Electricity sector reforms in four Latin-American ...

Energy Policy 38 (2010) 6755–6766

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Electricity sector reforms in four Latin-American countries and their impact on carbon dioxide emissions and renewable energy Belizza Janet Ruiz-Mendoza n, Claudia Sheinbaum-Pardo nn ń, C.P. 04510, Me´xico D.F., Me´xico ńoma de Me ´xico, Circuito Exterior S/N, Edificio 12, Cubıćulo 319, Ciudad Universitaria, Coyoaca Instituto de Ingenierıá, Universidad Nacional Auto

a r t i c l e in fo

abstract

Article history: Received 9 April 2010 Accepted 24 June 2010 Available online 9 August 2010

This paper analyzes carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions related to energy consumption for electricity generation in four Latin-American countries in the context of the liberalization process. From 1990 to 2006, power plants based on renewable energy sources decreased its share in power installed capacity, and the carbon index defined as CO2 emission by unit of energy for electricity production stayed almost constant for all countries with the exception of Colombia, where the index reduced due to increase in hydroelectricity generation in the last years. The paper also presents a new set of policies to promote renewable energy sources that have been developed in the four countries. The paper concludes that restructuring did not bring about environmental benefits related to a decrease in CO2 emissions because this depend on the existence of committed policies, and dedicated institutional and regulatory frameworks. & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: CO2 emissions reduction Renewable energy sources Electricity sector liberalization

1. Introduction This paper analyzes energy consumption for electricity production and related CO2 emissions in four Latin-American countries (Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico) under the framework of the liberalization process that took place in the 1990s. These four countries represent 68% of Latin-American and Caribbean population, 75% of its gross domestic product, 68% of its primary energy use, and 80% of its power installed capacity (U.S. EIA, 2009; SIEE-OLADE, 2009). Like in other regions of the world, during the 1990s a structural change in the electricity sector of Latin-American countries occurred. This was part of different measures encouraged into the region by the multilateral organisms and international financial institutions (Bouille et al., 2001) which made these recommendations for the sector as part of the process of the re-negotiation of foreign debt. Such recommendations can be summarized in the following points: the need for attracting national and international private investment, the integration of the energy markets as part of the regional economic integration process, the increment of the electrification rate, and the promotion of energy efficiency (BID, 2000).

n Corresponding author. Tel.: +52 55 56233600x8866; fax: + 52 55 56233600x8051. nn Corresponding author. Tel.: + 52 55 56233693. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B. Janet Ruiz-Mendoza), [email protected] (C. Sheinbaum-Pardo).

0301-4215/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.06.046

Parallel to the electricity reforms, concerns on environment were also part of the international agenda. In 1987 the Brundtland Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development alerted the world to the urgency of making progress toward economic development that could be sustained without depleting natural resources or harming the environment (CMMAD, 1988). In 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was set up in order to find options that allow facing the problems caused by the increase in the temperature of the earth’s surface provoked by the growth of greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions. The Convention adopted the Kyoto protocol in 1997, and enforced it in 2005. Latin America and the Caribbean represent 8.6% of world population, nearly 6% of the world total primary energy consumption and 5% of GHG emissions (U.S. EIA, 2009). Although it is a small share compared to other developing regions such as Asia, the main countries of the region signed the Kyoto Protocol in the late 1990s and committed to reduce GHG emissions under their development possibilities (United Nations 1998). Fig. 1 shows the years in which different governments approved specific laws in order to promote the liberalization processes of the electricity sector and also marks the international environmental conferences at the global level supported by United Nations. With this, it tries to show two processes correlated orally but not in their practice. More than a decade after the reforms when policies and facts were contrasted, results for selected countries show that energy consumption of the electricity sector is more dependent on fossil fuels than before the liberalization process, and therefore carbon dioxide emissions

6756

B. Janet Ruiz-Mendoza, C. Sheinbaum-Pardo / Energy Policy 38 (2010) 6755–6766

Argentina

89 Law reforming the State

Brazil

Colombia

89

Mexico

International Environmental Conferences

93 Electricity Reform

92

89

92

89

89

92 Privatization (National)

93

94 143 and 142 laws

93

95 Privatization (Provinces)

94

95 Privatization (Supply)

94

92 Public Services Law for Electricity Power

92 UNCED

93

94

94

95

95

97 Kyoto Protocol

98

98 Privatization (Generation)

97

95 Electricity spot market

93

97

97

97

98

98

98

02

02

02

03

03

03

04

04

04

02

03

04

02 Rio +10

03

04 Bonn

05

05

05

05

05

08

08

08

08

08

Fig. 1. Key years in electricity sector reforms and global environmental initiatives.

related to electricity sector have grown at a higher rate. Moreover, the criterion prevailing for many years has been to guarantee the profit expectations for investors over environmentally friendly solutions. It is not until recent years that in few countries, policies are promoting the increase of renewable energy sources (RES) in electricity supply. However, those benefits are not automatic because the legislative measures might face a controversial matter between the profit expectations from the private sector and the promotion of renewable energy. Specific regulatory frameworks and institutions are needed to reduce GHG emissions by the increasing utilization of RES.

2. The electricity reforms Natural monopoly arose because of own characteristics of the electric system such as the investment to build infrastructure. Economy of scale requires of high investment in the electricity generation segment, and the transmission and distribution infrastructure requires a single operation system in order to avoid duplicated networks. Both elements facilitated the establishment of the private and state-owned monopolies, and in many countries the last prevailed. Until the early 1990s, governments either owned the electricity sector or controlled the sector through strict regulations (Dubash, 2003). There was a general notion about electricity as a natural monopoly, which changed in the late 1980s by means of reforms that took place over the world. There were two trends marking the reform processes; on the one hand, the insertion of independent power producers who sold electricity to investor-owned utilities (Hirsh, 1999), and on the other, ‘‘macroeconomic restructuring based on an ideological predisposition to private ownership and competition; a desire to increase efficiency in the sector; and privatization to stem a drain on public finances’’ (Dubash, 2003).

The last trend was the vision that dominated reforms in Latin America. Before the reforms, most of the Latin-American electricity systems were characterized by predominant presence of stateowned utilities. In general, these companies were vertically integrated, for electricity generation, transmission and distribution; although in some cases, regional decentralized companies used to offer the electricity supply (OLADE et al., 2000). According to ownership, productive structure, and management, the reforms can be characterized by different schemes. Although the orientation of the reforms was similar for the whole region, every country set up them with a different scope, depth and rhythm, although in most cases, the liberalization process for the electricity sector involved the re-definition of the State’s ownership and its functions, the increase of private participation, and the incorporation of new market and regulatory mechanisms (OLADE et al., 2000).

2.1. Argentina The reform in Argentina was the deepest and most radical among countries studied. It was characterized by private ownership in generation and transmission mainly, horizontal and vertical unbundling and market competition (Haselip et al., 2005). It started in 1989 with the Law for the reforming of the State. In 1992, the main state-owned power companies, SEGBA S.A., the integrate utility serving Buenos Aires and surrounding areas, as well as national generation companies Agua y Energıá Elećtrica and HIDRONOR were privatized. In 1995, the provinces awarded the electricity supply segment and sold the electricity generation plants. Amount of new operators increased in the electricity generation and transmission segments, while a lot of province-owned utilities still continue supplying electricity (Romero, 1998). Vertical and horizontal unbundling of the electricity productive chain, regulatory principle of incompatibility among functions,


third party access to transmission and distribution networks as well as entry into electricity generation, and privatization of the business units under federal control (with the exception of the nuclear plants and bi-national hydroelectric stations that remained in federal hands) were the most important elements actuated by the electricity reform (Bouille et al., 2001). In environmental terms, electricity reform did bring about new regulations to lead the sector toward less pollution levels. The environmental management manuals before reform continued regulating thermal and hydroelectric plants; in fact, environmental concerns were not part of the investment policy neither promoted environmentally friendly energy sources (Bouille et al., 2001). In this sense, Dutt et al. stated that ‘‘a major weakness of the reforms has been the lack of importance given to the efficient use of electricity, which has the potential to reduce both future investment requirements and the environmental impact of the power sector’’ (Dutt et al., 1997). Fig. 2 shows energy consumption by source for electricity generation in Argentina from 1990 to 2006 and marks the beginning of the electricity privatization. After privatization, natural gas and coal increased their share in electricity generation.

2.2. Brazil In Brazil, the electricity sector reform process started in 1993 with the Law 8631. During 1993–1995, the State reformed its institutions in order to establish new administrative rules that allowed as a first step the privatization and concession processes that matured in 1998 when the Law 9648 and the Decree 2655 created the wholesale electricity market (Vieira de Abreu, 2009). The most important element of the reform was change in ownership from State to private investors. The reform emphasized three aspects: new legal and regulatory framework, new trading arrangements, and institutional changes (Mendonc- a and Dahl, 1999). Nevertheless, the Brazilian reforms were more cautious and gradual than the Argentinean and Chilean cases (Kuntsi-Reunanen, 2007). They were characterized by mix ownership, feeble vertical disintegration, and market competition of some areas, depending on the region. Fig. 3 shows energy consumption by source for electricity generation in Brazil from 1990 to 2006 and marks the beginning

6757

of the electricity privatization. After privatization, hydropower production decreased, and natural gas increased. 2.3. Colombia The Colombian electricity sector reform started in 1994 by the Electricity Law No. 143 and the Public Services Law No. 142. Both of them promoted: (1) unbundling of electricity productive chain of the state-owned companies that prior to reform were vertically integrated, (2) competition among new investors for the electricity generation and supply segments, (3) private investment, and (3) third part access to transmission and distribution networks. Moreover, the reform set up the electricity spot market – the electricity pool – and new regulatory scheme and institutions (Pombo, 2001). The reform allowed private investment in new electricity capacity and the right for any public owner to sell the whole or part of their electricity company to private investors. The Colombian reform is characterized by deregulated market, allowing a mixed ownership structure— private as well as public in the context of central and regional governments (Larsen et al., 2004). Thermo-electric plants benefited from the electricity reform. The Energy and Gas Regulatory Commission determined an extra capacity payment for this technology. However, the growth of this type of plants was not as high as anticipated, because demand did not increase as expected and heavy rain caused by phenomenon ã promote higher hydroelectricity generation. This situation La nin brought thermo-electricity prices to an uneconomic level (Larsen et al., 2004). Fig. 4 shows energy consumption by source for electricity generation in Colombia from 1990 to 2006 and marks the beginning of the electricity reform. Colombia is the only case, where hydroelectricity increased its share in power generation. 2.4. Mexico In Mexico, the reform of the Law that regulates the electricity sector was approved in 1992, allowing private generation for cogeneration, self-generation and electricity generation to be sold to the stated-owned company that acts as a unique buyer, ń Federal de Electricidad (CFE) (SEMIP, 1993). So far Mexico Comisio has not engaged in a radical reform of its state-owned energy sector, due among other factors to the specific enshrinement of

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1989 1990 Law for reforming the State

1992 1994 Privatization Oil

1996

1998

2000

Biomass

Coal

Natural Gas

Fig. 2. Structure of energy consumption by source for electricity generation in Argentina. Source: (SE-MPFIPS 2008).

2002

Hydro

2004

2006

6758


100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

Electricity sector liberalization Law 9648 Law 8631 Coal Oil Natural Gas Other renewables

2002

2004

2006

Nuclear

Biomass

Fig. 3. Structure of energy consumption by source for electricity generation in Brazil. Source: (MME 2008).

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Electricity Law Nº143 Public Services Law Nº142 Hydro Biomass (Bagasse) Other (waste) Natural Gas

2004

Coal

2006

Oil

Fig. 4. Structure of energy consumption by source for electricity generation in Colombia. Source: (UPME 2007).

public ownership on the energy sector defined by the Constitution. Vertical integration in the electricity sector has been largely maintained, while allowing private electricity generators to set up new additional capacity and sell it to the national electricity company (Gabriele, 2004). Although the law was approved in 1992, the participation of private generators started in 2000. The increment of private generation based on natural gas combined cycle plants, reduced the participation of thermal plants based on fuel-oil, but also, reduced the participation of hydroelectricity and geothermal plants in total generation. Fig. 5 shows energy consumption by source for electricity generation in Mexico from 1990 to 2006 and marks the beginning of the privatization process and the increase in private generation.

the four countries under study. However, the changes were not in the path of CO2 emission reductions.1 Table 1 presents installed capacity by energy source for the four selected countries. As shown, from 1990 to 2006, renewable energy decreased its participation in total installed capacity by 3% in Argentina, 7% in Brazil, 9% in Colombia and 7% in Mexico (U.S. EIA, 2009). In Argentina, Brazil and Mexico, fossil fuel consumption increased at a higher rate than RES (Table 2). Colombia presents an exception because hydroelectric generation increased at a higher rate in the last years, nevertheless it was not accompanied by a raise in installed hydroelectric capacity; therefore, it was related to higher use of actual capacity due probably to more water availability. Natural gas is the fuel with larger increase in the three countries where fossil fuel consumption augmented. The percentage of natural gas in total energy consumption for electricity

3. Fossil fuel consumption trends and related CO2 emissions in the electricity sector From the period of the electricity sector reforms until recent years, the structure for electricity generation has been modified in

1 Data for the analysis is obtained from national publications from the Energy Ministries, OLADE and the Energy Information Administration from USDOE and it includes public, private and self-generation.


6759

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1990 1992 1994 Public Services Law for Electricity Power Hydro Biomass

1996

1998

Other renewables

2000

2002

2004

Nuclear

Natural Gas

Oil

2006

Coal

Fig. 5. Structure of energy consumption by source for electricity generation in Mexico. Source: (Secretarıá de Energıá, 1997, 2008). Table 1 Structure of electricity generation by energy source. Source: U.S. EIA (2009) Argentina

Hydro Nuclear Renewables Fossil fuels

Brazil

Colombia

Mexico

1990 (%)

2000 (%)

2006 (%)

1990 (%)

2000 (%)

2006 (%)

1990 (%)

2000 (%)

2006 (%)

1990 (%)

2000 (%)

2006 (%)

38 6 0 56

37 4 0 59

35 4 0 61

86 1 4 9

83 3 4 10

76 2 7 15

75 0 0 25

63 0 0 37

66 0 0 33

28 2 2 67

24 3 3 70

20 3 3 75

Table 2 Annual rate of growth of energy consumption by source for electricity generation from 1990 to 2006. Source: MME (2008) and Secretarıá de Energıá (1997, 2008), UPME (2007), SEMPFIPS (2008).

Hydro Nuclear Other renewables Natural gas Oil products Coal Total

Argentina (%)

Brazil (%)

Colombia (%)

Mexico (%)

4.9 1.0 0.0 5.1 1.1 8.3 3.9

3.3 11.8 273.7 27.6 4.4 5.0 4.7

3.0 0.0 5.8 0.8 2.6 0.1 2.1

1.2 8.8 1.2 11.1 1.7 9.3 3.3

generation increased from 44% to 52% in Argentina; 0.3% to 8.1% in Brazil; and 10.9% to 35.3% in Mexico. In the Colombian case, natural gas consumption share increased from 27.5% to 34.6% in the period 1990–2000, and decreased to 22.6% in 2006 (MME, 2008; Secretarıá de Energıá, 1997, 2008; UPME, 2007; SE-MPFIPS, 2008). The reason of the increment of natural gas consumption is related to the high efficiency and versatility of the combined cycle plants and to the liberalization process. The higher rates of return required by private electricity generators and the short-term vision that characterized private investment punishes capital intensive investments and rewards less intensive investments. Under this framework, renewable energy has small possibilities of development. Thus, in a reformed market, in which private utilities operate the electricity system and no other regulation

is enforced, profitability is the central operating principle, regardless of the environment, the social issues and even energy security goals. For example, in Mexico increment in natural gas consumption for electricity generation have entailed that 21% of this is imported, because the main objective is profitability for the independent producers (Sheinbaum et al., 2009). Fig. 6 presents CO2 emissions related to electricity generation by country calculated with the IPCC methodology (IPCC, 1996). As shown, Mexico is by far the country with higher CO2 emissions related to electricity generation, followed by Argentina, Brazil and Colombia. However, average annual rate of growth of CO2 emissions for the whole period reported 7.4% per year for Brazil, 4.2% per year for Argentina, 3.4% per year for Mexico and 0.4% per year for Colombia (MME, 2008; Secretarıá de Energıá, 1997, 2008; UPME, 2007; SE-MPFIPS, 2008). The carbon index (defined as CO2 emissions divided by energy consumption for electricity generation) is shown in Fig. 7. In 2006, Mexico had the highest carbon index (51.2 tCO2/TJ). In contrast, this indicator was 37.9 tCO2/TJ for Argentina, 22.54 tCO2/TJ for Colombia, and 11.61 tCO2/TJ for Brazil. Colombia is the only country that reduced its carbon index between 1990 and 2006, because of increase in hydroelectric generation. In contrast, carbon index grew by 0.5% in Brazil, 5.6% in Argentina and only 2.3% in Mexico. In this last country, although oil consumption was substituted by natural gas, the increment in coal and reduction of renewables shadowed the improvement. Two other indicators bring information about the performance of emissions related to energy consumption for electricity generation: CO2(elect)/capita and CO2(elect)/GDP. The results of these indicators are presented in Table 3 for years 1990 and 2006.

6760


140.0 120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 1990

1992

1994 1996 1998 Argentina Brazil

2000 Colombia

2002 2004 México

2006

2002

2006

Fig. 6. Emissions related to fuel consumption for electricity generation (tCO2). Source: (MME 2008), (Secretarıá de Energıá, 1997, 2008), (UPME 2007), (SE-MPFIPS 2008).

60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 1990

1992

1994 México

1996

1998

Argentina

2000 Brazil

2004

Colombia

Fig. 7. Carbon index (tCO2/TJ) by country. Source: (MME 2008), (Secretarıá de Energıá, 1997, 2008), (UPME 2007), (SE-MPFIPS 2008).

Table 3 Carbon intensity. Source: U.S. EIA (2009) and INEGI (2009). Argentina

a

GDP (million of 2000 USD) Population (millions) CO2 (metric tonnes) CO2/cap (metric tonnes) CO2/GDP (metric tonnes per thousand 2000 USD) a

Brazil

Colombia

Mexico

1990

2006

1990

2006

1990

2006

1990

2006

184.91 32.09 15.30 0.48 0.08

335.70 39.14 29.67 0.76 0.09

500.38 145.78 7.92 0.05 0.02

767.09 184.10 24.88 0.14 0.03

68.47 31.67 6.15 0.19 0.09

105.63 42.45 6.60 0.16 0.06

486.46 84.91 65.67 0.77 0.13

731.27 106.89 111.36 1.04 0.15

Using market exchange rates.

Both indicators increased for Argentina, Brazil and Mexico, while decreased for Colombia. This means that more CO2 related to electricity generation is emitted from both per capita and per dollar produced in three of the four analyzed countries. 4. Renewable energy policies The energy sector reforms in Latin America and Caribbean did not include in an explicit form the promotion of renewable energy sources. Recently, some governments have promoted regulations on these matters.

4.1. Argentina The legislative trajectory concerning RES for electricity generation began in 1998 with the national regime for wind and solar energy. After published, it had certain modifications by eight regulatory measures.2 There are two important incentives to point

2 Regulatory measures that modified the national regime for wind and solar energy were: Decree 1220/1998; Decree 1597/1998; Resolution 136/2000; Resolution 113/2001; Resolution 905/2005; Resolution 1061/2005; Resolution 1835/2005 and Law 26190.


Total Conventional Thermal Electricity Net Generation Nuclear Electricity Net Generation Hydroelectricity Net Generation Total Non-Hydro Renewable Electricity Net Generation 7%

35%

34%

58%

1%

Fig. 8. Argentina—electricity net generation in 2006. Source: Own with data from U.S. EIA.

out in that Law. The first one is a taxation mechanism for wind and solar stations, which consist of paying the value added tax during a period of 15 years.3 And the second one is a regulatory mechanism, also known as feed-in tariff, which is funded from a Trusteeship Fund for Renewable Energies that collects 0.3$/MWh coming from wholesale electricity market for rewarding generators using wind and solar energy with 1c$/kWh. By means of the second mechanism, every technology taking advantage renewable energy sources gets a payment guaranteed if the owners of plants trade the renewable electricity at the wholesale electricity market or supplied as public services4 (Ley 25.019, 1998). The Law 26.190 related to the regime for national fostering of renewable energy sources to generate electricity went into force in 2006. This was a complementary measure to the Law 25.019 mentioned above. Their main aspects are the definition of a quantitative objective for a middle term; namely, 8% of the national electricity consumption should come from renewable energy sources during 10 years; the design of a Federal Development Program for Renewable Energy Sources; the definition of what renewable energy sources are; and the stipulation of the incentive mechanisms (Ley 26.190, 2006). During the period between both laws, wind energy had an average increment per year of 11.7% passing from 0.031 TWh in 1998 to 0.067 TWh in 2006, and its absolute share was less than 1% in 2006 (Fig. 8). Solar energy data do not appear in the database utilized. This could be because the sizes of the systems are so small that their data are slight according to electricity net generation or the systems are isolated. Fig. 9 shows consumption of RES in Argentina. The 95% of total non-hydro renewable electricity net generation is coming from biomass. Although hydropower is a renewable energy source, large hydroelectric stations are not included in that cluster of energy sources because of the social and environmental impacts resulting from its exploitation; moreover, such a technology working under the economy of scale criterion remains excluded to receive some financial incentive. The hydroelectric plant size has become an important issue to formulate and to analyze the legislative and

3

Article 3 of the Law 25.019. The article 5 of the Law 25.019 gives detailed information about the feed-in tariffs. It is convenient to say that the original writing of this article was substituted by the article 14 of the Law 26.190. 4

6761

institutional measures. For instance, in the European Union, the statistics concerning hydropower shows an accurate division among electrical capacity (Po1 MW; 1 MWoPo10 MW; P410 MW, European Commission, 2008) and legislative importance of such a difference is reflected in the feed-in tariffs determined in Belgium, Germany, Spain among other countries (De Vries et al., 2003). During 1998–2006, average increment of hydropower was 5.7%. Data used to calculate that percentage consider the gross amounts without differing between small and large capacity. A differentiation of electrical capacities statistically will constitute an important task because the 2006 Law only grants financial incentives to owners of hydroelectric stations with electrical capacity of less than 30 MW. In May, 2009 the Decree No. 562 regulating to Law 26.190 was put into effect. This focuses on the Federal Program for Renewable Energies with which 1015 MW would be installed by 2016, thus: 500 MW wind energy, 150 MW thermal by biofuels, 100 MW biomass, 120 MW municipal solid wastes, 60 MW small hydropower, 20 MW biogas, 25 MW thermal solar, 10 MW photovoltaic solar, and 30 MW geothermal (REEEP et al., 2009). ENARSA, stated-owned company, would buy the renewable electricity coming from those projects by 15 years and give it to Argentinean wholesale electricity market. In environmental and social terms, the Program seeks reducing 2,900,000 tonnes of CO2 per year and creates 8000 jobs. So far the Argentinean renewable energy regulation has a quantitative middle term objective (8% by 2016), a program (Federal Program for Renewable Energies), a taxable incentive, a regulatory mechanism (feed-in tariff), and a company managing renewable electricity purchase and sale.

4.2. Brazil PROINFA is the Brazilian program promoting the renewable energy sources to generate electricity. This program established in 2002 by the Law No. 10.438 (Lei No. 10.438/2002) and modified in 2003 by Law No. 10.762 (Lei No. 10.762/2003) has as main objective to diversify the electricity balance by means of the use of renewable energy sources. In order to achieve the objective, the program defined a quantitative aim of 3300 MW divided in equal parts among wind energy, biomass and small hydropower stations. The PROINFA is the most important initiative currently in Brazil, before there were some governmental programs with ´ LICA, and PCH-COM) that had smaller goals (PRODEEM, PROEO troubles to accomplish their objectives. Therefore, PROINFA gathered the unfinished goals of such programs inside its own goals (Ruiz et al., 2007). Whoever generates electricity under PROINFA must do it under the autonomous independent producer modality.5 Afterwards Electrobra´s guarantees the purchase of electricity for a period of 20 years at a fixed tariff by the Department of Mining and Energy.6 Such a tariff is an incentive and its worth is differed according to each renewable energy source (Table 4). The PROINFA was structured in two stages. It was stated for the first one (2002–2006) to install 3300 MW, and for the second one (2006–2022) to increase the share of electricity coming from 5 Independent electricity producer: juridical person or consortiums whom receive grant or authorization in order to produce electricity in order to trade all electricity or share of her with own risk. Independent electricity producer is considered autonomous when his society, which is not subsidiary, neither both is controlled and linked by a public company of generation, transmission, or distribution of electricity, nor of its subsidiaries (Decreto No. 5025, 2004). 6 The 10.438 Law was modified by the 10.762 Law in 2003 in order to extend the period during which independent electricity producers receive the fixed tariff from 15 to 20 years. Lei No. 10.762.

6762


5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Wind Electricity Net Generation

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Biomass and Waste Electricity Net Generation

Fig. 9. Argentina—biomass and wind energy (TJ). Source: Own with data from U.S. EIA.

Table 4 Economic values by technologies. Source: MME (2004). Type of station

Economic value (US$/MWh)

Minimum value (US$/MWh)

Small hydroelectricity stations

40.07

40.07

Wind RCF ¼RCFmin RCFmin oRCF oRCFmax RCF ¼RCFmax

69.98 Equationa 61.71

51.52 51.52 51.52

Biomass Cane bagasse Rice shell Wood Gas from biomass

32.11 35.34 34.71 57.90

28.62 28.62 28.62 28.62

a RCF: reference capacity factor of the station, VETEF_E: economical value of wind energy, ER: reference energy by Energy Regulatory Commission, p: electrical losses, CP: consumed electricity by the station without to consider losses, P: installed power; FCRmax: maximum reference capacity factor 0.419347, FCRmin: minimum reference capacity factor 0.324041:

VETEF_Emax VETEF_Emin VETEF_E ¼ VETEF_Emax FCRmax FCRmin ðFCRFCRmin Þ ½ERð1ðp=100ÞÞCP FCR ¼ P 8760

wind energy, biomass and small scale hydropower until getting 10% of gross electricity consumption. During the second period, Eletrobra´s would sign on 20-year contracts and consider the issuance of certificates in which would be detailed the electricity generator’s legal status, type of renewable energy source, and amount of electricity purchased per year. Due to the fact that PROINFA aim was not achieved to 2006, the first part of PROINFA was postponed until December, 2010 (Lei No. 11.943/2009). In that period, Eletrobra´s signed electricity purchase contracts7 by a public bid system (MME, 2004). In the first round, 115 projects were selected totaling 2769.51 MW of which 569.51 MW came from biomass, 1100 MW from wind turbines and 1100 MW from small hydroelectricity stations. As the electrical

capacity, under contract in the first bid, coming from the wind and small hydropower stations satisfied the goals defined; in the second round, it only was selected biomass projects until getting 772.54 MW by 33 projects. Table 5 summarizes the results from 2000 to 2004; the prior projects to PROINFA (2000 2001) came ´ LICA and PCH-COM programs. from the PROEO Currently, Eletrobra´s reported new data about the PROINFA aims. This foresees the construction of 144 stations getting 3299.80 MW, thus: 1191.24 MW from 63 small hydropower stations, 1422.92 MW from 54 wind stations, and 685.24 MW from 27 biomass stations. The PROINFA management, financial and fiscal costs will be transferred to the end users that consume more than 80 kWh/month (Lei No. 10.762/2003). There is a further mechanism to encourage the PROINFA projects. This consists of complementary credits paid during 25 years and calculated on the difference between economic values of technology and competitive energy value. So far, there are three elements identified: purchase guaranteed of renewable electricity by Eletrobra´s; feed-in tariffs differed for each technology using renewable energy sources; and financial burden transferred. Kissel et al. (2009), identified these elements as basic ones of a feed-in law, taking in mind the European experience; they further suggested some adjustments based on two elements (macro-economic framework and price development and state). They also state, ‘‘The extension of generation capacity can clearly be spoilt by the introduction of additional elements in a feed-in law, as the PROINFA shows’’. They refer to three additional issues included in PROINFA: 1. restriction of plant capacity; 2. selection of projects; and 3. degree of nationalization. Kissel’s discussion is very important because it lets us to show two approaches (Latin American and European) to promote renewable energy sources by means of the feed-in scheme. They talk about the experience of 18 European member states as if a same scheme of feed-in law had been set up in them. There are important differences that cannot be undervalued influencing the effectiveness such laws among European countries. In fact, the German and Spanish feed-in laws are successful among many other feed-in laws from Austria,8 Denmark,9 France,10 Greece,11 among others with scarce results.

8

The feed-in tariffs system is regulated by the Electricity Act 2000. That system worked until 2001 under Act on Support for Utilization of Renewable Energy Sources. 10 Although from 2000 France has an Electricity Law to regulate feed-in tariffs, such a system had already been used with the program EOLE with limited results. 11 That system was established with Law 27773/99. 9

7 There were two criteria to select the projects: (1) the projects were listed according to the date of environmental license. (2) A maximum electrical capacity was defined for each technology in every state (MME, 2004).


6763

Table 5 Electrical capacity under contract in the PROINFA framework. Source: Data from Eletrobra´s, www.eletrobras.com/elb/main.asp. ´ LICA PROEO

PCH-COM

PROINFA

2000

2001

2002

Wind turbines Biomass stations Small hydropower stations

– – 22.00

25.20 – 154.44

419.05 43.00 427.31

655.75 300.82 496.25

– 998.23 –

1100.00 1342.05 1100.00

Total

22.00

179.64

889.36

1452.82

998.23

3542.05

Installed capacity (MW)

The question is why only Germany and Spain got optimal results. Our analyses let us to state that the German and Spanish success is result of a State policy to promote renewable energy sources for electricity sector; namely, during 10 years the German State gave financial support to owners of plant generating electricity with wind energy and solar energy. At the beginning, the State subsidized the incentive mechanism and subsequently the German people assumed such burden by means of the electricity bill. The first law, named StrEG,12 went into force during 10 years until 2000 when the EGG law substituted it (EGG, 2000). One reason to change it was the controversy provoked inside the European electricity markets related to the distortion of the free market. Although the free market perspective predominated finally, we cannot lose of view that the first 10 years of the StrEg Law fixed the bases of the current German renewable technologies industry that is worldwide leader. The Spanish case started with two paths simultaneously; one led by the National Energy Plan (1991–2000) that considered promoting two activities: cogeneration and renewable energy sources. Its aim consisted in increasing the use of renewable energy sources in 1.1% from 1990 through 2000. The second path characterized by several regulation measures started with the Royal Decree 2366 in 1994 defining a special regime in which the government gave subsidy to encourage hydropower stations, cogeneration plants and renewable energy sources (Real Decreto 2366, 1994). The demands of the European electricity market subjected both the work lines to the regional guidelines of free market; therefore, both of lines evolved under the new statements. The German and Spanish cases show that their State policies began with a subsidy scheme and only 10 years after modified them. We must take in mind those elements mentioned related to what State policy is because they were the origin and set up a strong system with good results. We know that both systems were modified to get a system more harmonized to the market rules, but that occurred solely when the German and Spanish industry was strengthened and projected to the world. We agree that feed-in law could be a path to follow if it evolves under social equity and development principles, for instance, governmental development programs focused on rural electrification could be supported by a feed-in law. We emphasize on the understating of the whole legislative experiences related to renewable energy sources in some particular country since a successful process in some country do not entail a success throughout. Despite the fact that PROINFA projects have been postponed in different moments, the Brazilian electricity balance has a large share of renewable energy; hydropower constitutes the 84% of the net generation (Fig. 10). The non-hydro renewable electricity totals 4%, almost all from biomass (Fig. 11). During 1990 2007, the average increase per year of biomass was about 9.41% and

12

StrEG was substituted by EGG in 2000.

Total 2003

2004

Total Conventional Thermal Electricity Net Generation Nuclear Electricity Net Generation Hydroelectricity Net Generation Total Non-Hydro Renewable Electricity Net Generation

3% 9%

88%

84%

4%

Fig. 10. Brazil—electricity net generation in 2006. Source: Own with data from U.S. EIA.

2.45% for hydropower. The wind energy increase is steep enough about 300% per year for the period 1998 2006. 4.3. Colombia The Colombian electricity balance is constituted by two energy sources mainly, 22% comes from thermal electricity and 77% from hydroelectricity. Different renewable energy sources from hydropower generate less than 1% of the net electricity (Fig. 12). To date the promotion of RES has not had relevance inside the electricity sector. At most, this has been mentioned in the program for efficient and rational use of energy (Ley 697/2001) that inserts some elements about alternative energies where renewable energy sources are included. The Planning Unit for Mining and Energy belonging to Ministry of Energy is which manages such a program. The most important elements of this are: (1) design of the Colombian program for normalization, accreditation, and certification of energy equipments; (2) incentive for using of fuel mixture for vehicles and (3) massive use of natural gas in the transport, trade, industry and dwelling sectors. The program for efficient and rational use of energy presented by the Law No. 697 in 2001 was regulated in 2003 by the Decree No. 3683 (Decreto 3683, 2003). Both Law and Decree lack of a scheme to encourage significantly the electricity generation by RES. Presenting the non-connected areas to electricity networks as the best places to implement renewable energy projects was the unique consideration in relation to this subject. In general, both documents did not propose a support mechanism neither define a quantitative objective. There was a fiscal reform in 2002 (Ley 788/2002), that exempted the owners of wind and biomass stations from paying

6764


80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

Biomass and Waste Electricity Net Generation Fig. 11. Brazil—biomass (TJ). Source: Own with data from U.S. EIA.

Total Conventional Thermal Electricity Net Generation Hydroelectricity Net Generation Total Non-Hydro Renewable Electricity Net Generation

22%

78%

77%

1%

Fig. 12. Colombia—electricity net generation in 2006 Source: Own with data from U.S. EIA.

income tax for a period of 15 years as long as they fulfill two requirements13: 1. Owners of plants should obtain and sale emission certificates according to the Kyoto protocol. 2. Owners would set aside at least 50% from incomes by sales of such certificates for social projects in the region where electricity plants would be installed. The equipments and machineries used in projects that permit to issue emission certificates would stay exempt from paying taxes; likewise, the alcohol mixed with gasoline would stay exempt from paying sales tax, global tax and gas tax.14 To date, the Colombian regulation has mainly benefited the production of ethanol, coming from sugarcane, and biodiesel, coming from oil palm, more than the generation of electricity using wind and biomass15 (Fig. 13). In Colombia; in contrast to this, biomass has taken an important place as raw material to 13

Article 18 (Decreto 788, 2002). Article 95 (Decree 788, 2002) 15 Currently, there is a production of 1,050,000 l per day of ethanol that uses 37,732 ha to sow sugarcane and 965,075 litres per day of biodiesel using 64.555 ha to sow oil palm (UPME, 2009). 14

produce agrofuels, but causing serious problems for the communities and the environment. Mario Pe´rez’s (2008) paper ´lo canto de sirenas?’’ comment some of ‘‘Los agrocombustilbes: ¿So these problems. With respect to wind energy, there is a sole wind park that was built by initiative of a municipal company (Empresas Pu´blicas de Medellıń, 2002). Its electrical capacity is 19.5 MW, supplied by 15 wind generators of 1.3 MW each. By Prototype Carbon Fund of the World Bank, this park obtains US$3.2 million from the sale of 800,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Currently, the installed renewable energy capacity in Colombia is 24.1 MW, from which 2 MW come from photovoltaic solar systems (UPME, 2003), 2.6 MW from small hydroelectric stations (IPSE, 2000), and 19.5 MW correspond to the wind park Jepirachi. 4.4. Mexico In November/2008, after several discussions and some changes in the original document, the Bill for Using Renewable Energy Sources and Financing Energy Transition went into effect (Decreto por el que se expide la Ley para el Aprovechamiento de Energıás ńEnerge ´tica (Congreso Renovables y el Financiamiento de la Transicio General de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 2008)). The main element of the Law consists of designing a renewable energy program led by the Ministry of Energy. Such a program will have specific objectives and goals for each technology; an electrical infrastructure plan; an increase renewable energy diversity; incentive mechanisms, and new functions for the Mexican institutions related to the energy sector. The first article of the Law states clearly that its objective is to regulate the use of renewable energy sources to generate electricity with different purposes from a public service. Namely, the objective is to regulate the private sector participation in the electricity generation segment. The mechanisms used internationally to promote renewable energy technologies group into four categories: direct subsidy, regulated subsidy (feed-in tariff and tradable renewable energy certificates), reduced taxes, and open market (tradable renewable energy certificates system and tradable emission certificates system). There are other mechanisms to promote those technologies; these are the mechanisms from the Kyoto Protocol (Joint Implementation, Clean Development Mechanism, and Emissions Trading). In the Law, there is not an explicit statement about any incentive mechanisms to promote renewable energy sources; as Mexico has agreed to use the mechanisms for reducing


6765

2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

Biomass and Waste Electricity Net Generation

2001

2003

2005

2007

Wind Electricity Net Generation

Fig. 13. Colombia—biomass and wind (TJ). Source: Own with data from U.S. EIA.

Total Conventional Thermal Electricity Net Generation Nuclear Electricity Net Generation Hydroelectricity Net Generation Total Non-Hydro Renewable Electricity Net Generation

4%

13% 16% 79%

4%

Fig. 14. Mexico—electricity net generation in 2006. Source: Own with data from U.S. EIA.

greenhouse gases emissions; it lets us think that the renewable energy projects would be promoted by the emissions trading and clean development mechanism systems (Ruiz-Mendoza and Sheinbaum-Pardo, 2010). Finally, the Law includes some social corporate responsibility considerations such as the participation in consultation processes, the payment of rent for the lands occupied, and the promotion of social development. However, these issues will only occur for plant installed with certain electrical capacity; namely, there is a social corporate responsibility process if the projects are smaller than 2.5 MW. In 2006, Mexican electricity balance was constituted thus: 83% from thermal electricity and 17% from renewable electricity generated by geothermal energy, hydropower and biomass (Fig. 14). Since 1973, Mexico State has developed several renewable electricity projects taking advantage the geothermal energy potential from Baja California, Michoacań and Puebla. Currently, there are four geothermal electricity plants totaling 960 MW.

5. Conclusions In the 1990s decade two apparently compatible process were developed in the world and especially in LAC. One was the

electricity liberalization process and the second consisted in inserting the environmental concerns into the governmental agendas, particularly, the global climate change. The four countries analyzed in this study have different schemes of reforms according to ownership, productive structure and management; however, all of them suffered a process of privatization and deregulation. Nevertheless, this process did not motivate a better performance in relation to GHG emissions. The analysis of carbon dioxide emissions related to fuel consumption for electricity generation show that conventional fossil fuel plants increase its participation in total installed capacity. With the exception of Colombia that increased hydroelectricity generation in recent years, the other countries increase fossil fuel consumption, especially natural gas on combined cycle plants, in detriment of hydroelectricity. In the case of Mexico, the increase in coal consumption reduced the improvement generated by the substitution of fuel oil by natural gas. This situation brought an increase in CO2 emission per capita and by GDP in Argentina, Brazil and Mexico. In recent years several dedicated laws that promote renewable energy sources are taken place in the four countries. This situation can led to a reduction in GHG emissions related to electricity generation. An analysis of these regulations shows that Brazil is the country with a higher commitment. Four elements exist characterizing the PROINFA: purchase guaranteed of renewable electricity by Electrobra´s; feed-in tariffs differed for each renewable technology; a clear aim of 3300 MW; and financial burden transferred. PROINFA has been postponed twice despite a frame established suitably. It is stated by some analysts that additional elements inserted in PROINFA have spoilt the electrical capacity of this causing delay.

Acknowledgement We are grateful to Gautam Dutt for his valuable comments. References Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo , 2000. Estrategia para el sector energıá - Serie de polı´ticas y estrategias del Departamento de Desarrollo Sostenible del BID, Washington, DC. Bouille, D., Dubrovsky, H., Maurer, C., 2001. Reform of the electric power sector in developing countries: case study of Argentina, Institute of Energy Economics Bariloche Foundation - World Resources Institute, Argentina. Comisioń Mundial sobre el Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo (CMMAD), 1988. Nuestro futuro comuń, Alianza, Madrid.

6766


Congreso General de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 2008. Decreto por el que se expide la Ley para el Aprovechamiento de Energıás Renovables y el Financiamiento de la Transicioń Energe´tica, Diario Oficial de la Federacioń, 28/11/2008, Me´xico D.F. De Vries, H.J., Roos, C.J., Beurskens, L.W.M., Kooijman, A.L., Uyterlinde, M.A., 2003. Renewable electricity policies in Europe—country fact sheets 2003, ECN Policy Studies, Netherlands. Decreto No. 5025, 2004. Dia´rio Oficial, 31 de marc-o, Brası´lia. Decreto 3683, 2003. Ministerio de Minas y Energıá, Ministerio de Comercio, Industria y Turismo, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial, Colombia. Dubash, N.K., 2003. Revisiting electricity reform: the case for a sustainable development approach. Utilities Policy 11, 143–154. Dutt, G., Nicchi, F., Brugnoni, M., 1997. Power sector reform in Argentina: an update. Energy for Sustainable Development 3 (6), 36–54. Empresas Pu´blicas de Medellıń (EPM), 2002. Programa general para el desarrollo de la energıá eo´lica en Colombia: Parque eo´lico piloto ‘‘Jepirachi’’, Subgerencia Planeacioń Generacioń Energıá, Medellıń. Energy-Economic Information System from Latin American Energy Organization (SIEE-OLADE), 2009. Data from /http://siee.olade.org/S. European Commission, 2008. Energy Yearly Statistics 2006—Eurostat Statistical Books. European Commission, Luxembourg. Gabriele, A., 2004. Policy alternatives in reforming energy utilities in developing countries. Energy Policy 32 (11), 1319–1337. Haselip, J., Dyner, I., Cherni, J., 2005. Electricity market reform in Argentina: assessing the impact for the poor in Buenos Aires. Utilities Policy 1 (13), 1–14. Hirsh, R., 1999. Power Loss: The Origins of Deregulation and Restructuring in the American Electric Utilities System. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Instituto de Planificacioń y Promocioń de Soluciones Energe´ticas (IPSE), 2000. Portafolio de proyectos e interconexioń para zonas no interconectadas, Colombia. Instituto Nacional de Estadı´stica y Geografıá (INEGI), 2009. En lıńea /http://www. inegi.org.mx/inegi/default.aspxS. IPCC, 1996. Revised 1996 IPCC guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Available on line /www.ipcc.chS. Kissel, J.M., et al., 2009. Cornerstones of a renewable energy law for emerging markets in South America. Energy Policy). doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.04.018. Kuntsi-Reunanen, E., 2007. A comparison of Latin American energy-related CO2 emissions from 1970 to 2001. Energy Policy 1 (35), 586–596. Larsen, E.R., Dyner, I., Bedoya, L., Franco, C.J., 2004. Lessons from deregulation in Colombia: successes, failures and the way ahead. Energy Policy 15 (32), 1767–1780. Lei No. 10.438 de 26 de abril, 2002. D.O. de 29.04. 2002, sec- a~ o 1, p. 1, v. 139, n. 81-A, Brasil. Lei No. 10.762 de 11 de novembro, 2003. D.O. de 12.11.2003, sec- a~ o 1, p. 130, v. 140, n. 220, Brasil. Lei No. 11.943 de 28 de maio , 2009. Ministe´rio de Minas e Energia, Brasil. Ley 697, 2001. Mediante la cual se fomenta el uso racional y eficiente de la energıá, se promueve la utilizacioń de energıás alternativa y se dictan otras disposiciones. Congreso de la Repu´blica, Colombia. Ley 788, 2002. Por la cual se expiden normas en materia tributaria y penal del orden nacional y territorial; y se dictan otras disposiciones, Diario Oficial No. 45.046 de 27 de diciembre de 2002, Colombia. Mendonc- a, F., Dahl, C., 1999. The Brazilian electrical system reform. Energy Policy 2 (27), 73–83.

Ministe´rio de Minas e Energia (MME), 2008. Balanc- o Energe´tico Nacional do, Brasil, /http://www.mme.gov.br/mme/menu/todas_publicacoes.htmlS. Ministe´rio de Energia e Minas (MME), 2004. Portaria No. 45, Marc- o 30, Dia´rio Oficial da Unia~ o - sec- a~ o 1. Organizacioń latinoamericana de Energıá – OLADE, Comisioń Econo´mica para Ame´rica Latina y el Caribe – CEPAL, Deutsche Gesellschaft Fur Technische Zusammenarbeit – GTZ, 2000. Energıá y desarrollo sustentable en Ame´rica Latina y el Caribe: Guıá para la formulacioń de polı´ticas energe´ticas, OLADE, Ecuador. Parlamento Federal y Consejo Federal (EGG), 2000. Ley de primacıá de las energıás renovables – (Ley de las energıás renovables EGG), y modificacioń de la Ley de regulacioń del sector energe´tico y de la Ley de impuestos sobre aceites minerales, Boletıń Federal de Leyes, 31 de marzo de 2000, Parte I, No. 13, Bonn. Pe´rez, M., 2008. Los agrocombustibles: ¿So´lo canto de sirenas? Ana´lisis de los impactos ambientales y sociales para el caso colombiano. In: Censat, PCN (Ed.), Agrocombustibles: Llenando tanques, vaciando territorios. Bochica, Colombia. Pombo, C., 2001. Regulatory reform in Colombia’s electric utilities, Economıá, Serie documentos – Borradores de investigacioń de la Universidad del Rosario, Colombia. REEEP, Secretarıá de Energıá en Argentina, Fundacioń Bariloche, 2009. Energıás Renovables – Diagno´stico, barreras y propuestas, REEP- SE-FB, Argentina. Re´gimen Nacional de Energıá Eo´lica y Solar – Ley 25.019, B.O. 26/10/98, /http:// infoleg.mecon.gov.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/50000-54999/53790/norma.htmS. Romero, Carlos A., 1998. Regulacioń e inversiones en el sector elećtrico argentino – Serie Reformas Econo´micas. Comisioń Econo´mica para Ame´rica Latina y el Caribe – CEPAL y Centro de Estudios Econo´micos de la Regulacioń – CEER, Argentina. Ruiz, B.J., Rodrı´guez, V., Bermann, C., 2007. Analysis and perspectives of the government programs to promote the renewable electricity generation in Brazil. Energy Policy 5 (35), 2989–2994. Ruiz-Mendoza, B.J., Sheinbaum-Pardo, C., 2010. Mexican renewable electricity law. Renewable Energy 3 (35), 674–678. Secretarıá de Energıá, 1997. Balance Nacional de Energıá, Me´xico. Secretarıá de Energıá, 2008. Balance Nacional de Energıá, Me´xico. Secretarıá de Energıá, Minas e Industria Paraestatal (SEMIP), 1993. Ley de Servicios Pu´blicos de Energıá Elećtrica, Me´xico. Secretarıá de Energıá-Ministerio de Planificacioń Federal Inversioń Pu´blica y Servicios (SE-MPFIPS), 2008. Informe Estadı´stico del Sector Elećtrico, Repu´blica de Argentina, /http://energia3.mecon.gov.ar/contenidos/verpagina.php?idpa gina=2599S. Sheinbaum, C., Rodrı´guez, V., Robles, G., 2009. Polı´tica mexicana e indicadores de sustentabilidad. Problemas del desarrollo 158 (40), 113–133. Unidad de Planeacioń Minero Energe´tica (UPME), 2007. Balances energe´ticos nacionales 1975–2006, Colombia. Unidad de Planeacioń Minero Energe´tica (UPME), 2009. Biocombustibles en Colombia, Colombia. Unidad de Planeacioń Minero Energe´tica (UPME), 2003. Plan Energe´tico Nacional 2003–2020, Colombia. U.S. Energy Information Administration - Independent Statistics and Analysis, 2009. Data from /http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/S. Vieira de Abreu, Y., 2009. Reestruturac- a~ o e privatizac- a~ o do setor ele´trico brasileiro, Univeridade de Sa~ o Paulo para obtenc- a~ o do tı´tulo de Mestre em Energia, 1999. Free Electronic Edition on line: /www.eumed.net/libros/2009a/486/S.