now and over
wealth, taking into account the environmental costs the evolution of any energy sector transformation.
and benefits. In practical terms, though, policy makers These factors have an important impact on the

economic efficiency of the energy sector, as they 1.2 WHAT PURPOSE DO SUBSIDIES
change capital allocation, investment and operational SERVE AND HOW TO DEFINE THEM?
decisions by sector stakeholders.
Subsidies can arise as the result of deliberate
For virtually all of the modern era of energy usage, the interventions by governments, or as the unintended
energy sector has operated with a range of subsidies consequences of policy decisions, or from market
that have, to a greater or lesser extent, distorted market failures. Energy subsidies are not necessarily bad per
functioning (indeed, the sector has often actively se, but this depends on how and why they are being
sought these). In many cases, what policy makers or implemented. 2 What matters are the objectives being
industries considered temporary subsidies – both well- pursued and how the subsidies may interact with other
intentioned and egregious ones alike – have persisted policy priorities.
for decades, as industry has actively sought to ensure
their continuation. In some instances, industry has even Energy subsidies can be pursued in order to achieve
actively framed the debate to exclude such policies, specific policy goals, such as:
on the basis that they are not subsidies.
• Provide affordable energy for low income members
Indeed, what is typically lacking in discussions around of society.
subsidies is transparency – about the reasons why
energy subsidies for different technologies or end- • Correct markets for unpriced externalities.
uses may be needed, or about when they can be
beneficial or, conversely, when they should be avoided • Induce technology learning and drive down the costs
or phased out. In addition, transparency about of new technologies.
the level of subsidies awarded to different energy
sources, technologies or sectors is also sometimes • Reduce import dependence and enhance energy
lacking. This often originates in the decisions by security.
different stakeholders about what to characterise as
a subsidy, although confusion can also arise around • Create new economic activity and jobs.
subsidy levels, because the boundary conditions for
the calculation of what is and what is not a subsidy For instance, policies that cap the price of kerosene
can vary between different estimates, with a range of for cooking and lighting below international prices
accounting methods for calculating them available. are sometimes used to ensure affordable energy for
the poorest members of society. This may have a
This report sets out some of the basic definitional negative interaction with health, environmental and
issues that face policy makers and others when macroeconomic policy goals, however, by encouraging
assessing subsidy levels in the energy sector. It also higher use of kerosene than would otherwise occur.
identifies subsidies to the sector, looks at the strengths One macroeconomic consequence might be a negative
and weaknesses of different subsidy definitions and impact on a country’s balance of payments, if that fuel
discusses the evolution of energy subsidies up to the has to be imported.
year 2050, under the REmap Case.
2 Although energy subsidies may not be “bad”, the way they are designed may not be the most efficient way of achieving legitimate policy goals. Subsidies designed
to correct market failures should ideally do so in the most efficient manner possible in order to maximise the benefits. The German overseas development agency
has created guidelines for how to approach the trade-offs between efficiency and policy goals in order to develop subsidies that are as efficient as possible
(GTZ, 2009).

In addition, a subsidy may be an inefficient way of At the same time, an induced or implicit fossil-fuel
achieving the stated goal, if the subsidy to kerosene is subsidy exists almost everywhere, as these energy
predominantly captured by middle income households, sources do not typically pay the full price of their
or the benefits of access are offset by the negative negative externalities during production, manufacture
health impact and cost of air pollution. As a result, a and use.
better way to ensure the less well-off of society have
access to affordable energy might be a targeted direct Key negative externalities include local air pollutants
cash grant, that doesn't distort price signals to all. that affect local environment and biodiversity, as well
This one example serves to highlight the complexity as impose significant health costs; and greenhouse
of analysing energy subsidies, without yet touching gas emissions that contribute to dangerous and costly
on the difficulty of trying to calculate overall energy climate change.6
subsidy levels.
Given the agents responsible for many of these negative
At the same time, however, subsidies can be a legitimate externalities are not those who carry the costs, over-
policy tool used to improve economic efficiency when production occurs relative to what would be optimal
market failures occur.3 Energy markets rarely achieve the for society. Unpriced externalities, or ones where the
ideal “perfectly competitive market” that economists use costs are not fully borne, by those responsible for their
as a benchmark to judge whether public intervention is generation result in lower prices and hence higher
merited. As a result, subsidies or other interventions in production than the economic optimum.
market structure and/or operations can be justified, as
they will lead to an improvement in economic efficiency Figure 2 illustrates this in a simple manner.7 Imagine
(WTO, 2006; and GTZ, 2009).4 that a company is managing a fleet of fossil-fuel fired
electricity generation plants. They are generating
In the energy sector, the most common market failures external costs which are borne by others. Their
that policy makers seek to address are those of marginal cost curve when compared to demand (D)
market concentration or market power (e. g., a lack of yields a price of Pprivate and output of Qprivate. Ensuring
competition that allows producers to raise prices above the producer paid the full costs of their negative
efficient market levels) and where there are negative externalities would raise their marginal cost curve,
externalities5 (e. g., costs of production/use that are resulting in higher prices (P*) and lower demand (Q*).
not paid by those responsible for their generation). If the cost of these externalities can be accurately
calculated, this would lead to an efficient equilibrium.8
A related area where subsidies can be justified is
when a technology or industry benefits from strong
learning-by-doing, sometimes referred to as “dynamic
economies of scale”. The effect of this is that the cost
of production declines with cumulative manufacturing
experience.
3 From an economist’s perspective, subsidies are difficult to justify in “perfect” markets, where full competition occurs, particularly in the absence of externalities.
4 Such interventions are virtually never “costless” in that they involve some inefficiencies or costs in administration and implementation. Policy makers and regulators
must therefore determine how to intervene at least cost, in order to maximise efficiency gains.
5 Externalities can be either positive or negative, although in the energy sector they have historically been predominantly negative, given the pollution and health
costs associated with the use of fossil fuels.
6 There are a wide range of other negative externalities that are often not adequately priced, including pollution of water sources in the mining and extraction
process, habitat loss, heavy metals that contaminate the land, crop yield reduction, increased building cleaning, accelerated degradation of building materials, land
acidification, etc. See NRC, 2010 for more details.
7 This is a very specific example of when negative externalities and subsidies shift the marginal cost curve up and down. It is not meant as a detailed discussion of the
economics of subsidies or negative externalities. For a detailed economic assessment of how different types of subsidy affect demand and supply in different ways
see Coady, et al., 2015; GTZ, 2009; and McKitirck, 2017.
8 The scope of this report does not extend to discussing the difficulties in calculating the “accurate” cost of many externalities and hence what constitutes an efficient
outcome.

Figure 2: Negative externalities and their impact on supply and demand
Standard Negative Externality Graph
P
Private+Social Costs
Private Costs
P*
PPrivate
Q* Q Private Q
Unfortunately, there has been little progress in ensuring the benefit of all of society. In these circumstances,
that fossil fuels pay the full cost of their negative subsidies in the early, high-cost period can be
externalities, whether from local or global pollutants. considered learning investments. Crucially, this mean
In the absence of taxes or quotas set at optimal that subsidies for renewable energy technologies like
levels (to create a market), policy makers have often solar and wind power can be temporary, required only
looked for alternative options to deploy renewables during a period of learning-by-doing, as costs then
to address market failures in the energy sector fall, to become competitive with fossil fuels – even if
and unlock the dynamic economies of scale many these fossil fuel producers of negative externalities do
renewable technologies exhibit. The use of subsidies not bear their full costs.
in this context can be seen as governments trying to
ensure that the market operates more efficiently than Notably, in the presence of unpriced or partially-
today. priced negative externalities, subsidies for renewables
represent efforts by policy makers to improve
Subsidies that support renewable technology economic efficiency in the energy sector, while also
deployment that lead to the displacement of fossil unlocking cost reductions.
fuels when the negative externalities of fossil fuels
remain unaddressed therefore help improve the Indeed, given the fact that the negative externalities
economic efficiency of the energy sector. They do of fossil fuels remain predominantly unpriced, the
this by shifting energy generation and use towards subsidies given to fossil fuels today represent a
technologies that reduce those negative externalities. perverse incentive and amplify an already serious
In many cases, subsidies have also been promoted market failure with significant socio-economic and
because of the dynamic economies of scale that apply environmental costs. For example, the World Bank
to the small, modular renewable energy technologies data suggests that the average effective rate of the
(notably solar and wind). In this respect, subsidies world's carbon pricing schemes was just USD 1/t CO2
are the means to unlock low-cost technologies for in 2017 (World Bank, 2019).

Figure 3: Negative externalities and subsidies for fossil fuels – impact on supply and demand
P
Private + Social Costs
Private Costs
Private Costs + Fossil-fuel Subsidies

P*
PPrivate
PSubsidy
Q* Q Private Q Subsidy Q
Figure 3 highlights the impact of subsidies that sectors, technologies or fuels are used to advance
allow greater supply than is economically justified specific proposals. Conversely, better, more transparent
by allowing fossil fuels with negative externalities to data and analysis of energy sector subsidies may
be produced at a lower cost. The subsidies shift the allow policy makers to focus more clearly on achieving
supply curve to the right. At equilibrium in the market, change while more efficiently deploying scarce
the gap between the equilibrium when the negative resources.
externalities are taken into account (P* and Q*) widens
even further (to Psubsidy and Qsubsidy) than in the situation Therefore, the first challenge in trying to calculate the
without subsidies for fossil fuels. amount and source of subsidies in the energy sector is
what definition of subsidies should be used.
Different definitions of energy subsidies
A key issue that will become apparent in this report, is
Today, there is no systematically applied, standardised that at their highest level, subsidy definitions are often
definition of what an energy sector subsidy is, despite broad and simple in order to ensure that the myriad
the prevalence of subsidies in the energy system. Even forms which energy subsidies can take are captured.
without this uncertainty around definitions, given the The drawback of this approach is that although the
breadth and complexity of support given to different spirit of their design is to ensure the net is cast as
energy sub-sectors or fuels, calculating subsidy levels wide as possible in determining what is a subsidy, in
or unpriced externalities can be difficult (Sovacool, reality, this approach makes the decision about which
2017). individual policies or programmes should be included
in subsidy calculations somewhat subjective. This
This lack of clarity in the classification and calculation problem is compounded by the different accounting
of subsidies and their impact can sometimes distract methodologies used to calculate actual subsidy levels,
from the critical issue of accelerating the energy with these sometimes missing a range of energy
transition, when estimates of subsidies for various subsidies.

Table 1: Different definitions of energy subsidies and their strengths and weaknesses
DEFINITION FOCUS/ STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES

METHODOLOGY
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION (WTO) • How energy • Near universal • Not widely used by
subsidies distort acceptance some of the main
“A financial contribution by a government
trade • Often institutions involved in
or any public body within the territory of
• Dispute referenced subsidy reform
a Member”, or when “There is any form of
settlement • Used by many
price support…(where) a benefit is thereby
as basis for
conferred.”
their analysis
INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY (IEA) • On consumer • Broad • Applied only to
subsidies, rather definition consumer subsidies
“Any government action directed primarily at
than producer • Explicitly • Disagreement over
the energy sector that lowers the cost of energy
subsidies covers all reference prices
production, raises the price received by energy
• Fossil and energy • Can miss a range of
producers or lowers the price paid by energy
renewables subsidies
consumers. It can be applied to fossil and non-
• Price-gap • No nuclear numbers
fossil energy in the same way.”
approach
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION • The inventory • Broad • Can miss a range of
AND DEVELOPMENT (OECD)
of support is definition of supports delivered
“Both direct budgetary transfers and tax first step to “support” via price measures
expenditures that in some way provide a benefit identifying • Inventory (prevalent in
or preference for fossil fuel production or subsidies to a approach adds developing countries)
consumption relative to alternatives.” sector to transparency • No estimates for
• Inventory nuclear or renewable
approach subsidies
WORLD BANK (WB) • Support • Good overview • No recent subsidy cal-
countries in of approaches culations of their own
“A deliberate policy action by the government
their subsidy to subsidy • No estimates for
that specifically targets fossil fuels, or electricity
measurement calculation nuclear or renewable
or heat generated from fossil fuels.”
subsidies
INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND (IMF) • Understanding • Includes • Data intensive
magnitude of unpriced • No estimates for
“Pre-tax consumer subsidies arise when the
subsidies to negative nuclear or renewables
prices paid by consumers, including both firms
support reform externalities
(intermediate consumption) and households
• Price-gap
(final consumption), are below supply costs
and inventory
including transport and distribution costs.
approach
Producer subsidies arise when prices are above
this level. Post-tax consumer subsidies arise
when the price paid by consumers is below
the supply cost of energy plus an appropriate
“Pigouvian” (or “corrective”) tax…”
Table 1 provides an overview of five different definitions to articulate what is a subsidy in slightly different
of energy subsidies that have been proposed by ways. In some cases, this is influenced by the area of
institutions either active in calculating energy subsidy competence of the organisation or the mandate under
levels and/or active in the debate over energy sector which they were invited to examine energy subsidies.
subsidy reform (see Annex A for more details). In others, it is more aligned with the method of
Although they all have a common theme, they choose calculation of the subsidies envisaged.

In the European Union (EU), the European Commission The IEA, OECD and IMF definitions all allude, either
(EC) uses the OECD definition and approach when explicitly, or more implicitly, to the importance of
calculating subsidies in the energy sector, while noting both producer and consumer subsidies. As will be
that this has limitations – some of which they seek to seen in coming sections, however, they take quite a
mitigate through various means (Trinomics, 2018). This different approach to measuring subsidies – meaning
leads to a wider definition of subsidies than that of that their capture of both of these is not necessarily
State Aid (see Annex A), but makes the subsidy efforts comprehensive. It's also worth noting that the IMF,
more directly comparable with others. OECD and WTO subsidy definitions are not narrow
energy sector subsidy definitions, but are broad
Some, notably the Overseas Development Institute and definitions of subsidies in general.
Climate Action Network Europe, have used the WTO
definition to calculate subsidies from fiscal support, Historically, the focus of much of the work on energy
public finance and State-Owned Enterprise (SOE) subsidies has been on the reform of "inefficient"
investments at home and abroad (Gençsü et al., 2017). subsidies or those that encourage the "wasteful
consumption" of fossil fuels. This is especially true
The definitions above, not surprisingly, have many in the G20 context, due to the specific wording of
common elements. Yet, they also vary in a sufficiently the document framing the G20 work on fossil-fuel
significant number of ways to suggest that different subsidy reform. This is to some extent reflected in
calculation methods for subsidies (e. g., a price-gap the OECD and World Bank definitions of subsidies,
approach, rather than programme-by-programme where the institutional focus is generally, but not
accounting) are more appropriate, or have implications always, on fossil-fuel subsidy reform. Interestingly,
for the scope of what could be considered a subsidy. the IMF analysis of energy sector subsidies, despite a
They can also potentially be divided into those describing neutral approach in its definition, focusses exclusively
ways in which subsidies are created or conveyed (e. g., on fossil-fuel subsidies (Coady, et al., 2015). The IMF
WTO and OECD), or those that have slightly more of analysis is, however, notable as the only definition
a focus on the way subsidies impact the sector (e. g., that takes into account negative externalities. The IEA
IEA and IMF). The World Bank definition (Kojima and definition is explicit in saying it can be applied equally
Koplow, 2015) is somewhere in between, as it touches to fossil and non-fossil energy sources, but only
first on the mechanisms creating subsidies, before applies their definition and methodology to fossil fuels
indicating the qualifying effects for something to be and renewables, excluding nuclear.
considered a subsidy. The distinction between subsidies
mainly meant to confer benefits on a specific group and This report does not propose a new definition of
those focused on price impact has implications over subsidies, nor should it be interpreted as a critique
whether to apply an inventory or a price-gap calculation of existing ones. Although a more general distinction
method (Skovgaard, 2017). between environmentally harmful subsidies to fossil
fuels and environmentally friendly subsidies to
There are other important dimensions to energy renewables, other clean energy and energy efficiency
susbdies, such as whether they act by benefitting technologies would be welcome. Instead, it tries to
consumers or producers, and how they operate in highlight the differences between definitions and their
practice (e. g., by lowering the prices of different fuels, impact on the scope of subsidy analysis, the calculation
or through direct financial transfers to producers, methods used and the resulting comparability of
tax rebates, subsidised loans, exemptions from energy sector subsidy estimates. This is important,
environmental rules, etc.). To generalise, producer because any analysis of energy sector subsidies ought
subsidies tend to be more important in developed to provide the most comprehensive possible estimate
countries, while consumer subsidies are more prevalent of their total. Not only the definition of energy subsidies
in developing countries. However, they often exist matters here, but also the calculation method and
side-by-side in many countries, where a complicated whether this captures comprehensively both producer
series of subsidies benefitting different stakeholders in and consumer subsidies.
a range of different ways have emerged over time.

Expanding on definitions: Categorising and Fundamental differences in what constitutes a subsidy
calculating subsidy levels can, however, have a material impact on what policies
are considered subsidies. At a very detailed level,
Although the differences in definitions can explain this can be the difference between including a tax
some of the differences in subsidy estimates, what is preference or excluding it, based on specific criteria.
clear is that the focus of different institutions can not For instance, in Europe, in many countries, the EC
only affect their decision about what methodology to excludes the lower tax rate for diesel, rather than
use in the calculation of subsidies, but also what types petrol. They do so because they have defined a tax
of policies are included in their analysis. This can be expenditure subsidy as, “The exemption, exclusion
due to: or deduction from the base tax” (Trinomics, 2018).
Others, however, have taken a different approach
• The policy question being addressed by the and included this lower tax rate on the basis that
institution. this differential represents a subsidy under the WTO
definition of subsidies (ODI & CAN Europe, 2017). Yet,
• Fundamental differences in the conception of what the largest fundamental difference arises from whether
policies represent energy sector subsidies. the negative externalities of fossil fuels are counted as
subsidies. The IMF definition explicitly includes these,
• Data limitations, or limits in the institutional which yields order-of-magnitude differences in energy
resources available for subsidy analysis. sector subsidy compared to those of their peers.
Different institutions have historically had different In addition, data limitations, or the difficulty of
motivations for cataloguing and analysing energy calculating some subsidy types, can lead to the
sector subsidies. These differences can influence underestimation of energy subsidies. For instance,
the methodology and scope of subsidy analysis. For there have been very few attempts to try and
instance, the OECD inventory approach to subsidies identify the monetary value of credit-based subsidies
allows a detailed understanding not only of the order (e. g., loan guarantees or “concessional” reduced-
of magnitude of subsidies, but which specific policies rate loans),9 while government-mandated liability
would need to be reformed. This approach is logical in caps (either for pollution or accidents) are almost
the context within which the OECD tries to advocate universally excluded, given the difficulties of accurately
for better policies. In a similar vein, the IEA has calculating their value. This in part reflects the difficulty
historically undertaken subsidy estimates as part of in finding sufficient data with which to calculate a
its energy modelling exercise. A price-gap approach subsidy. The public sector concessional financing
leverages the IEA’s existing model inputs to provide of energy infrastructure by export credit agencies,
subsidy level estimates and highlight trends in their national development banks and other development
magnitude and incidence over time. Given that the finance institutions is large and may have averaged
IEA focus is on informing their member states through USD 123 billion annually between 2013 and 2015, with
its analysis, rather than on making specific policy 58 % of that going to fossil fuels, 15 % to clean energy 10
recommendations for reform, the lack of detailed and the remaining funding to a miscellanea of other
policy programme information is not a significant energy sector investments (OCI, 2017).
drawback.
9 There are various efforts to call attention to these subsidies. Oil Change International (OCI, 2017) has highlighted the issue and the OECD has proposed an approach
that could be used to calculate these subsidy values if sufficient data could be collected (OECD, 2018).
10 Which they define as, “Energy that is both low carbon and has negligible impacts on the environment and on human populations, if implemented with appropriate
safeguards. Some energy efficiency and some renewable energy – energy coming from naturally replenished resources such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, and
geothermal heat.” “Other” includes nuclear, bioenergy, waste incineration, large hydropower and biofuels. Their reasoning for this is that these energy sources “can
have significant impacts on the environment and on human populations that make it difficult to consider them truly ‘clean’.

The volume of financing doesn’t represent the subsidy identified 17 different types of energy subsidies
level, however. Calculating the subsidy value of these (Table 2) grouped into five families, with these having
types of credit subsidies would require detailed data three possible types of impact.
on not only the loan's rate, but also the terms and
conditions of the loan relative to what might have been Other areas not discussed in Table 2, but which
a market rate and terms and conditions for such a are also relevant, include the transfer onto the
project. This is challenging, because this level of detail government/public sector of costs for remedial action
is not typically in the public domain, while estimating to address environmental pollution (this would fall
an accurate counter-factual market rate and terms and under the fourth category in Table 2), or the weak
conditions can be very difficult. or absent enforcement of environmental regulations.
In some cases, the process for this enforcement to
Despite these challenges, the OECD (OECD, 2018) occur is not transparent and often not considered a
rightly highlights that “Data on government credit subsidy, despite the ultimate result. For instance, some
support is nevertheless an important element that countries’ bankruptcy laws can result in these types
sheds light on government contributions to carbon- of transfers, even if new, liability-free owners continue
intensive infrastructure and to the risk of stranded the operations.
assets. Work on gathering and reporting such
information could provide a more accurate picture Unfortunately, the method of calculating energy sector
of the grant-equivalent value of the government- subsidies can thus have an impact on what subsidies
mediated credit instruments than would information are captured. The limitations of each method are
on the principal value of those instruments alone.” therefore important to understand.
This is also true for government-granted public There are three commonly used approaches to
liability limits (notably for nuclear) in such cases as: calculating subsidy levels (Sovacool, 2017 and Koplow,
accident; weakly enforced environmental regulations; 2018), including:
exceptions for polluters in environmental regulations
(e. g., higher emission limits for coal-fired power • Programme-specific estimation – an inventory
plants); weak regulations for environmental or remedial approach where sources of energy subsidies are
contingencies at the end of project life (e. g., self- identified and quantified.
bonding for coal ash disposal or mine rehabilitation);
government ownership of high-risk or expensive parts • A price-gap analysis – an approach that tries to
of energy infrastructure or fuel cycles; and the transfer identify producer support 11 and consumer support
of end-of-life liabilities to the public sector. These are estimates based on comparing actual prices to some
some of the more prevalent subsidies that are typically reference price.
left uncalculated.
• Total support estimates – tries to identify total
As is clear from this discussion, the importance of consumer and producer support levels, typically to-
how energy subsidies are categorised and calculated date, by combining the above two approaches.
is great. One recent categorisation (Sovacool, 2017)
11 This will not capture certain producer subsidy programmes, however. For instance, producer subsidies in markets with international market pricing for consumers.

Table 2: A typology of global energy subsidies
HOW IT WORKS
TYPE OF SUBSIDY EXAMPLE(S)

RAISES PRICE
LOWERS COST OF LOWER PRICE
TO DISFAVORED
PRODUCTION TO CONSUMER
PRODUCER
DIRECT FINANCIAL • Grants to producers

TRANSFER
• Grants to consumers
• Low-interest or
preferential loans
PREFERENTIAL TAX • R ebates or exemptions
TREATMENT
on royalties, sales taxes,
producer levies and
tariffs
• Investment tax credits
• Production tax credits
• Accelerated depreciation
• State sponsored loan
guarantees
TRADE RESTRICTIONS • Quotas, technical
restrictions, and trade
embargoes
• Import duties and tariffs
ENERGY-RELATED • D irect investment in
SERVICES PROVIDED
energy infrastructure
BY GOVERNMENT AT
LESS THAN FULL COST • Publicly sposored R&D
• Liability insurance
• Free storage of waste
or fuel
• Free transport
REGULATION OF THE • Demand guarantees
ENERGY SECTOR
and mandated
deployment rates
• Price controls and rate
caps
• Market-access restrictions
and standards
Source: Based on Sovacool, 2017.

In this framing of calculation methods, the inclusion As an example, although the inventory method is
or exclusion of calculations referring to externalities is good at identifying individual support programmes
assumed to be a definitional issue, rather than driven that provide subsidies to fossil fuels, yet often have
by the calculation methods themselves.12 no impact on international prices, they can miss some
interventions that act explicitly to reduce consumer or
Table 3 provides an overview of each approach and producer prices. Combining the inventory approach
its strengths and weaknesses. As noted above, the and price-gap method can, in theory, provide more
question of which calculation method to use is often comprehensive subsidy estimates. The challenge in
not an independent decision, but one influenced by the combining these two approaches lies in ensuring that
definition of subsidies used and/or institutional factors. double-counting of support is avoided. For instance,
From a knowledge perspective, however, the goal should direct payments to fuel providers to compensate for
be to arrive at the most comprehensive energy sector below-market government pricing policies need to
subsidy estimates. In this respect, taken individually, be removed from a combined calculation using both
both the inventory and price-gap approaches must be methods, otherwise this practice would be captured
seen as only partial solutions to arriving at total energy in the price-gap calculation and inventory approach.
sector subsidy estimates, as they both have areas of Both the OECD and the IMF (Coady, et al., 2015 and
weakness in terms of what subsidies they can capture. OECD, 2018) have undertaken efforts to integrate
In this respect, combining the two approaches should the two approaches, in order to come up with more
yield a better estimate of total subsidies. comprehensive fossil-fuel subsidy estimates.
12 The methodological issues of how subsidies that arise from unpriced negative externalities are calculated is another aspect of this.

Table 3: An overview of the common methods of subsidy calculation and their relative merits
APPROACH STRENGTHS LIMITATIONS
INVENTORY • Captures transfers whether or not • Does not address quiestions of

• Quantifies value of specific they affect market prices. ultimate incidence of subsidies or
government programmes to • Can incorporate the value of risk pricing distortions.
particular industries and then transfers (e. g. via lending or • Sensitive to decisions on what
aggregates programmes into insurance subsidies) rather than programmes to include.
overall level of support. just the direct government costs. • Requires detailed, programme-
• Transfers include reductions in • Can feed into a variety of level data.
mandatory payments (e. g., tax evaluative frameworks and • Differential baselines across
breaks and shifting of operating support detailed policy reviews political jurisdictions (particularly
risks to the public sector, not needed for reform efforts regarding taxes) can complicate
just cash. Mandated purchase aggregations and cross-country
requirements are often captured, comparisons.
at least qualitively).
PRICE GAP • Can be estimated with relatively • Sensitive to assumptions
• Evaluates positive or negative little data; very useful for multi- regarding “free market” reference
“gaps“ between the domestic country studies even if there is prices and transport prices and
price of energy and the delivered limited access to government to frequency and geographical
price of comparable products documents. dispersion of key data inputs.
from abroad. • Good indicator of pricing and • Understates full value of support
trade distortions. as it ignores transfers that do not
affect end-market prices and may
miss important supports such
as purchase vouchers or cross-
subsidies.
• Estimates for non-traded
goods (e. g., electricity) require
much more detailed analysis to
generate reference prices.
TOTAL SUPPORT ESTIMATE • Integrates transfers with • Limited empirical PSE/CSE data
• Systematic method to aggregate market supports into holistic for fossil fuel markets, although
transfer plus market support to measurement of support. this is improving for OECD
particular industries. • Separates effects on producer countries and a handful of others
and consumer markets. • Data intensive.
Source: Based on Koplow, 2018.

2 ENERGY SECTOR SUBSIDY
ESTIMATES
The present part of the analysis examines the levels The sections that follow look at subsidy estimates to
of energy sector subsidy estimates made by some of renewable energy – including new results from IRENA
the major institutions that have produced reports on – fossil fuels and nuclear. The analysis here does not
global subsidy levels. attempt to examine the current level of subsidies to
energy efficiency or other demand-side technologies.
The focus is on comprehensive studies that look at their relative importance in the evolution of total
global subsidy levels. This is in order to ensure that energy sector subsidies to 2050 is, however, discussed
the numbers presented are as comparable as possible. in the final section of this report.
There are, however, a number of important regional
subsidy estimates, particularly for fossil fuels, that can
in some cases provide useful detail to complement 2.1 RENEWABLE ENERGY SUBSIDIES
or inform these global estimates. Notable examples
include fossil and renewable energy subsidies in To-date, analysis of energy sector subsidies at a global
Europe (Trinomics, 2018; and Gençsü and Zerzawy, level has predominantly focused on environmentally
2017), fossil-fuel subsidies in Asia (ADB, 2016), and harmful subsidies to fossil fuels,13 given their
federal tax subsidies in the United States (CBO, 2016; dominance in the global energy system and total
and CRS, 2017). There is also a significant body of energy subsidies. There are therefore fewer estimates
analysis and data at a country level compiled by the of the financial support given to renewables, calculated
International Institute for Sustainable Development's on a comprehensive and comparable basis. As a result,
Global Subsidies Initiative. available data are often partial, collected on a different
basis and difficult to compare. The exceptions are the
An important point is that although the definitions data in the IEA’s World Energy Outlook, which takes
and calculation methods outlined above apply to the a price-gap approach to estimating renewable energy
energy sector in general – and indeed often explicitly subsidies, and the analysis in this report by IRENA
state so – the much greater part of analysis of energy (both will be discussed below).
sector subsidies to date, whether by governments,
think tanks, research institutions or academics, has Before discussing the global IEA and IRENA subsidy
focused on fossil-fuel subsidies. As will become clear in estimates for renewable energy, the data available for
the sections that follow, relatively little work has been individual countries is worth examining in individual
done examining global subsidies to renewable energy countries. This only provides a partial view of subsidy
(although this is changing as their importance to the levels, yet it is a useful benchmark against which other
energy system grows). The situation is even worse for estimates can be compared.
nuclear, as comprehensive efforts to calculate nuclear
subsidies at a global level are not available.
13 “Inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies” in this report refers to the fact that they are inefficient in an economic sense, given that they multiply the impact of the negative
externalities of fossil fuels. The other common usage of this term in subsidy discussions relates to the G20 commitment to phase-out “inefficient” fossil-fuel
subsidies, where the interpretation of the meaning is effectively based on “national circumstances” (G20, 2009).

Table 4: Selected country and regional estimates of renewable energy subsidies in 2017
POWER GENERATION CALCULATION BIOFUELS

USD BILLION METHOD USD BILLION
Inventory and
EUROPEAN UNION* 78 10.9-11.9 Price-gap
price-gap
CHINA ~15 Inventory 0.4 Price-gap
JAPAN 19 Inventory ~0.2-0.3 Price-gap
Inventory and
UNITED STATES 6.7 Inventory 14.1
price-gap
INDIA 2.2 Price-gap 0.9 Price-gap
*Total subsidies to all renewables are higher, as an additional USD 5.7 billion was categorised as “All/several/others” to catch cross-cutting
measures.
All values in this table are in real 2018 USD, that is to say taking into account the effect of inflation.
Sources: IRENA analysis from CEER, 2017; CRS, 2017; USDA, 2017a; IEA Bioenergy, 2016; IISD, 2008; IRENA analysis; METI, 2018; IISD, 2017;
and Trinomics, 2018.
To give a few examples, data is available for: the German both total cumulative support payments and support
electricity surcharge that funds the deployment of to newly commissioned projects based on premiums
renewable power generation 14 (calculated using a over wholesale prices (CEER, 2017 and Trinomics,
price-gap methodology that also includes some 2018). Recent work provides a more comprehensive
administrative aspects); the United Kingdom’s overview of subsidies to the renewable energy sector
Renewables Obligation Certificates, Feed-in-Tariffs by including tax expenditures, direct transfers and
(FiTs), Contracts for Differences (CfDs) and Renewable R&D expenditure (Trinomics, 2018). Yet, there does
Heat Incentive (BEIS, 2016 and 2018); and the United not appear to have been a systematic effort, to-date,
States’ support through the production and investment to create a global inventory of these programmes’
tax credits for wind and solar (Congressional Research total level of subsidies, updated on a regular basis.
Service, 2017). There are also the regional subsidy
estimates that have been mentioned. All of these Table 4 provides an overview of the amount of
sources usually apply either a price-gap or inventory of subsidy received by renewables from a variety of
programme costs methodology, making comparability sources in China, India, Japan, the United States and
and completeness an issue. For attaining an order the EU. These estimates, it should be stressed, are, in
of magnitude of what total subsidies may look like some cases, a summation of different sources using
globally to renewable energy, however, this is a useful different definitions and methodologies. As such, the
starting point. totals should be treated with caution and country
comparisons should be avoided as the coverage of
Efforts to consolidate individual country subsidy level subsidies and their calculation methods differ. They
estimates on a comparable basis are not common, do, however, provide a lower bound from which
but do exist. The EU is active in trying to catalogue global subsidy estimates for renewable energy can be
support for renewable electricity, with estimates for compared, to ensure they are robust.
14 The so-called EEG surcharge (EEG Umlage) from the Renewable Energies Act (EEG), which gives power plant operators a fixed tariff for every kWh of renewable
power that they fed into the grid over a 15-year or 20-year period, but also includes direct payments and premiums under other measures (e. g., from offshore wind
auctions). See https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/EN/Areas/Energy/Companies/RenewableEnergy/Facts_Figures_EEG/FactsFiguresEEG_node.html

In the EU, support for renewable power generation is Japan, in an effort to reduce its reliance on fossil fuel
typically provided via FiTs, Feed-in Premiums (often imports, has supported renewable deployment (primarily
delivered through CfDs), Green certificates (GC),15 solar PV) through FiTs. In 2017, the FiT scheme required a
and investment grants. Total support to renewable surcharge on electricity that amounted to USD 19 billion,
power generation in 2015 was estimated at around including administrative costs and after deducting the
USD 71 billion16 (Trinomics, 2018), with Germany saved fuel costs that resulted (METI, 2018). Ethanol
accounting for around USD 26 billion, Italy for around consumption in Japan in 2017 was around 0.9 billion litres
USD 13 billion, the United Kingdom for USD 6 billion and biodiesel around 0.01 billion litres (USDA, 2017b),
and Spain for USD 6 billion (CEER, 2017). Total leading to subsidies from a price-gap analysis that may
subsidies were slightly higher in 2016 and IRENA has be in the order of USD 0.3 billion per year.21
estimated the 2017 subsidies at USD 78 billion. No
recent estimates of EU subsidies to biofuels exist, but The United States periodically reports on the level
a price gap analysis suggests they could have been in of federal tax breaks provided by specific policies
the range of USD 11-12 billion in 2017.17 and programmes, with an estimated USD 6.7 billion
accruing to renewable power generation technologies
China has become an important global driver of in 2017. This includes a mixture of ongoing payments
renewable power generation deployment, with – notably through the Production Tax Credit (PTC)
total installed capacity of 619 GW at the end of – and one-time investment tax breaks, including the
2017 (IRENA, 2018b). In China, solar PV and wind Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for solar, but also through
power have benefitted from FiTs to accelerate their other policies. For 2015, these were estimated to be
deployment. The premium over reference prices to around USD 3.3 billion excluding American Recovery
fund these FiTs is collected through a surcharge that and Reinvestment Act payments, but rose in 2016 to
was around RMB 0.019/kWh in 2017,18 suggesting a USD 6.2 billion due to the almost doubling of new
subsidy to renewable power generation of around solar PV deployment in that year (CBO, 2016). 22 In
USD 15 billion.19 China’s ethanol and biodiesel use addition to this, as part of the American Recovery
in 2017 was modest, with around 3 billion litres of and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), certain
ethanol and 0.3 billion litres of biodiesel (USDA, 2017a qualifying projects were able to take cash grants in lieu
and 2019), with subsidies of perhaps USD 0.4 billion of their ITC or PTC entitlement. The rules were such that
per year, this number should be treated with caution construction completion could be spread out over a
given that there are indications production costs have number of years and grants of USD 1.4–2 billion23 were
been falling in recent years as the industry scales (IEA made to these qualifying projects in 2015, bringing the
Bioenergy, 2016; USDA, 2019; and IISD, 2008). 20 total federal tax support to USD 4.8-5.4 billion in 2015.
15 These policy tools are not automatically subsidies, but depend on the level at which they are set relative to a reference cost.
16 Unless otherwise stated, all monetary values in this report are expressed in real 2017 USD, that is to say taking into account the effect of inflation.
17 This is based on comparing wholesale prices for ethanol and biodiesel to those for conventional gasoline and diesel. The variation represents the different
wholesale conventional gasoline and diesel price sources. Unfortunately, the most recent analysis for the EU28 (Trinomics, 2018) does not break down its biofuels
support estimates. It does estimate renewable quota subsidies values at around USD 6.7 billion in 2016, however, and, given that most EU states only use renewable
quotas for biofuels, the price-gap estimate range calculated by IRENA appears reasonable.
18 https://www.in-en.com/article/html/energy-2275486.shtml
19 The surcharge recovery rate is lower than this figure, so actual subsidy levels were some USD 2–3 billion lower in 2017, however, given the accumulated deficit in
payments to renewable project developers the higher figure is used as a more realistic value for the subsidy level.
20 This is an estimate based on the direct support levels for 2017 and an estimate of indirect support for 2017 based on a 2008 analysis by the Global Subsidies
Initiative scaled-up to reflect production growth. Whether these indirect support measures remain in place is unclear; yet if they do, their impact on subsidy levels is
modest.
21 In the absence of specific data on Japanese ethanol prices/costs, European prices are assumed to provide a suitable proxy.
22 These are best estimates of the tax benefits that accrue to renewables from Treasury analysis. Actual forgone revenues (e. g., tax preferences actually claimed) are
not available until the detailed individual tax claims are processed and reviewed. For instance, as of October 2018, the detailed tax record summaries are available
for individuals tax returns for 2016, but the bulk of the tax credits are from corporate entities and line item estimates are only available for 2013. In some cases the
line item estimates result in significant differences to the previous Treasury estimates, so these values must be treated with caution.
23 CBO, 2016 and the Treasury grant data are not in agreement (https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-markets-financial-institutions-and-fiscal-
service/1603-program-payments-for accessed 11 October 2018). The lower value comes from the more recent Treasury data.

Complementary data on the value of state-level power in India had reached 33 GW and that of solar PV
subsidies for renewables in the United States is not 18 GW. Given India’s low installed costs for wind power
available. As an example, however, California estimates and the country’s relatively late acceleration of solar PV
that its Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) had deployment, after the significant cost reductions seen
average costs slightly lower than their Market Price globally, total subsidies to renewable technologies in
Referent, but slightly higher than the estimated fossil India were around USD 1 billion in 2015, increasing
fuel procurement cost (CPUC, 2018). This is only part to USD 1.4 billion in 2016 and to USD 2.2 billion in
of the financial support that the State of California 2017 (IISD, 2018). India’s consumption of ethanol was
provides to support renewable deployment, though, around 2 billion litres in 2017, while for biodiesel it was
as rebates have also been offered. in the order of 0.1 billion, with subsidies of perhaps
USD 0.9 billion on a price-gap basis, although with a
Systematic collection and analysis of state-level high degree of uncertainty.
subsidies to renewables would be a useful addition to
the understanding of overall subsidy levels in the United Global renewable subsidy
States, as many states provide support that will not be estimates for 2017
captured by a price-gap analysis. An examination of
the net present value of all the states’ RPS’ against a Table 4 represents a partial overview of global
counter-factual no-RPS policy for the period 2015– renewable energy subsidies in 2017. This section
2050 yields net costs of around ±USD 31.7 billion, provides a more detailed discussion of the global
depending on input assumptions. The RPS is thus either renewable subsidies estimates of the IEA and IRENA,
competitive and reduces system costs, or it results in a the only two institutions that have undertaken an
net subsidy over the period 2015–2050 depending on analysis of global renewable energy subsidies to date.
the evolution of a wide range of electricity sector input
variables (NREL and LBNL, 2016). The IEA has been discussing fossil fuel energy subsidies
in its World Energy Outlook since 1999 (IEA, 1999),
Federal tax preferences for biofuels in the United and started providing quantitative estimates of fossil
States were estimated at USD 1.8 billion in 2015, rising fuel subsidies for a group of non-OECD countries in
to USD 4.2 billion in 2016 (CBO, 2016 and CRS, 2017). 2006, adding renewable energy subsidy estimates for
In 2017 the tax preferences to biofuels were estimated biofuels (20 countries) and electricity (27 countries)
to be around USD 2.6 billion. 24 Data for reference from 2011 (IEA/OECD, 2011).
prices of fossil fuels, as well as ethanol and biodiesel
prices, is available – allowing a price-gap analysis of This report presents IRENA’s first estimates of global
the renewable fuel mandated level of subsidies. 25 In renewable energy subsidies. The IRENA calculations
2017, these added USD 11.5 billion to total subsidies are based on the WTO definition of subsidies to the
for biofuels in the United States (USD 9.6 billion for energy sector and use a hybrid approach that captures
ethanol and USD 2.0 billion for biodiesel), raising these tax expenditures (where possible), while using a price-
to a total of USD 14.1 billion. gap analysis to capture other deployment policies,
such as mandates or auctions. 26 Table 5 provides an
Elsewhere, India is rapidly expanding its deployment of overview of the approach, the key policies captured
solar and wind power generation technologies. At the and uncertainties surrounding the final estimates, due
end of 2017, the total cumulative deployment of wind to data constraints.
24 The tax credits for biodiesel, have however lapsed and do not apply beyond 2017.
25 The United States Department of Energy – Energy Information Administration provides data on refiner’s prices for resale, while Iowa State University provides data
on weekly ethanol and biodiesel prices in different states.
26 Where tax benefit policies are known to be planned to lapse, the analysis transitions to a price-gap approach to capture subsidy levels over time.

Table 5: Overview of IRENA coverage and calculation methods for country and regional estimates
of renewable energy subsidies in 2017
COUNTRY/ POLICIES CAPTURED CALCULATION POLICIES NOT UNCERTAINTIES

REGION METHOD CAPTURED
EU-28 Tax expenditures, Inventory method Sub-national Extent of sub-

direct transfers, (for tax expenditures interventions, national subsidies
and indirect & direct transfers) & direct investments
transfers price-gap (for feed in by development
premiums, FiTs, etc.) banks
UNITED STATES Federal tax Inventory method Sub-national Extent of sub-
expenditures, (for tax expenditures interventions (with national subsidies
direct transfers, & direct transfers) & the exception of
direct investment price-gap (for feed in California), soft
by federal premiums, FiTs, etc.) loans.
government &
indirect transfers
CHINA Indirect transfers Price-gap Extent of tax
expenditures not
captured in prices,
soft loans and
direct support costs
not captured
JAPAN Indirect transfers Price-gap Extent tax
expenditures not
captured in prices,
soft loans and
are captured
INDIA Indirect transfers Price-gap Extent tax
expenditures not
captured in prices,
soft loans and
not captured
REST OF WORLD Indirect transfers Price-gap Extent tax
expenditures not
captured in prices,
soft loans and
not captured

The most significant gap in the analysis of renewable renewable technology. Neither of these tasks are trivial,
subsidies relates to the extent of the sub-national, particularly for renewables, given that site-specific
or state-level, subsidies in the United States and the factors can greatly impact costs. As a result, the price
extent to which the price-gap approach accurately gap approach is at best an imperfect measure, but is
captures subsidies for renewable energy in non-OECD a useful and efficient way of trying to capture policies
countries. that reduce the price required for a renewable project
to be competitive.
In the case of the United States, renewable subsidies
are calculated by combining federal tax expenditure The LCOE or cost of energy service delivered by
estimates (including direct transfers) with price-gap renewables is derived from IRENA’s REmap analysis of
calculations, to estimate the balance of subsidies. This supply and demand-side technologies, and from the
is done, however, using realised, after-subsidy market IRENA Renewable Cost Database of 17 000 renewable
pricing for solar and wind projects, as this eliminates power generation projects and 9 000 auction/PPA
the uncertainty over what is the appropriate level for results (IRENA, 2018, 2018c, and 2019b). The reference
the cost of capital. For this to capture all subsidies, prices for fossil fuels are calculated based on the global
estimates of the state-level subsidy packages and regional fossil fuel price assumptions in REmap,
are required. This has been done for a sub-set of combined with equipment cost and performance data
California policies, but the necessary compilation of also from the REmap analysis (IRENA, 2018a and 2019a).
the cost of some California state subsidies and other Biofuels pricing data is taken from relevant national
state support policies is not available. This results in sources (e. g., the United States Energy Information
the subsidy estimate for renewables in the United Administration) or from commercial pricing products
States in 2017 being an underestimate of the actual (e. g., Platts Weekly Global Ethanol Report).
value, but to what extent is not clear. In 2010 or even
2012, this would have been a serious issue, but with
the cost reductions experienced for solar and wind in
the last decade, state-level support policy costs have
undoubtedly reduced. 27
The price-gap approach has the advantage of

capturing the subsidy rate required to bridge the gap
between a renewable technology and the incumbent.
Its accuracy depends, however, on choosing the
right reference price and in being able to accurately
calculate the cost of energy or service delivered by the
27 For instance, by 2015 state-level rebates for solar PV systems had fallen from between USD 1 to USD 4/W by state in 2010 to between USD 0 to USD 0.8/W in 2015
(LBNL, 2018).

Figure 4: IRENA's global subsidy estimates for renewable power generation and biofuels by
country/region, 2017
120
8.9
India
Rest of world
18.8 United States
100 Japan
China
15.2 EU 28
80
2018 USD billion
60
40 78.4
11.2
20 14.1
11.4
0
Power Generation Transport - Biofuels
On this basis IRENA has estimated the supply-side In 2017, the EU had the largest share of renewable
subsidies for renewable energy to have been around energy subsidies, due to its USD 78 billion subsidy for
USD 167 billion in 2017, with total subsidies to renewable power generation (Figure 5). This saw the EU account
power generation of around USD 128 billion in 2015 and for 62 % of total renewable power generation subsidies
transport sector subsidies of USD 38 billion (Figure 4). in 2017, while Japan and China accounted for 15 % and
12 %, respectively. The EU accounted for an estimated
The EU accounts for around 54 % (USD 90 billion) of total 86 % of offshore wind power subsidies in 2017, 52 % of
estimated renewable subsidies in 2017, followed by the solar PV subsidies and 57 % of onshore wind subsidies.
United States with 14 % (USD 23.7 billion), Japan with
11 % (USD 19 billion), China with 9 % (USD 15.6 billion), Globally, solar PV is estimated to have received the
India with 2 % (USD 3.8 billion) and the rest of the largest share (48 %) of renewable power generation
world accounts for 9 % (USD 14.8 billion). Subsidies for support, with USD 60.8 billion in 2017. The next
renewable power generation are dominant in Japan largest recipient was onshore wind which received
(99 %), China (97 %), the EU (87 %) and India (76 %). USD 31.6 billion (25 %), followed by biomass with
Subsidies for biofuels dominate in the United States USD 21.9 billion (17 %) and with offshore wind receiving
(62 %) and the rest of the world (75 %). USD 6.6 billion (5 %).

Figure 5: IRENA subsidy estimates for renewable power generation by
country/region and technology, 2017
80 Biomass 100%
CSP
Hydro/Geothermal/Other
70
Offshore wind
Onshore wind 80%
60 Solar PV
2018 USD billion
50
Percent of total
60%
40
40%
30
20
20%
10
0 0
EU-28 Japan China United RoW India EU-28 Japan China United RoW India
States States
Note: RoW = Rest of World
Focusing on the renewable power generation In China, India and the rest of the world, onshore wind
technologies receiving support by country/region received large shares of the total renewable power
(Figure 5) reveals that in 2017, Japan had the highest generation subsidy. Some 43 % of China’s renewable
share (77 %) of support going to solar PV (which is also power generation subsidies went to onshore wind in
the highest share for one technology). This reflects 2017, while the figure was 51 % for India and 40% for
the overwhelming dominance of solar PV in recent the rest of the world. Subsidies to bioenergy for power
deployment (IRENA, 2018b). Of the EU’s USD 78 billion generation are an important share of total renewable
subsidies for renewable power generation in 2017, power generation subsidies in the EU and Japan,
40 % supported solar PV, 23 % supported onshore where they accounted for 22 % and 16 %, respectively,
wind, 22 % went to bioenergy power generation, 7 % that year.
to offshore wind, 5 % to “hydropower, geothermal and
others” and 3 % to CSP.

Figure 6: IRENA subsidy estimates for biofuels for transport by country/region and fuel, 2017
14 100%
Advanced ethanol
12
Biokerosene
Conventional biodiesel 80%
Conventional ethanol
10
Share of transport subsidies

2018 USD billion
60%
8
6
40%
20%
2
0 0
United EU-28 RoW India China Japan United EU-28 RoW India China Japan
States States
Note: RoW = Rest of World
Subsidies for biofuels are less concentrated in one At USD 19 billion in 2017, subsidies for conventional
region than those for power generation. The United biodiesel accounted for 50% of total global subsidies
States, with an estimated USD 14.1 billion in subsidies for biofuels, while conventional ethanol took just
for biofuels, accounted for 37 % of total biofuels under USD 18 billion in subsidies, which accounts for
subsidies in 2017. As the EU accounted for around just under half of the total. In 2017, estimated subsidies
30 % (USD 11.4 billion), the United States and the to advanced biofuels remained modest and accounted
EU combined therefore accounted for around two- for less than 1 % of the global total.
thirds of the total, while India accounted for 2 %
(USD 0.9 billion) and China and Japan for 1 % each. The
rest of the world accounted for 30 % (USD 11.4 billion).

BOX 1: IRENA AND IEA RENEWABLE ENERGY
SUBSIDIES COMPARED
Using a price-gap approach, the IEA estimates that global subsidies for renewable power generation
technologies stood at USD 123 billion in 2015, which is around USD 13 billion higher than IRENA (IEA/OECD,
2016 and 2017a). The IEA estimates that solar and wind power combined accounted for around 80 % of
all renewables subsidies in 2016, with China, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States accounting for
nearly two-thirds of the total.
IRENA, however, has arrived at different numbers for renewable power generation subsidies. Although
IRENA has a lower estimate of subsidies for renewable power generation in 2015, there are countries/
regions with numbers above and below the IEA value. For the EU, IRENA estimates total subsidies that
are around USD 12.6 billion (20 %) higher in 2015 than the IEA’s estimate. 28 Yet, IRENA’s estimates for the
United States are USD 10.3 billion lower, while those for China are USD 4.5 billion lower. IRENA’s figures for
India are USD 0.9 billion lower, while for the rest of the world, they are USD 6.7 billion lower.
The key difference in the treatment of the United States is that, for 2015, IRENA took the federal tax
subsidy values and, after using PPA and auction results for solar and wind corrected for federal tax
subsidies, undertook a price-gap analysis to capture state-level subsidies for utility-scale projects. 29 The
value of subsidies for distributed solar PV systems may explain the lower IRENA total, however.30
The IEA estimated subsidies for biofuels in 2015 to have been USD 27 billion, taking total subsidies for
renewables to USD 149 billion, that year.31 IRENA’s estimates of the global biofuel subsidy in 2015 are
around USD 0.8 billion lower than the IEA subsidy value for that year. How IRENA’s country estimates
compare to IEA values is unclear, as no country or region breakdown is provided by the IEA for 2015, but
the share of subsidies at a global level between conventional biodiesel and ethanol appears to be similar
in both the IEA and IRENA data.32
Recent IEA analysis has provided less commentary on renewable energy subsidies, making comparisons
for more recent years less comprehensive. For 2017, the IEA estimated subsidies to renewable power
generation to be USD 146 billion (IEA/OECD, 2018), USD 18 billion higher than IRENA.
28 IRENAs numbers are in line, however, with the Council of European Regulators (CEER, 2017) and the European Commission estimates (Trinomics, 2018).
29 With the exception of California, where the state-level solar PV rebate values have been included.
30 In practical terms, this may be due to the difference in the subsidy value from net metering for distributed solar PV by the IEA. IRENA has calculated this based on
the difference between average retail prices and average generation costs. If the IEA is estimating based on an LCOE for solar PV, then the difference between this
and the IRENA estimate will be the missing state tax expenditures not captured by IRENA. The gap, however, remains large between the two estimates and without
access to the IEA analysis, the reasons for this remain unquantifiable.
31 The World Energy Outlook 2017 (IEA, 2017) does not appear to include an estimate of biofuels subsidies in 2016, unlike the previous year’s edition.
32 See Figure 11.24 from the World Energy Outlook 2016 (IEA, 2016).

2.2 FOSSIL-FUEL SUBSIDY LEVELS: Agreeing on more detailed approaches that would yield
DEFINITIONS AND CALCULATION comparable data can be difficult, however. Indeed, for
METHODOLOGIES MATTER the G20, defining subsidies has proved contentious,
with the Group unable to reach agreement on a
The broad definitions of energy subsidies used by the common definition. Instead, each country has chosen
EC, IEA, IMF, OECD, WB and WTO discussed in the its own definition and is encouraged to undertake a
previous sections have the advantage of spreading the self-assessment of their own subsidy levels (IEA, et al.;
net widely, encompassing a broad range of potential 2010). This has been accompanied by agreement on a
subsidies. There is also a practical challenge with these peer-review process for each country’s self-assessment
definitions, however, given the difficulty of cataloging analysis. As of 2019, though, only China, Germany,
and calculating subsidy levels in a comparable manner Indonesia, Italy, Mexico and the United States had
amid the wide range of ways that energy can be completed an assessment of their inefficient fossil fuel
subsidised. energy subsidies.
As previously discussed, there are three commonly Significant variations can arise from different
used approaches to calculating subsidy levels definitions of what is a subsidy, the programmes or
(Sovacool, 2017). This leads to two key challenges that policies that are deemed to meet the criteria laid out
mean different energy sector subsidy numbers are in these definitions (or simply inferred from them) and
sometimes not directly comparable. These challenges the calculation methods. This has led to a wide range of
are: estimates of fossil-fuel subsidies. The IMF, for example,
calculated fossil-fuel subsidies of USD 4.9 trillion34
• The broad scope of energy subsidy definitions (6.3 % of global GDP) for 2015 and USD 5.3 trillion in
means there is significant variation in what measures 2017, based on an externalities approach that includes
or policies are considered subsidies by different climate and health impacts (Coady et al., 2019). In
stakeholders. contrast, the IEA uses a price-gap approach and
estimates fossil-fuel subsidies of USD 317 billion in
• Calculation methodologies for assessing the 201535, USD 276 billion in 2016, USD 319 billion in 2017
absolute level of the subsidy programmes included and USD 427 billion in 2018 (IEA, 2019). The yearly
in the analysis can yield different results and are variations are primarily driven by changes in fossil fuel
sometimes not directly comparable. prices, but are also due to some structural reforms
(IEA, 2016, 2017a and 2019). The OECD, meanwhile,
These two sources of divergence in subsidy level takes a different approach to the IEA, by examining the
results introduce uncertainty in the minds of policy impact of individual programmes that support fossil
makers and other stakeholders. They are also a drain fuels – from tax exemptions to financial support to
on scarce analytical resources, when understanding the fossil fuel companies to compensate for below market
reasons for divergence between numbers is important. pricing. The OECD thus estimated fossil-fuel subsidies
This can limit the usefulness of these definitions and at USD 143 billion in 2017 (OECD, 2019). None of these
their different energy subsidy estimates (IEA, et al.; three sources have the same geographical coverage
2010) and can distract from the vital efforts to reduce or calculation methodology. Despite a wide range of
inefficient and harmful fossil-fuel subsidies, especially estimates for environmentally harmful subsidies, their
when slightly different country approaches make value is clearly very large, with the potential to distort
comparability between countries even more difficult.33 individual markets significantly.
33 See Koplow, 2012 for a discussion of how G20 definitions vary slightly by country and can create gaps in comparability and overall coverage.
34 Unless otherwise stated, all monetary values are expressed in real 2018 USD, that is to say taking into account the effect of inflation.
35 For 2015, the IMF had higher estimates of “pre-tax” fossil-fuel subsidies – those that are broadly equivalent to the IEA definition of subsidies – of USD 341 billion, but
some of the tax items captured by the IEA and OECD estimates are likely to appear in the IMF post-tax estimates, to some extent balancing this out.

Table 6: Comparison of the level and scope of comprehensive multi-country
fossil-fuel subsidy estimates
IEA OECD IMF IEA/OECD
PRE-TAX SUBSIDY
(USD BILLIONS/YEAR) 319 143 302 347
POST-TAX SUBSIDY
(USD BILLIONS/YEAR) 5 039
36 OECD countries
plus Argentina,
Brazil, Colombia,
COUNTRIES 42 (predominantly
COVERED China, India, 191 67
non-OECD)
Indonesia, The
Russian Federation
& South Africa
Coal, oil, gas and Coal, oil, gas and

FUELS COVERED Coal, oil and gas Coal, oil and gas
electricity support electricity support
YEAR FOR SUBSIDY

ESTIMATE 2017 2017 2017 2017
Source: Based on IEA, 2019; OECD, 2019; and Coady, , 2019
The OECD and IEA have also completed an analysis Methodology matters: Fossil-fuel
blending their subsidy inventories, but only for fossil subsidies in Germany
fuels, therefore excluding the IEA estimates of fossil
fuel subsidies in the electricity sector. With this, they The latitude for interpretation in some subsidy
have arrived at a more comprehensive value. Their definitions, in combination with the different possible
estimate of the total subsidy from their two, different calculation methodologies, can have a large impact
approaches, but avoiding overlaps, is USD 347 billion on country-level subsidy estimates. Subsidy estimates
in 2017. This, however, still appears to be missing must therefore be clearly documented to allow
some tax expenditures, notably in the United States comparisons to be made.
(CRS, 2017), and although the OECD has discussed
how these might be calculated, subsidised loans, The importance of this can be demonstrated by
loan guarantees and other policies that reduce examining different subsidy estimates for fossil fuels
financing costs are still excluded. Crucially, however, in Germany. Germany is a useful example, because it is
the combined estimate does not include the IEA’s quite transparent in its subsidy inventory and there is
subsidy estimates for electricity support that directly a healthy debate about the impact of envrionmentally
benefits fossil fuels, and thus they likely underestimate harmful subsidies supported by a number of other
total subsidy levels. Table 6 presents a comparison of subsidy estimates from various non-governmental
the scope and geographical coverage of these major sources. Each of these estimates differ in material
subsidy estimates. ways, but can be compared due to the effort that has
been taken to separately report the individual value

of individual policies. As a starting point, as part of Yet, an analysis by the Overseas Development
their G20 engagement, Germany estimated their Institute (ODI) and Climate Action Network Europe
inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies at USD 9.9 billion in (CAN Europe) arrives at a higher total when applying
2015 and 2016, rising to an estimated USD 11 billion in the WTO definition of energy subsidies (Gençsü and
2017 and USD 11.3 billion in 2018 (Bundesministerium Zerzawy, 2017). Their analysis suggests total fossil-fuel
der Finanzen, 2017). The calculations are based on an subsidies in Germany averaged USD 41 billion per year
inventory of programme specific tax concessions and for the period 2014–2016.36 The difference comes partly
budgetary transfers. This differs significantly, however, from their definition and partly from methodological
from the OECD estimate of USD 5.5 billion, despite their decisions.
very similar, at face value, inventory-based approach.
The difference is largely due to the two datasets In addition to the German self-reporting inventory, the
having different boundary conditions (e. g., the German ODI and CAN Europe estimate of fossil-fuel subsidies
inventory only represents Federal subsidies, not those includes subsidy estimates for:
of the states), but most significantly, because of a
number of differences in the programmes included in • The lower tax for diesel compared to petrol,
the two datasets. which added around USD 9.8 billion in 2014-2016,
while the tax relief for commercial aviation added
The higher German federal government subsidy estimate USD 9.2 billion as inefficient subsidies in transport.37
stems from the inclusion of some direct budgetary
transfers and the electricity tax relief omitted from the • Tax exemptions for company cars, which are almost
OECD data. The arguments for including or excluding exclusively fossil-fuel powered, added another
some of these elements is sometimes discussed in USD 4.4 billion.38
the reports and sometimes a result of the boundaries
set (e. g., the German inventory only includes federal • The “Special Compensation” provision of the
assistance). Adding the direct budgetary transfers Renewable Energy Sources Act, which results in
from the OECD programme inventory at the state level partial exemption of the surcharge for renewable
to the Federal subsidy analysis would increase the energy for energy intensive industries. Between 2014
fossil-fuel subsidy estimates to USD 11.9 billion in 2015 and 2016, this was worth an average USD 3.1 billion
and USD 12.2 billion in 2016. per year to qualifying companies.39
• The exemption from the renewable energy surcharge

available to self-generating electricity producers,
which represented a benefit of USD 1.5 billion per
year, over the period 2015–2016.
36 They report USD 42.9 billion per year, including USD 2.9 billion per year for gross public finance volumes (93 % of which was international) for fossil fuels. Normally,
these are not all considered to be subsidies. The value of the subsidy would be in terms of better terms and conditions, longer tenures, reduced rates charged and
the value of any loan guarantees relative to what the financing costs would have been, if sourced from the market.
37 The German self-assessment identifies around USD 670 million in 2016 in tax relief to the domestic aviation. The ODI and CAN Europe estimates are taken from
Zerzawy (2017) and include the tax exemption of aviation kerosene sold in Germany for international flights.
38 The estimate for company car tax deductions is, however, for the year 2014 and is taken from Zerzawy, 2017. Although this could be seen as a transport or corporate
subsidy, there are certainly grounds for including this figure, as the German federal self-assessment often states, “This measure is not targeted at particular fuels
and, in so far as this is the case, does not intervene selectively in competition in the fuel market. In view of fossil fuels’ large share of the market at present, they
profit from this measure.” This is to justify the inclusion of the measure as a subsidy.
39 Interestingly, the G20 peer review report on Germany’s self-assessment includes a total value for these two mechanisms, as well as one for CHP, placing the value
of the two at EUR 5.293 billion in 2016 – although no value is given for these schemes in the self-assessment. This measure clearly provides a competitive boost to
the industries that benefit, but it could be argued this is not a subsidy in the strictest sense of the term, as the survey acts like a tax.

Figure 7: Subsidies to fossil fuels in Germany from different sources, 2014/2016
120.00
100.00
80.00
2018 USD billion
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
Federal IMF Federal ODI and CAN Greenpeace IMF ODI and CAN
government (excluding government Europe (including Europe plus
pollution) plus OECD state pollution) IMF pollution
subsidies costs
Based on: Bundesministeriums der Finanzen, 2017; Coady, et al., 2019; Gençsü and Zerzawy, 2017; OECD, 2019; Zerzawy, 2017.
This is not the largest estimated of fossil-fuel subsidies with boundary conditions closer to those used by
in Germany, however. Separate analysis conducted Greenpeace (Umweltbundesamt, 2016).
for Greenpeace identified the even higher 2016
level of USD 53 billion (Zerzawy, 2017). Most of the Combining the externality-based fossil-fuel subsidies
difference results from the inclusion of value added tax from the IMF and the ODI and CAN Europe budgetary
exemptions for international flights and tax deductions and taxation subsidies would yield a figure of around
possible by individuals for travel to work by vehicle. USD 97 billion in fossil-fuel subsidies in Germany
Finally, the IMF estimates Germany’s “pre-tax subsidies in 2015/2016 (Figure 7). Notably, this could be
and forgone tax revenue” at USD 10.8 billion in 2015, considered a more complete estimate than any one
similar to the German self-assessment, but with total of the individual studies, but it is around 30 % higher
subsidies of USD 74 billion. The vast majority of these than the largest single study’s estimate for Germany
subsidies come from externalities, with global warming and almost ten times larger than Germany’s self-
accounting for USD 22 billion and local air pollution for assessed fossil fuel subsidy estimate. Germany is to
USD 34 billion. be commended for its transparency, as this kind of
comparison is not possible for most countries. This
Germany and other countries have notably seen a comparison does serve, however, to highlight the
healthy debate in the public and private sectors around challenges to the wider debate within society about
the costs and benefits of energy subsidies. The German the importance of reducing harmful subsidies in the
Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt) has energy sector when subsidy estimates vary widely.
also analysed environmentally harmful subsidies and

2.3 TOTAL FOSSIL-FUEL SUBSIDIES Similarly to the OECD, IRENA looked at the subsidy
programmes catalogued in the OECD inventory of
IRENA has calculated an estimate of global total fossil- fossil-fuel subsidies and compared them to the IEA
fuel subsidies in 2017 40 by examining the IEA and OECD price-gap estimates (OECD, 2019) for the country
fossil-fuel subsidy estimates and supplementing them overlaps (e. g., Argentina, Colombia, China, India,
with additional tax subsidies estimates, available in the Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Mexico and the Russian
public domain but omitted from the OECD database. Federation). The highest value by fuel is chosen in these
This analysis includes the value of fossil-fuel subsidies cases from the two sources.41 The combined fossil-
coming from the underpricing of electricity where, in fuel subsidy inventory therefore covers 67 countries
the IEA analysis, the benefit accrues predominantly to and includes estimates of fossil-fuel subsidies for
fossil fuels. coal, oil, natural gas and electricity support measures.
This results in a more comprehensive estimate of
total fossil-fuel subsidies globally, excluding negative
externalities, but is still likely to be missing some
important implicit fossil-fuel subsidies (e. g., through
bankruptcy laws, weak enforcement of environmental
regulations, environmental remediation liabilities
transferred to the taxpayer, etc.).
Figure 8: Total global fossil-fuel subsidies by fuel/energy carrier, 2017
220
200
150
128
2018 USD billion
100
82
50
17
0
Coal Natural gas Electricity: Oil
Support to fossil
fuels
Source: IRENA, based on OECD, 2019 and IEA/OECD, 2019.
40 For the rest of the presentation of subsidy values, data is presented using 2017 as a base year in the main body of the text to align with IRENAs Global Energy
Transformation: A Roadmap to 2050 analysis.
41 This requires the removal of individual programmes in the OECD inventory, by fuel, that are related to electricity sector support and impact consumer or producer
prices. This is necessary to avoid double counting, given that the IEA price-gap total for all subsidies to fossil fuels via electricity support should already capture
these price-affecting measures in the OECD inventory.

Figure 8 presents the results of this analysis. The total Figure 9 presents these fossil-fuel subsidy levels by
direct fossil-fuel subsidies in 2017 were estimated country and fuel. Of the top 10 countries by fossil-fuel
to be around USD 447 billion,42 with subsidies to subsidy in 2017, 47 % of their total fossil-fuel subsidies
petroleum products dominating, at USD 220 billion, were for petroleum fuels. The top five countries for
followed by electricity-based support to fossil fuels fossil-fuel subsidies in 2017 had total subsidies of
at USD 128 billion. Subsidies to natural gas and coal USD 189 billion, or 42 % of the global total. The top ten
in 2017 were estimated to be USD 82 billion and countries accounted for 61 % (USD 272 billion) of total
USD 17 billion, respectively. fossil-fuel subsidies in 2017.
Figure 9: Fossil-fuel subsidies by country and fuel/energy carrier, 2017
55
50
45
40
2018 USD billions
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
i A f)
a
de a
do ia
sia
ite bli t
Ki of)
o
es
ge ly
Ar A a
Em ria
Fr aq
ce
Ku il
Ge ait
Tu y
Uk ey
e
m ya
be an
Co stan
Al bia
s
Un pu gp
ut te
er
az
Fe hin
an
bi
in
ric
in
tio
ite xic
In Ind
ud o
Ar Ita
do
at
an
rk
rk ibi
Ir
Uz ist
w
ab ge
ne
So ira
nt
ra
th
ra
m
Br
Re Ey
Sa blic
rm
Af
ra
Un Me
St
C
ki
ng
L
en
lo
l
lo
h
d
p u
Re
Tu
n
ia
ic
n
ia
ss
m
d
ar
ite
Ru
la
iv
(Is
Un
ol
n
(B
Ira
a
el
zu
ne
Ve
Coal Electricity-based support Natural gas Petroleum
Source: IRENA, based on OECD, 2019 and IEA/OECD, 2019.
42 The estimate for 2016 falls to USD 394 billion because of oil and gas price declines that year that reduced total petroleum subsidies by USD 39.7 billion and natural
gas subsidies by USD 25.4 billion. Conversely, between 2015 and 2016, electricity-based support to fossil fuels grew by USD 8.5 billion.

2.4 NUCLEAR POWER SUBSIDIES been very high and that ongoing subsidies to
operating nuclear reactors probably remain
Comprehensive global estimates of the subsidies significant. The analysis suggests that support for
received by the nuclear power sector are currently operating reactors in the United States in 2011 could
missing from the total energy sector subsidies debate have ranged from USD 0.008 to USD 0.064/kWh. The
for incumbent technologies. Indeed, if the situation in largest contributors to these values are the benefit
terms of cataloguing global fossil-fuel subsidies still derived from liability caps, which are generally very
leaves much to be desired, the state of knowledge low for individual nuclear power plants relative to the
about nuclear is even worse. In part, this is because potential economic losses from accidents,44 and the
many nuclear power subsidies are more obscure and direct and indirect subsidies for decommissioning
indirect than for renewables and fossil fuels and the and waste management.
absence of direct cash transfers makes it harder to
estimate their value (Koplow, 2011; Blyth, 2013; and In the EU, the EC has estimated the total subsidies
Koplow, 2017). to exisitng nuclear from government interventions
related to decomissioning and waste management at
In the United States, the Congressional Research USD 6 billion per year in 2016. This is not an estimate
Service provides irregular updates of the estimated43 of the total subsidies to exisitng nuclear in the EU,
federal tax subsidies to the energy sector (CRS, but further work is planned to broaden the scope of
2017), but these are very narrowly defined to include the analysis to include the subsidy implicit in current
only federal tax preferences. In 2016, the federal liability caps (Trinomics, 2018).
tax benefits for nuclear were therefore estimated
at USD 200 million. More detailed analysis (Koplow, For new-build nuclear, the absence of a comprehensive
2011) that aimed to catalogue all of the means by inventory of nuclear subsidies remains a challenge
which nuclear power benefits financially from public to calculation, although in some cases the main
policy arrived at much higher values, however. Table 7 source of subsidies is clearer. In the United Kingdom,
presents the categories of subsidy that were examined. the Hinkley Point C reactors will receive around
USD 0.13/kWh indexed against inflation for 35 years,45
Calculating the monetary value of many of these compared to average wholesale prices in Q1 2018 of
subsidy sources is challenging, leading to a wide around USD 0.07/kWh. Assuming a capacity factor
range of subsidy estimates and, in some cases, an of 85%, this would imply an annual subsidy of around
incomplete picture. This is because not enough data USD 1.4 billion per year, subject to change as the
is available to even attempt an estimate for some wholesale price varies, just for the electricity produced
subsidy sources. The analysis for the United States by Hinkley Point C. At the same time, the project will
(Koplow, 2011) reveals, however, that subsidies to the receive loan guarantees and a government deal on
nuclear power sector in the US may have historically limiting waste handling costs.
43 These are estimates of the tax subsidies, not actual lost revenue, as provided to the Congressional Research Service by the Joint Committee on Taxation. There
is a significant lag in the availability of the actual values for the subsidy cost in terms of lost revenue, as there is a significant delay in the availability of line item
summaries of tax forms that reveal what was actually claimed. For instance, in late 2018, the latest line item estimates for corporate tax returns related to the 2013
fiscal year.
44 For instance, individual plants have liability coverage of just USD 5 million in Brazil, while in Germany that figure is USD 2.78 billion (OECD/NEA, 2018). The United
States has the largest insurance scheme, with each plant required to have USD 450 million in private insurance, with a pool of coverage (second tier) available from
accessing retrospective premium payments after an accident, if the costs exceed this level. The retrospective premiums can be levied from existing nuclear plants
for a seven year period, raising the accident coverage in the United States to around USD 12.8 billion (with potentially another 5 % of the second tier pool total
coverage, raising the total to USD 13.4 billion).
45 See https://www.lowcarboncontracts.uk/cfds/hinkley-point-c accessed 5 March 2019.

Table 7: Subsidy categories and sources for nuclear power
CATEGORY OF SUBSIDY SUBSIDY SOURCE
FACTORS OF PRODUCTION • Loan guarantees

(LABOUR, CAPITAL & LAND)
• Accelerated depreciation
• Subsidised borrowing costs for public utilities
• Cost recovery prior to project completion
• Property tax abatements
INTERMEDIATE INPUTS • Fuel costs

• Uranium enrichment
• Cooling water
OUTPUT-LINKED SUPPORT • Production tax credits

• Above market contracts for differences
SECURITY AND RISK MANAGEMENT • Liability caps

• Subsidised insurance
• Proliferation
DECOMMISSIONING AND WASTE • Nuclear waste management liabilities taken over by government
MANAGEMENT
• Plant decommissioning costs (effective government underwriting of
fund shortfalls).
Source: Based on Koplow, 2011.
Comparable detailed analysis is not available for other Summary

countries, but if the figures for the United States are
representative of the global experience, then subsidies As is apparent, the process of deciding on a definition
to existing nuclear power in 2015 could have ranged of subsidies, arriving at a methodology for their
from USD 21 billion to USD 169 billion.46 This is an calculation and the decisions made about what
area where further additional research is warranted, measures qualify as a subsidy, or an “inefficient”
given the absence of comparable cross-country subsidy in the case of the G20, can have a significant
data on subsidies in the nuclear power sector. In the impact on what subsidy levels look like.
analysis in the final section of this report, a subsidy
figure of USD 21 billion for 2017 is assumed. This The methodological issues and challenges of calculating
must be considered a placeholder, with the possibility energy subsidies on a comparable basis, should,
that much higher values are realistic, but it is an however, not detract from the efforts to progressively
acknowledgement that a value of zero is not a realistic phase-out environmentally harmful subsidies that
assumption. countries have signed up to in different forums.
46 The values could, however, be much larger. For example, an assessment of the likely economic costs of a nuclear accident in Germany based on existing studies
suggests that a serious nuclear accident could incur costs in the order of trillions of dollars. Translating this into an insurance premium would yield a cost of at least
USD 0.21/kWh, if premiums are assumed to go into a reserve fund over a 100-year duration (Versicherungsforen Leipzig, 2011).

This section has highlighted two important points: The World Bank (Kojima and Koplow, 2015) has already
highlighted that:
• The calculation of energy sector subsidies can be
a challenge. In some cases, subsidies are clear, “Multi-country calculations on fossil-fuel subsidies
transparent and well documented (e. g., direct carried out in recent years have helped illuminate
financial support to an industry), while in other the strengths and limitations of different approaches
cases, the mechanism by which subsidies are and their usefulness. Efforts by various organisations
transmitted can make subsidy estimation difficult to collect data and make them publicly available on
(e. g., tax exemptions where applicability varies). In a regular basis have facilitated subsidy measurement
some cases, they are sufficiently opaque or difficult as well as benchmarking of pricing policies with one’s
to calculate, that estimates can vary widely (e. g., peers. At the same time, the pursuit of different
accident liability caps for nuclear power). approaches has sown confusion among non-
specialists.”
• In many cases, there is a subjective element in the
categorisation and calculation of energy subsidies Further progress clearly needs to be made in
that is often framed by the goals to which the subsidy harmonising both definitions and accounting policies
calculation will be put, as well as the perspectives of for subsidy calculations, as well as in their extension
individuals or organisations that are involved in the to the widest geographical coverage possible and a
definition and calculation. comprehensive coverage of all energy sector subsidies
across fuels and technologies, on a comparable basis.
This complexity and the conditions under which In this respect, the ongoing efforts by the international
subsidy estimates are calculated contribute to the community to advance common methodologies and
reasons why international standards for energy metrics is to be applauded. Ongoing work to create
subsidy management have yet to be adopted (Jones & a methodology for fossil-fuel subsidy metrics as part
Steenblick, 2010). The duplication of effort that these of Goal 12 of the Sustainable Development Goals
varying approaches to energy sector subsidies and (Sustainable Production and Consumption) by the
calculations create is unfortunate, as is the uncertainty London Group on Environmental Accounting - part of
around subsidy levels and their incidence that the UN System of Environmental Economic Accounting
arise as a result, with these factors detracting from (UN SEEA) - could provide an important benchmark in
efforts to reform harmful energy sector subsidies. this respect (UNEP, OECD and IISD, 2019).

3 TOTAL ENERGY SUBSIDIES IN
2017 AND THEIR EVOLUTION
TO 2050: THE REMAP CASE
This section brings together the IRENA estimates for Crucially, the value of USD 634 billion for 2017 is, in
subsidies for renewables and the adjusted combined all probability, an underestimate of total energy sector
IEA/OECD fossil-fuel subsidies, as outlined in the subsidies. Coverage of sub-national incentives for
previous sections. Combining the estimates of fossil both fossil fuel and renewables subsidies is likely not
fuel, renewable and nuclear power subsidies yields comprehensive, while the subsidy value added here
an estimate of total direct energy sector subsidies for nuclear is a placeholder value, showing what the
for 2017 of USD 634 billion (Figure 10). The total is lowest level of subsidies might look like for existing
dominated by the subsidies received by fossil fuels, nuclear. Thus, although this estimate of the total energy
which account for 70 % (USD 447 billion). Subsidies sector subsidies provides a useful order of magnitude
to renewable power generation technologies account estimate to help inform policy makers, further work is
for around 20 % of total energy sector subsidies clearly needed to arrive at a more definitive value for
(USD 128 billion), biofuels for 6 % (USD 38 billion) and total energy sector subsidies.
nuclear for at least 3 % (USD 21 billion), but potentially
more, as already noted.
Figure 10: Total energy sector subsidies by fuel/source, 2017
38
600 100%
6%
128
20%
500
80%
400
2018 USD billion
60%
300
447 40% 70%

200
20%
100
0 21 0% 3%
2017 2017
Transport: Biofuels Renewable power generation Fossil fuels (direct) Nuclear

Figure 11: Total energy sector subsidies by fuel/source and the climate and health costs, 2017
Fossil fuels Nuclear Renewables

2500
2263
2000
1500
2018 USD billion
1000
500 447
366
128
21 38
0
Air pollution Climate costs Fossil fuels Nuclear Renewable Transport
(direct) power
generation
Source: IRENA analysis and IRENA, 2019a.
These numbers, notably, exclude the climate and health 3.1 TOTAL ENERGY SECTOR SUBSIDIES
costs of the local air pollutants emitted by fossil fuels. TO 2050
The IRENA analysis to 2050 includes estimates of these
unpriced externalities, however (IRENA, 2019a). In IRENA has used the analysis in the REmap Case
2017, the costs of outdoor air pollution from fossil fuels (IRENA, 2019a), in conjunction with the current
were estimated to be in the order of USD 2.3 trillion estimates of total energy sector subsidies in 2017, to
in 2017,47 with climate change costs adding around analyse how total energy sector subsidies out to 2050
USD 370 billion48 (Figure 11). The inclusion of these might evolve if the world is to stay on track to achieve
costs, if added to total energy sector subsidies, would the Paris Agreement climate goal of restricting global
raise total energy sector subsidies to USD 3.1 trillion, warming to 2 °C or less.
or 6.9 times larger than the pre-tax subsidy estimate
alone (Figure 11). The costs of unpriced externalities The REmap Case projections include data on energy
and the direct subsidies for fossil fuels (USD 3.1 trillion) production and consumption for the entire energy
exceed subsidies for renewable energy by a factor of sector globally and examine in detail the different
sixteen. energy service demands (e. g., space and water heating
in buildings, process energy needs in industry, etc)
47 This is a central estimate of the value in 2015. It is lower than the IMF estimate for 2015 of around USD 2.8 trillion.
48 There is significant uncertainty about the actual level of costs stemming from both climate change and local air pollution. This calculation assumes a value of
USD 11/tonne of CO₂ and is based on the lower bound of the societal cost of carbon (Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, 2016).

Figure 12: Key energy sector indicators in the REmap Case to 2050
2010 TODAY REMAP CASE 2010 TODAY REMAP CASE

(2017–2018) (2017–2018)
2030 2040 2050 2030 2040 2050
Electrification with renewables Energy efficiency
Share of electricity 2000–2010 2010–2017 2016–2030 2016–2040 2016–2050

Energy intensity
in final energy 18% 20% 29% 38% 49% improvement rate 1.2% 1.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.2%
consumption per year per year per year per year per year
(TFEC)
Total final energy
Renewable energy consumption 51 53 43 41 38
share in power 20% 25% 57% 75% 86% per capita
generation GJ per cap GJ per cap GJ per cap GJ per cap GJ per cap
17 109 300 355 360

Annual solar PV
additions
GW/yr GW/yr GW/yr GW/yr GW/yr Total fossil fuel demand
210 240 87 95 60 41
Annual wind 200
Oil demand
additions 31 54 22
min min min min min
GW/yr GW/yr GW/yr GW/yr GW/yr barrels/day barrels/day barrels/day barrels/day barrels/day
Natural gas
Passenger electric 3307 3752 4000 3400 2250
demand
cars on the road
bcm/yr bcm/yr bcm/yr bcm/yr bcm/yr
<0.5 min 6 min 157 min 745 min 1166 min
2000 713
Coal demand 4963 5357 3190
Heat pumps
Mtce/yr Mtce/yr Mtce/yr Mtce/yr Mtce/yr
20 mln 155 mln 259 mln 3446 mln
Total fossil fuel
Hydrogen reduction relative -20% -64%
production with to today -41%
renewable
electricity 3 EJ 8 EJ 19 EJ
Renewable energy in end-uses Energy-related CO2 emissions

Total revewable Total CO2
energy share
0.2 1.7 reduction relative -27% -71%
increase in TFEC 0.8 1.2 to today -48%
relative to today ppt/yr ppt/yr ppt/yr ppt/yr
Emissions per
2.0t 1.1t
Solar thermal
675 2000
3800
5800 capita
4.3t 4.6t 2.9t
collectors 290
CO2 per cap CO2 per cap CO2 per cap CO2 per cap CO2 per cap
min m2 min m2 min m2 min m2 min m2
Transport liquid
100 130 370 530 650
biofuels
bln litres/yr bln litres/yr bln litres/yr bln litres/yr bln litres/yr
and modes for transportation (e. g., light-duty vehicles, Figure 12 provides an overview of the evolution of some
road and rail freight, and aviation) in the end-use of the key energy sector indicators out to 2050 in the
sectors. Importantly for this analysis, the REmap REmap Case that are part of the underlying drivers
Case also includes data on the stock of energy sector of the evolution in energy sector subsidies outlined
assets (including electricity generating technologies, below. Further details of the IRENA REmap tool can
but also end-use technologies), that is needed in be found in various IRENA publications (IRENA, 2014;
order to assess gross capacity additions per year. IRENA, 2017; IRENA, 2018a; and IRENA, 2019a).

Although subsidies may provide only one metric by Some small level of fossil-fuel subsidy is assumed
which the transition can be measured, policy makers to remain in 2050. As a result, in the REmap case,
could benefit from understanding how subsidy needs the decline in the level of fossil-fuel subsidies in the
in the energy sector could evolve over the period energy sector is being driven by the reduction in
until 2050. the rate of subsidy to fossil-fuels and the reduction
in fossil fuel consumption over time, as the energy
Marginal abatement cost curves and changes in overall sector transitions to a sustainable future. New fossil-
energy system costs help policy makers understand, fuel subsidies will however emerge, even in the REmap
in broad terms, relative abatement costs and overall case, concentrated where carbon capture and storage
abatement costs respectively. They do not, however, (CCS) in some energy intensive industrial sectors is
reveal to policy makers the likely incidence of the required to address process emissions.
overall burden. The order of magnitude of the evolution
of subsidies in different sectors and over time must The evolution of subsidies for renewable energy is based
of course be balanced by the benefits unlocked, but on detailed input assumptions for the technology costs
examining this issue does provide useful information contained within the REmap Case, when compared to
to policy makers about the challenges ahead. As fossil fuels, combined with the deployment outputs
deployment of specific technology solutions grow, of the REmap case (see IRENA, 2019a). These input
costs fall and their performance improves. Thus, in assumptions vary by technology, year and country and
individual sectors, subsidy needs will start to plateau are multiplied by the deployment rates in the REmap
and then fall, but sectors that are otherwise difficult to Case to calculate subsidy levels based on the amount
decarbonise will still need to be addressed. There will of energy consumed and/or the stock of energy using
thus be a rebalancing through time of subsidies from or generating equipment, if subsidies are available
sectors and applications/end-uses where deployment, to investments. Given the uncertainty over the long-
economies of scale and innovation have already run trajectory of tax expenditures, by 2030 the
unlocked competitive solutions, to sectors where this renewable subsidy analysis transitions to a price-gap
process is only just beginning. methodology for all renewable technologies and end-
use sectors.50 Given the uncertainty around the level
For the analysis to 2050 in this report, subsidy of subsidies to nuclear, the analysis assumes that the
programmes that have sunset clauses, or that are only minimum value of USD 0.008/kWh identified for the
available for fixed periods, are assumed to expire when United States is applied to the output of entire stock
currently anticipated to end. Programmes and policies of existing nuclear reactors and to the output of new
that are open-ended that lead to subsidies in the energy reactors built out to 2050 to replace retiring reactors.51
sector are assumed to continue. The exception to this
is that countries are assumed to phase out their fossil The present technical paper, notably, adheres to
fuel subsidies over time, as these would be inconsistent quite a strict definition of subsidies. This is essentially
with their climate goals. Per unit of energy subsidies the additional incremental LCOE for the renewable,
for fossil fuels are assumed to decline rapidly to 2030 efficiency or other decarbonisation solution for that
and thereafter decline at a slower rate to 2050.49 year, netted out at the level of an individual solution
49 The average subsidy rate (USD/MJ) is assumed to be reduced to 20 % of 2017 levels for coal, oil and natural gas by 2030, and by 50 % for fossil-fuel support,
channelled through the electricity sector. By 2050, coal subsidy rates are assumed to be eliminated and those for oil, natural gas and fossil-fuels through electricity
support are at 5 % of their 2015 levels.
50 One implication of this is that subsidy levels in 2030 and 2050 are effectively assumed to be set at efficient levels for the level of deployment based on perfect
information. In reality, support programmes are rarely 100 % efficient, as there are administrative costs, while policies may not be designed efficiently. The subsidy
levels estimated here exclude these future administrative costs and any other policy inefficiencies.
51 Each kWh of nuclear generation is therefore assumed to receive USD 0.008/kWh in subsidies (Koplow, 2011). The actual level of subsidies out to 2050 for nuclear
will be higher than this, given subsidies to new nuclear construction will be required in most markets. This requires additional analysis, though. Future work by
IRENA will look at incorporating better estimates of the ongoing subsidies to existing nuclear power and, crucially, estimates for the subsidies for new-build that are
not covered here.

by country. Higher levels of aggregation would see progress in the reduction of per unit subsidies to fossil
lower subsidy estimates, as would the presence of a fuels – this represents a reduction of USD 341 billion,
price for CO₂. If increased efforts are made to price or 42 %. The REmap Case sees a rebalancing of the
the externalities generated by fossil fuels in the form distribution of energy sector subsidies away from fossil
of local and global pollutant emissions, then subsidy fuels and towards renewables and energy efficiency.
levels would be lower than presented here. With a more By 2050, total energy sector subsidies have fallen to
cost-reflective pricing of externalities, energy markets USD 475 billion per year (25 % lower than in 2017),
and agents in end-use sectors would then increasingly which is USD 390 billion (45 %) lower than they might
be factoring in the costs of these externalities into have been in the Reference Case.
their investment and operational decisions.
In 2017 the total energy sector subsidies of
Between 2017 and 2030, total, annual energy sector USD 634 billion represented around 0.8 % of global
subsidies in the REmap Case are projected to decline Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Given that global GDP
from USD 634 billion to USD 466 billion, a 27 % is projected to grow by around 58 % between 2017
reduction (Figure 13). Compared to what may occur, and 2030 at the same time that total energy sector
however, under the Reference Case – where oil demand subsidies are expected to decline to USD 466 billion
in 2030 is around a tenth higher than in 2017 and in the REmap case, subsidies decline to 0.4 % of global
natural gas demand is around 50 % higher, with little GDP in 2030. By 2050, global GDP is projected to be
Figure 13: Energy sector subsidies by source excluding climate and health costs in the
REmap Case, 2015, 2030 and 2050
600 100%
90%
29%
500 35%
80%
70% 4%
447 139
400 70%
Share of subsidies
165
6%
2018 USD billion
60%
21 7% 22%
300 50%
27 10%
34 106
40%
47
200
21 30%
41% 44%
20%
100 192 209
166 26%
1 0%
0 0%
2017 2030 2050 2017 2030 2050
Fossil fuels Nuclear Electric vehicles Efficiency Renewables

almost three times higher than in 2017, which would Power generation subsidy costs will decline rapidly
imply that the total energy sector subsidies would fall in many countries in the coming 10–15 years, as cost-
to 0.2 % of global GDP. competitiveness has already been achieved in many
countries, or will be in the near future (IRENA, 2018c
Direct subsidies for fossil fuels fall from USD 447 billion and 2019b). As a result, subsidies for renewable power
in 2017 to USD 165 billion in 2030 in the REmap Case, generation will start to decline by 2030 (Figure 14).
as per unit subsidies are reduced and coal demand Total subsidies for renewable power generation fall
is around 40 % lower than in 2017 and oil demand from USD 128 billion in 2017 to USD 53 billion by
around 27 % lower. The share of fossil fuels in total 2030, despite the rapid growth in renewable power
energy sector subsidies falls from around 70 % in 2017 generation deployment. Between 2017 and 2030, the
to 35 % in 2030. In that year, USD 76 billion of the total installed capacity of solar PV increases from
total fossil-fuel subsidies is required to support CCS in around 223 GW to around 3 150 GW, that of onshore
industrial sectors, predominantly in order to address wind from around 496 GW to around 2 300 GW,
process emissions. Around half of the subsidies to CCS offshore wind from 19 GW to 216 GW and CSP from
are concentrated in the iron and steel sector, 32 % in 5 GW to 76 GW.
the cement sector and 13 % in the chemicals sector. By
2050, fossil-fuel subsidies have fallen to USD 139 billion This reduction in subsidies for renewable power
(29 % of the total in 2050), with support for CCS generation by 2030 is driven by most new deployment
dominating at USD 126 billion, or 27 % of total energy in the period out to 2030 not requiring subsidies, and
sector subsidies, and 91 % of the remaining fossil-fuel indeed, even reducing electricity costs, as well as
subsidies. the expiration of an increasing share of the relatively
expensive support given to renewables (notably in
As the deployment of renewable energy accelerates, Europe) from pre-2015 deployment. For countries with
notably in the end-use sectors, the total subsidies long-duration support policies, or very low fossil fuel
for renewables grow and reach USD 192 billion in costs, the peak in power generation support is usually
2030. This is driven by an increase in subsidies for in the late 2020s.52
renewable energy in transport, industry and buildings,
as subsidies for renewable power generation fall. Total Japan is the only country examined where overall
annual subsidies for renewable energy increase by subsidies to the power generation sector increase up
around 10% between 2030 and 2050 as deployment to 2030. This is due to three factors: Japan deploys
of renewable solutions in the hard to decarbonise a relatively high share of solar PV in the REmap
industry and transport sectors increase. Energy Case; solar PV costs in Japan remain higher than in
efficiency is typically a cost-effective solution to virtually all other markets, except California (IRENA,
reduce energy consumption and emissions. However, 2019b); and deployment is concentrated in the more
as ever more stringent reductions in fossil fuel use are expensive residential and commercial solar PV sectors,
required, more expensive energy efficiency options that are proportionately more expensive than utility-
become an attractive solution to minimising overall scale projects (IRENA, 2019b).
costs in the energy transition. As a result, subsidies
to energy efficiency over and above the Reference
Case, notably in industry, start to rise and reach
USD 106 billion per year in 2050. The drivers for this
evolution in total energy sector subsidy levels are
outlined in more detail below.
52 See for example, Agora Energiewende (2016), “Projected EEG Costs up to 2035” for a detailed analysis of the renewable electricity surcharge evolution in Germany.

Figure 14: Energy sector subsidies by fuel or sector excluding climate and health costs in the REmap
case, 2017, 2030 and 2050
2017 21 447 128 38
2030 27 165 53 24 59 137 341
390
2050 21 139 28 116 166
0 200 400 600 800
2018 USD billion
Reduction from Industry Transport Buildings Renewable power Fossil fuels Nuclear
Reference Case generation (direct)
Note: The subsidy totals in this figure to Industry, Transport and Buildings include subsidies from the deployment of renewable and energy
efficiency measures in those sectors.
Globally, by 2050, solar PV capacity reaches over No net subsidies will therefore be paid out directly to
8 500 GW, onshore wind surpasses 5 000 GW, renewable power generation in 2050.
offshore wind surpasses 1 000 GW and CSP 300 GW.
With continued technology improvements, large and As significant efforts are made beyond the electricity
ongoing economies of scale, and highly competitive sector, the growth of subsidies relative to the Reference
manufacturing and global supply chains, renewable Case for the end-use sectors also grows. The subsidies
power generation technologies are commercially needed over and above the Reference Case53 in the
competitive without subsidies. Any remaining legacy Industry and Buildings end-uses for energy efficiency
subsidies have by then expired or been compensated and renewables are USD 137 billion and USD 24 billion,
for by lower costs than incumbent technologies from respectively in 2030, before growing to USD 166 billion
new and replacement investment in renewable power. and USD 28 billion, respectively in 2050.
53 The IRENA analysis effectively assumes that the energy efficiency actions taken in the Reference Case are economically attractive at the time they are
implemented, so no subsidy is required. The highly variable level of detail in country's Nationally Determined Contributions (which heavily influence the Reference
Case) mean that the REmap analysis has not been able to evaluate to what extent this assumption is correct. The subsidy values here for Industry and Buildings
should therefore be considered minimum expected values, as there may be some subsidy elements in the Reference Case trajectory.

Figure 15: Transport sector energy subsidies by fuel/source excluding climate and health costs in the
REmap Case, 2017, 2030 and 2050
120
Advanced ethanol 12
Biokerosene
100 Conventional biodiesel
Conventional ethanol 20
Electric buses and trucks
Hydrogen
Vehicle efficiency
80
28
2018 USD billion
60
7
5
24
40
34
19
20
33
18 9
0
2017 2030 2050
In the transport sector, subsidies increase from In the transport sector, by 2050, subsidy needs double
USD 38 billion in 2017 to USD 59 billion by 2030 compared to 2030, reaching around USD 120 billion.
(Figure 15). By then, higher oil prices will make Several factors will drive this development between
conventional biofuels largely economic. With the 2030 and 2050:
necessity of growing sustainable biofuels use, subsidies
for advanced biofuels from lignocellulosic feedstocks • Oil prices will fall between 2030 and 2050, as oil
for ethanol and the use of biokerosene for the demand is reduced, from USD 85/barrel to just over
aviation sector enter the early phases of commercial USD 60/barrel. This increases the economic hurdle
deployment. By 2030, advanced ethanol use requires rate for alternatives to fossil fuels.
around USD 7 billion in support and biokerosene
around USD 5 billion. Hydrogen derived from renewable • Deployment of renewable fuels increase, with
electricity also starts to contribute to decarbonising significant growth in hydrogen and advanced
freight transport, with around 540 PJ requiring ethanol use for freight transport and biokerosene for
subsidies of around USD 9 billion in 2030. While in aviation occurring.
the short-to-medium haul freight segment, electric
trucks in the smaller and medium-size categories will • Production costs for renewable fuels fall. This is
start to contribute in larger numbers. These small- and driven by learning-by-doing, economies of scale,
medium-size trucks will initially be more expensive efficiency improvements in production, and cost
than their fossil fuel counterparts in terms of total declines for inputs (notably for renewable electricity
cost of ownership and account for USD 34 billion in for hydrogen).
subsidies by 2030. Efforts to improve vehicle efficiency
also start to rely on more expensive options, raising
costs by that date.

While the growth in deployment of advanced biofuels renewable options – notably for heat – in order to reduce
and hydrogen sees subsidies rise, a major offset for these emissions. The subsidies required for these solutions
renewable fuels compared to 2030 is their production vary significantly between the two sectors, however.
cost decline. For example, hydrogen becomes the
largest source of subsidies in the transport sector as In Buildings, many of the energy efficiency options are
hydrogen use rises eight-fold between 2030 and 2050 economic and do not require subsidies, although there
(to over 4 400 PJ in 2050), but subsidies grow less remain significant barriers to their uptake. As a result,
than four-fold, to USD 33 billion, or 29 % of the total 95 % of the subsidies required in the Buildings sector
of USD 116 billion. The lower oil price in 2050 results in 2030 and 87 % in 2050 come from the deployment
in subsidies being needed for the production of some of renewable sources for heating and cooling, notably
conventional ethanol and biodiesel. For conventional solar.
ethanol, this is predominantly in regions with higher
feedstock costs (e. g., the OECD), whereas the subsidy In Industry, the energy efficiency measures deployed
need is more generalised for conventional biodiesel. become progressively more expensive, out to 2050,
Advanced ethanol use rises to over 2 000 PJ in 2050 and and the subsidies required to make these measures
biokerosene to over 2 600 PJ, resulting in subsidies of economic increases from USD 42 billion in 2030 to
USD 12 billion and USD 20 billion, respectively, in 2050. USD 101 billion in 2050 (Figure 16), with the largest
component (USD 66 billion) coming from a myriad of
In the Industry and Buildings sectors, a three-pronged energy efficiency measures in the less energy intensive
strategy is at work. In these, increased electrification industrial sub-sectors (e. g., light manufacturing, food,
combines with energy efficiency measures and textiles, ceramics, etc.).
Figure 16: Industry and Buildings sectors: Energy subsidies by fuel/source excluding climate and
health costs in the REmap Case, 2030 and 2050
2030 2050
Efficiency
Current BAT – chemicals
160 Current BAT – pulp/paper
Double glazing
140 Efficiency – others
Efficient smelting – electricity
66 Emerging – cement
120 28 Emerging – chemicals
Emerging – iron/steel
Energy efficient drying
100
2018 USD billion
Insulation doors
Integrated pulp & paper mills
80 Loft insulation
37 20 Wall insulation
60 11 Renewables
Biomass
14 9 Geothermal
40 Hydrogen
Solar cookstoves
20 40 9 41 Solar cooling
10
Solar space heating
9 10 Solar water heating
0
Buildings Industry Buildings Industry
Note: BAT = Best available technology

In the REmap Case, between now and 2050, the By 2050, the remaining fossil-fuel subsidies
composition of energy sector subsidies (excluding predominantly support CCS in industry, with this
climate and air pollution) continues to shift towards the becoming the second largest source of subsidy needs.
end-use sectors, as these more difficult and expensive The decarbonisation effort in that sector becomes
to transform end-uses are addressed. significantly more expensive by 2050, as emissions
reductions become increasingly expensive to unlock.
In 2030, subsidies to fossil fuels remain the largest At the same time, despite cost reductions, the
single component of total energy sector subsidies expense of providing renewable fuels for transport at
(Figure 17), but subsidy levels in industry become the significant shares of demand (beyond the light-duty
second largest source, as increased energy efficiency vehicle sector) in the long-distance road, sea and air
measures and switching to renewable solutions is segments begins to increase subsidy levels for the
required. transport sector overall.
Figure 17: Energy sector subsidies by fuel/source and sector/end-use (excluding climate and health
costs) in the REmap Case, 2030 and 2050
2030 2050
160
140
76 66
120 28
12
100
2018 USD billion
27
80
37 126 20
25
20
60 11
18
14 24
40 34
53
20 41
10 42 40 33
27
10 21
0
Buildings
Fossil fuels
(direct)
Industry
Nuclear
Renewable
power
generation
Transport
Buildings
Fossil fuels
(direct)
Industry
Nuclear
Renewable
power
generation
Transport
Efficiency Fossil fuels Renewables

Current BAT – chemicals CCS investment cost Advanced ethanol Electric vehicles, E Bus and Trucks
Current BAT – pulp/paper Coal Biodiesel - conventional Electric vehicles, light passenger
Double glazing DRI (gas-based) Biokerosene
Efficiency – others Electricity: Support to fossil fuels Ethanol - conventional
Efficient smelting – electricity Natural gas Biomass
Emerging – cement Oil Geothermal
Emerging – chemicals Hydrogen
Emerging – iron/steel Renewables
Energy efficiency Solar cookstoves
Energy efficient drying Solar cooling
Insulation doors Solar space heating
Integrated pulp & paper mills Solar water heating
Loft insulation
Wall insulation Nuclear

The subsidies required for the solutions deployed in fuel use is reduced more substantially, the annual
the REmap Case result in significant economic benefits benefit increases to between USD 2.5 trillion and
to the economy, given the reductions in externalities USD 6.3 trillion. The savings dwarf the ongoing energy
that accrue (IRENA, 2019a). By 2030, the REmap sector subsidies to renewables and energy efficiency.
Case results in reduced outdoor pollution and climate In 2050, the USD 316 billion in subsidies to renewable
costs of USD 620 billion to USD 2 160 billion relative and energy efficiency save eight to twenty times more
to the Reference case (Figure 18).54 By 2050, as fossil in reduced externalities.
Figure 18: Total energy sector subsidies compared to climate and health cost savings in the REmap
Case, 2015, 2030 and 2050
2030 2050
1000
-1000
2018 USD billion
-2000
-3000
Carbon costs
Fossil fuels
Nuclear
-4000 Outdoor pollution costs
Renewable and energy efficiency
-5000
-6000
Subsidies Low carbon and High carbon and Subsidies Low carbon and High carbon and
outdoor pollution outdoor pollution outdoor pollution outdoor pollution
costs costs costs costs
54 The cost range for 2030 is from USD 17-80/tonne of CO₂, rising to USD 50-110/tonne of CO₂ in 2050.

CONCLUSIONS
As countries around the world grapple with the meaningful impact, even with functionally equivalent
realities of how to deliver on the goals of the Paris subsidy definitions.
Agreement, the multi-facetted nature of the energy
transition is increasingly apparent. Alongside the need • Significant gaps remain in the coverage of estimated
to cut energy-related CO2 emissions, the transition subsidy levels in the energy sector. This is because
by countries around the world to high shares of subsidies that may be difficult to estimate in the first
renewables and energy efficiency is being driven by place (e.g., exemptions from pollution regulations, lax
increasingly inter-linked economic, environmental of enforcement of end-of life environmental clean-up
and social-development policy goals. One area that regulations, insufficient nuclear liability insurance, etc.)
deserves more attention in this respect is the role of are often excluded from official subsidy estimates.
energy subsidies, and more specifically the role of
environmentally beneficial or harmful subsidy types, in • The author of this technical paper is not aware of
the steadily expanding energy transition. any previous, systematic effort made to assess the
total value of energy sector subsidies. Yet for the
Subsidies to fossil fuels prove especially damaging, reasons mentioned above, even the estimates in
because they exacerbate the already serious issue of this technical paper are likely to underestimate total
fossil fuels negative externalities (e.g., health and climate energy sector subsidies.
costs resulting from fossil-fuel combustion) which are
rarely, if ever, fully priced. Much of the analysis of energy sector subsidies has, in
the past, focused primarily on fossil fuels. Furthermore,
The present technical paper finds that: relatively few institutions examining global subsidies
to particular fuels or technologies have used a
• Relatively few estimates exist at the global level for consistent methodology and accounting approach in
environmentally harmful subsidies to fossil fuels, and their calculations. This makes comparisons of subsidy
even fewer for support to renewable energy. levels between fuels and technologies from different
sources problematic.
• Many more studies are available at the country or
regional levels. These mainly address fossil-fuel To provide greater clarity about all kinds of energy
subsidy levels – and to a lesser extent support to subsidies, greater emphasis could be placed on:
renewables. Still, data comparability remains a
challenge. • Fostering dialogue among academics, research
institutes, think-tanks and international organisations
• No commonly agreed definition exists for energy on definitional and accounting methodologies for
sector subsidies. Instead, different organisations and energy-subsidy analysis.
forums have adopted different definitions, which can
result in confusion among interested stakeholders • Identifying opportunities to establish common
over subsidy data. subsidy definitions and accounting methodologies,
or at least some key components of these, to increase
• Accounting methods for energy sector subsidies the comparability of different subsidy estimates.
also vary widely. In some cases, this reflects the
constraints of data availability. In other cases, the • Improving the analysis of global subsidy levels for
boundaries of what constitutes a subsidy can have a the entire energy sector, not just fossil fuels.

• Determining whether greater co-ordination of • Support to renewable power generation, reaching
analysis at the country and regional levels could USD 128 billion in 2017, retained the largest portion
also yield better, more systematic global estimates, of renewable energy subsidies, while support for
rooted in the detailed insights of stakeholders with biofuels accounted for USD 38 billion.
knowledge of conditions "on the ground".
• Robust global estimates are unavailable for subsidies
Progress on these issues would reduce the uncertainty to nuclear power, but such subsidies are likely to
around the comparability of subsidy estimates and have reached at least USD 21 billion globally in 2017.
potentially help to avoid unnecessary duplications of
effort. This would facilitate a more robust, fact-based • Total direct subsidies for all energy sources reached
debate around the reform of environmentally harmful at least USD 634 billion in 2017, with 70% of those
energy subsidies. being for fossil fuels.
This technical paper has presented a range of estimates This technical paper combines the prior analysis in
for energy sector subsidy levels in one recent year, 2017. IRENA’s REmap Case (IRENA, 2019a) with the best
These include a new estimate of the environmentally possible estimates of total energy sector subsidies
harmful subsidies provided directly to fossil fuels in in 2017. Viewing these estimates in conjunction with
that year, based on data from the IEA and OECD for various paths for energy sector development helps to
2017, supplemented with IRENA’s analysis of massive see how total energy sector subsidies might evolve
indirect subsidies to fossil fuels through the under- over the next three decades (until 2050), particularly
pricing of negative externalities (e.g., costs of climate if the world follows the necessary path to achieve the
damage, health costs from pollution). This technical Paris Agreement climate goal of restricting global
paper also attempts to provide a comprehensive first warming to well below 2°C.
estimate of total energy sector subsidies in 2017.
In the envisaged transformation of the world’s energy
Accordingly, it finds that: system, the analysis finds:
• Direct environmentally harmful subsidies to fossil • Total energy subsidies would fall sharply – from
fuels in 2017 amounted to at least USD 447 billion. USD 634 billion annually in 2017 to USD 466 billion
in 2030 and USD 475 billion in 2050.
• Indirect subsidies to fossil fuels stemming from their
negative externalities in 2017 were in the order of • Phasing out environmentally harmful subsidies
at least USD 2.6 trillion and possibly much higher. means that the remaining subsidies for fossil fuels
This total comprised an estimated USD 2 263 billion (USD 139 billion in 2050) would be dominated by
for increased health costs due to outdoor pollution subsidies to CCS in industrial applications, which
caused by fossil-fuel combustion, combined with would also capture process emissions.
USD 366 billion for climate costs.
• Support for renewables would increase from
• Support to renewable energy, at USD 166 billion USD 166 billion annually in 2017 to USD 192 billion
in 2017, was almost 19 times smaller than the in 2030 and USD 209 billion in 2050. Support to
environmentally harmful, both direct and indirect, renewable power generation falls to USD 53 billion
subsidies to fossil fuels in the same year. in 2030 – a 60% decline between 2017 and 2030.

• Subsidies to energy efficiency and renewables are Potential areas for further research include:
set to grow in hard-to-decarbonise transport and
industry sectors. • Expansion of the coverage of environmentally
harmful subsidies to include harder-to-calculate
• Subsidies to renewable-based transport solutions sources. These would include subsidised loans,
would grow to USD 116 billion in 2050, dominated export-credit guarantees, key exemptions from
(70%) by biofuels, with most of the balance made up environmental regulations, the systematic transfer of
by renewable-based “green hydrogen”. remediation costs for abandoned production sites to
public authorities, and other instances.
• The support required to decarbonise industry rises to
USD 166 billion in 2050, amid rising costs to reduce • Comprehensive global analysis of existing subsidies
industrial emissions, given the need for deeper cuts to nuclear power.
that necessitate costlier energy efficiency options
and renewable heat to ensure abatement. • Incorporation of more supply-side subsidies, such as
those related to facilitating infrastructure (e.g., rail
• The REmap Case results in the costs associated links, ports, etc.).
with outdoor pollution and climate damage by 2050
falling by between USD 2.5 billion and USD 6.3 trillion • Estimates of current subsidies to certain end-
dollars per year compared to what they otherwise use technologies (e.g., solar thermal) and energy
would have been. The benefits, just from these two efficiency.
sources, therefore, would greatly exceed the annual
subsidies needed to achieve the transition.
The analysis in this technical paper, however, leaves

further questions to be answered for a comprehensive
understanding of energy sector subsidies. Future work
could attempt to refine and expand upon certain
aspects of the data and analysis.

REFERENCES
Agora Energiewende (2016), Projected EEG costs up to 2035, Agora Energiewende, Berlin.
Bundesministerium der Finanzen (2017), 26. Subventionsbericht, Bundesministerium der Finanzen, Berlin.
BEIS (Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy) (2018), RHI budget caps, BEIS, London.
BEIS (2016), Consumer-funded policies report: Actual and projected expenditure of BEIS’ consumer funded
energy policies for recent financial years, BEIS, London.
Blyth, W. (2013), Written evidence commissioned by the Committee from Dr William Blyth, Oxford Energy
Associates, Oxford, http://oxfordenergyassociates.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/EAC-report.pdf, accessed
29 October 2018.
Clements, B. et al. (2013), Energy subsidy reform: Lessons and implications, IMF, Washington, DC.
Coady, D. et al. (2015), “How large are global energy subsidies?”, IMF Working Paper, WP/15/105, IMF,
Washington, DC.
Coady, D. et al. (2019), “Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies Remain Large: An Update Based on Country-Level Estimates”,
IMF Working Paper, WP/19/89, IMF, Washington, DC.
CBO (Congressional Budget Office) (2016), Federal support for the development, production, and use of fuels
and energy technologies, CBO, Washington, DC.
CRS (Congressional Research Service) (2017), The value of energy tax incentives for different types of energy
resources: In brief, CRS, Washington, DC.
CEER (Council of European Energy Regulators) (2017), Status review of renewable support schemes in Europe,
CEER, Brussels.
CPUC (2018), “2018 Padilla report: Costs and cost savings for the RPS program”, CPUC, Los Angeles.
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) (2009), Energy subsidies: Why, when and how?,
GTZ, Eschborn.
G20 (2009), G20 Leaders Statement: The Pittsburgh Summit, G20, Pittsburgh, PA.
Gençsü, I. et al. (2017), Phase-out 2020: Monitoring Europe’s fossil fuel subsidies: Germany, ODI and CAN Europe,
London.
Gençsü, I. and F. Zerzawy (2017), Phase-out 2020: Monitoring Europe’s fossil fuel subsidies, ODI and CAN
Europe, London.
IEA et al. (2010), Analysis of the scope of energy subsidies and suggestions for the G-20 initiative, IEA-OPEC-
OECD-World Bank.
IEA/OECD (2014), World energy outlook, IEA, Paris.
IEA/OECD (2016), World energy outlook, IEA, Paris.
IEA/OECD (2017a), World energy outlook 2017, IEA/OECD, Paris.
IEA/OECD (2017b), IEA Fossil-Fuel Subsidies Database, IEA, Paris, www.iea.org/media/publications/weo/
Subsidies20142016.xlsx.
IEA/OECD (2019), World energy outlook, IEA/OECD, Paris.
IEA Bioenergy (2017), The potential of biofuels in China, Task 39, IEA Bioenergy.
IISD (2018), India’s energy transition: Subsidies for Fossil Fuels and Renewable Energy, 2018 Update, IISD,
Winnipeg, Manitoba.
IISD (2008), Biofuels – At what cost?: Government support for ethanol and biodiesel in China, IISD, Geneva.
Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (2016), Technical update of the social cost of
carbon for regulatory impact analysis under Executive Order 12866, Government of the United States, Washington, DC.
IEA (International Energy Agency) (1999), World energy outlook – Looking at energy subsidies: Getting the
prices right, IEA, Paris.
IRENA (2019a), Global energy transformation 2019: A roadmap to 2050, IRENA, Abu Dhabi.
IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency) (2019b), Renewable power generation costs in 2018, IRENA,
Abu Dhabi.
IRENA (2018a), Global energy transformation: A roadmap to 2050, IRENA, Abu Dhabi.

IRENA (2018b), Renewable energy statistics 2018, IRENA, Abu Dhabi.
IRENA (2018c), Renewable power generation costs in 2017, IRENA, Abu Dhabi.
IRENA (2017), Methodology background document: Development of a decarbonisation pathway for the global
energy system to 2050, IRENA, Abu Dhabi.
IRENA (2014), A renewable energy roadmap (REmap 2030): Cost methodology, IRENA, Abu Dhabi.
Jones, D. and R. Steenblik (2010), Subsidy estimation: A survey of current practice, IISD, Geneva.
Kojima, M. and D. Koplow (2015), “Fossil fuel subsidies: Approaches and valuation”, Policy Research Working
Paper 7220, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Kolpow, D. (2018), “Defining and measuring fossil fuel subsidies”, in The Politics of Fossil Fuel Subsidies and
Their Reform, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Koplow, D. (2017), “Energy subsidies: Global estimates, causes of variance, and gaps for the nuclear fuel cycle”,
in Learning from Fukushima: Nuclear power in East Asia, Australian National University, Canberra.
Koplow, D. (2012), “Phasing out fossil-fuel subsidies in the G20: A progress update”, Oil Change International
and Earth Track Inc, Cambridge, MA.
Koplow, D. (2011), Nuclear power: Still not viable without subsidies, Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, MA.
LBNL (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) (2018), Tracking the sun: 2018 edition, LBNL, Berkeley, CA.
McKitrick, R. (2017), “Global energy subsidies: A analytical taxonomy”, Energy Policy, Vol. 101, pp. 379385.
METI (Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry) (2018), “Settlement of FY 2016 purchase prices and FY 2016
surcharge rates under the feed-in tariff scheme for renewable energy”, Agency for Natural Resources and Energy,
METI, Tokyo. www.meti.go.jp/english/press/2016/0318_03.html, accessed 5 October 2018.
NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) and LBNL (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) (2016),
A Prospective Analysis of the Costs, Benefits, and Impacts of U.S. Renewable Portfolio Standards, NREL/LBNL,
Boulder, CO and Berkeley, CA.
National Research Council (NRC) (2010), Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production
and Use, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
OCI (Oil Change International) (2017), Talk is cheap: How G20 governments are financing climate disaster, OCI,
Washington, DC.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2018), OECD companion to the inventory
of support measures to fossil fuels 2018, OECD, Paris.
OECD (2019), Update on Recent Progress in Reform of Inefficient Fossil-Fuel Subsidies that Encourage Wasteful
Consumption, OECD, Paris.
OECD (2015), OECD companion to the inventory of support measures for fossil fuels 2015, OECD, Paris.
OECD/NEA (2018), Nuclear operators’ third party liability amounts and financial security limits, OECD/NEA, Paris.
Skovgaard, J. (2017), “The devil lies in the definition: Competing approaches to fossil fuel subsidies at the IMF
and OECD”, International Environmental Agreements, Vol. 17, pp. 341353.
Sovacool, B. (2017), “Reviewing, reforming, and rethinking global energy subsidies: Towards a political economy
research agenda”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 135, pp 150–163.
Trinomics (2018), Study on Energy Prices, Costs and Subsidies and their Impact on Industry and Households,
Trinomics, Rotterdam.
Umweltbundesamt (2014), Environmentally Harmful Subsidies In Germany: Updated Edition 2014,
Umweltbundesamt, Dessau-Roßlau.
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), OECD and IISD (2019), Measuring Fossil Fuel Subsidies in the
Context of the Sustainable Development Goals, UNEP, Nairobi.
USDA (2017a), Biofuels Annual: China – Peoples Republic, Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA, Beijing.
USDA (2017b), Japan Biofuels Annual 2017, Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA, Tokyo.
USDA (2019), Biofuel Annual: China - Peoples Republic, Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA, Beijing.
World Bank (2019), State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2019, World Bank Group, Washington, D.C.
WTO (World Trade Organisation) (2006), World Trade Report 2006, WTO, Geneva.
Zerzawy, F., S. Fiedler and A. Mahler (2017), Subventionen für fossile Energien in Deutschland, Greenpeace and
Forum Ökologisch-Soziale Marktwirtschaft, Hamburg/Berlin.

ANNEX A:
DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS OF
ENERGY SUBSIDIES
THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
The World Trade Organization (WTO) definition

of a subsidy – one that is in theory accepted by all
participating members, if not actually used for energy
sector subsidy analysis – comes from the “Agreement
on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures” 55 and is
presented in Table 1.
Table 1: Subsidy text from the WTO “Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures”
ARTICLE I
DEFINITION OF A SUBSIDY
1.1 For the purpose of this Agreement, a subsidy shall be deemed to exist if:
(a)(1) there is a financial contribution by a government or any public body within the territory of a
Member (referred to in this Agreement as "gobernment"), i. e. where:
(i) a government practice involves a direct transfer of funds (e. g. grants, loans, and equity
infusion), potential direct transfers of funds or liabilities (e. g. loan guarantees);
(ii) government revenue that is otherwise due is foregone or not collected (e. g. fiscal
incentives such as tax credits);
(iii) a government provides goods or services other than general infrastructure, or purchases
goods;
(iv) a government makes payments to a funding mechanism, or entrusts, or directs a private

body to carry out one or more of the type of functions illustrated in (i) to (iii) above
which would normally be vested in the government and the practice, in no real sense,
differs from practices normally followed by governments;
or
(a)(2) there is any form of income or price support in the sense of Article XVI or GATT 1994;
and
(b) a benefit is thereby conferred.
55 The full text can be found on the WTO website (accessed on 4 July 2018). https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/24-scm.pdf

THE EUROPEAN UNION (EU) THE INTERNATIONAL
ENERGY AGENCY (IEA)
The European Commission (EC) defines state aid as
“an advantage in any form whatsoever conferred on The IEA definition of energy subsidies has the merit of
a selective basis to undertakings by national public being simple in conception, although it is still not easy
authorities”.56 It also includes a number of other to apply systematically.
stipulations for a measure to qualify as state aid,
including: The definition is: “Any government action directed
primarily at the energy sector that lowers the cost
• There has been an intervention by the state or of energy production, raises the price received by
through state resources, which can take a variety of energy producers, or lowers the price paid by energy
forms (e. g. grants, interest and tax relief, guarantees, consumers. It can be applied to fossil and non-fossil
government holdings of all or part of a company, or energy in the same way.” (IEA, 2014).
providing goods and services on preferential terms,
etc.). The IEA uses a price-gap analysis (e. g., where
consumer prices are compared to reference prices
• The intervention gives the recipient an advantage on that are designed to represent a market price
a selective basis – for example, to specific companies equivalent without support) to compare actual prices
or industry sectors, or to companies located in to a reference price for what would be an unsubsidised
specific regions. product.58 This approach is not likely to capture
all types of subsidy and may underestimate some,
• Competition has been or may be distorted. depending on their design and whether or not all of
the subsidy is actually passed through to consumers,
• The intervention is likely to affect trade between or part of the subsidy is captured by producers,
member states. wholesalers or retailers.
When necessary, the EC reviews any state aid construed

as a subsidy, to ensure that it does not compromise the THE ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC
principles of the single market. Specific consideration CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT
is given to renewable energy, however, given that it (OECD)
contributes to the EU’s climate and energy goals.57
The OECD definition of subsidy support to fossil
The EC’s 2018 inventory of energy sector subsidies fuels is: “Both direct budgetary transfers and tax
adopted the OECD definition (Trinomics, 2018), while expenditures that in some way provide a benefit or
acknowledging its drawbacks. This inventory has preference for fossil fuel production or consumption
adopted some measures to try and mitigate these, in relative to alternatives,” (OECD, 2015).
order to come up with comprehensive estimates. In
practice, the EC definition of energy sector subsidies Crucially, the OECD uses a different approach to the
is now broader than its definition of state aid. IEA in terms of calculating the level of subsidies. The
OECD has created an inventory of specific measures
that calculates the direct government transfers and
56 http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/overview/index_en.html accessed on 14 August 2018.

57 This is not a blanket exemption and specific conditions are in place to ensure support is provided in a way that minimises distortions to competition. See https://
eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52014XC0628 %2801 %29&from=EN
58 See their methodology paper (accessed on 4 July 2018). http://www.iea.org/media/weowebsite/energymodel/documentation/Methodology_FossilFuelSubsidies.
pdf

tax expenditures of different programmes. They note price-gap analysis) and post-tax subsidies. For post-
that this means that the IEA and OECD approaches tax subsidies, they take a wider view than the OECD,
are not directly comparable, despite similar definitions, by covering any divergence from efficient tax levels.
but have recently started to try and integrate the two The implications of this are significant, as it means
approaches (OECD, 2018). that un-taxed negative externalities are also counted
as subsidies (including, depending on the fuel costs
from greenhouse gas emissions, local air pollution,
THE WORLD BANK (WB) accidents, traffic congestion and road damage by
heavy trucks). This inclusion changes the order of
The WB has also written about fossil fuel subsidies magnitude of energy sector subsidies, compared to
and defines them as: “A deliberate policy action by estimates that exclude these.
the government that specifically targets fossil fuels, or
electricity or heat generated from fossil fuels” that has
one or more of the following effects:
• It reduces the net cost of energy purchased.
• It reduces the cost of production or delivery of fuels,

electricity, or heat.
• It increases the revenues retained by resource

owners, or suppliers of fuel, electricity, or heat.
The definition excludes policy actions that achieve these

effects through promotion of efficiency improvement
along the supply chain, greater competition in the
market, or other improvements in market conditions
(Kojima and Koplow, 2015).
THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY

FUND (IMF)
The IMF has also looked at identifying and quantifying

energy sector subsidies and defines fossil fuel subsidies
as:
“Consumer subsidies (that) arise when the prices paid

by consumers, including both firms (intermediate
consumption) and households (final consumption), are
below supply costs, including transport and distribution
costs. Producer subsidies arise when prices are above
this level,” (Clements, et al., 2013).
The important distinction made by the IMF is

between pre-tax subsidies (those that are similar
to the IEA’s definition and can be examined with a

www.irena.org
© IRENA 2019

IRENA Energy Subsidies 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IRENA Energy Subsidies 2020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

IRENA Energy Subsidies 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ENERGY SUBSIDIES

Evolution in the Global Energy

TECHNICAL PAPER 1/2020

Michael Taylor heads IRENA's Costs team.

1 S UBSIDIES, PRIVILEGES, UNPRICED EXTERNALITIES AND

2 E NERGY SECTOR SUBSIDY ESTIMATES  28

2.3 Total fossil-fuel subsidies  42

2.4 Nuclear power subsidies  44

3 TOTAL ENERGY SUBSIDIES IN 2017 AND

Figure 5: IRENA subsidy estimates for renewable power generation

Figure 8: Total global fossil-fuel subsidies by fuel/energy carrier, 2017  42

Figure 9: Fossil-fuel subsidies by country and fuel/energy carrier, 2017  43

Figure 10: Total energy sector subsidies by fuel/source, 2017  47

Figure 17: Energy sector subsidies by fuel/source and sector/end-use

4 | ENERGY SECTOR SUBSIDIES

Table 2: A typology of global energy subsidies  25

Table 7: Subsidy categories and sources for nuclear power  45

EVOLUTION IN THE GLOBAL ENERGY TRANSFORMATION TO 2050 | 5

6 | ENERGY SECTOR SUBSIDIES

EVOLUTION IN THE GLOBAL ENERGY TRANSFORMATION TO 2050 | 7

8 | ENERGY SECTOR SUBSIDIES

Fossil fuels Nuclear Renewables

EVOLUTION IN THE GLOBAL ENERGY TRANSFORMATION TO 2050 | 9

Fossil fuels Nuclear Electric vehicles Efficiency Renewables

10 | ENERGY SECTOR SUBSIDIES

MORE WORK NEEDED ON TOTAL

Analysis of energy sector subsidies has, in the past,

EVOLUTION IN THE GLOBAL ENERGY TRANSFORMATION TO 2050 | 11

Annual energy-related CO2 emissions, 2010–2050 (Gt/yr)

35 Reference Case: 33 Gt in 2050

Source: IRENA, 2019b.

12 | ENERGY SECTOR SUBSIDIES

EVOLUTION IN THE GLOBAL ENERGY TRANSFORMATION TO 2050 | 13

14 | ENERGY SECTOR SUBSIDIES

EVOLUTION IN THE GLOBAL ENERGY TRANSFORMATION TO 2050 | 15

Standard Negative Externality Graph

16 | ENERGY SECTOR SUBSIDIES

Private Costs + Fossil-fuel Subsidies

EVOLUTION IN THE GLOBAL ENERGY TRANSFORMATION TO 2050 | 17

DEFINITION FOCUS/ STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES

18 | ENERGY SECTOR SUBSIDIES

EVOLUTION IN THE GLOBAL ENERGY TRANSFORMATION TO 2050 | 19

20 | ENERGY SECTOR SUBSIDIES

EVOLUTION IN THE GLOBAL ENERGY TRANSFORMATION TO 2050 | 21

TYPE OF SUBSIDY EXAMPLE(S)

DIRECT FINANCIAL • Grants to producers

Source: Based on Sovacool, 2017.

22 | ENERGY SECTOR SUBSIDIES

EVOLUTION IN THE GLOBAL ENERGY TRANSFORMATION TO 2050 | 23

APPROACH STRENGTHS LIMITATIONS

INVENTORY • Captures transfers whether or not • Does not address quiestions of

Source: Based on Koplow, 2018.

24 | ENERGY SECTOR SUBSIDIES

EVOLUTION IN THE GLOBAL ENERGY TRANSFORMATION TO 2050 | 25

POWER GENERATION CALCULATION BIOFUELS

CHINA ~15 Inventory 0.4 Price-gap

JAPAN 19 Inventory ~0.2-0.3 Price-gap

INDIA 2.2 Price-gap 0.9 Price-gap

26 | ENERGY SECTOR SUBSIDIES

1 S UBSIDIES, PRIVILEGES, UNPRICED EXTERNALITIES AND

2 E NERGY SECTOR SUBSIDY ESTIMATES 28

2.3 Total fossil-fuel subsidies 42

2.4 Nuclear power subsidies 44

3 TOTAL ENERGY SUBSIDIES IN 2017 AND

Figure 5: IRENA subsidy estimates for renewable power generation

Figure 8: Total global fossil-fuel subsidies by fuel/energy carrier, 2017 42

Figure 9: Fossil-fuel subsidies by country and fuel/energy carrier, 2017 43

Figure 10: Total energy sector subsidies by fuel/source, 2017 47

Figure 17: Energy sector subsidies by fuel/source and sector/end-use

Table 2: A typology of global energy subsidies 25

Table 7: Subsidy categories and sources for nuclear power 45