Chapter 1 : Introduction
Key message of the special report Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) on 1.5C warming is about urgency in global response towards
achieving net zero emission by middle of the century. Understanding
economic growth and its relationship to carbon emission is still highly relevant
in any research enquiry since global population continues to rise and hence the
need for human prosperity and economic wellbeing through activity expansion
especially in the context of developing economies. It is now widely
acknowledged in the scientific literature with high confidence that since first
industrial revolution unprecedented increase in concentration of greenhouse
gases (GHGs) in atmosphere has taken place. And this is the result of human
induced economic activities including energy production and final
consumption of energy in the end use sectors e.g., for industrial processes,
transportation, household consumption and land use change over time through
agricultural and other land based economic activities (IPCC, 2001; 2014d;
2018; Stern N. , 2006). Studies have been carried out over the years in the
context of many countries to understand the direction of the causal
relationship between energy use and economic growth (Kraft & Kraft, 1978;
Cheng, 1999; Stren, 2000; Ang J. , 2008). These studies have shown that
causal relationship between energy use and economic growth are still
ambiguous (Oztruk, 2010; Payne, 2010). The discourse of ‘sustainable
development’ has been able to produce a range of policies by integrating
environmental element into economic activities, both at individual and
collective scale. Control and diversification of energy supply and reduction in
energy use is now agreed upon as the most important mitigation strategies to
deal with problem of climate change (IPCC, 2007; 2014a; 2018). So the
hypothesis is that uninterrupted economic growth is achievable through
decoupling of GDP growth and emission from energy use remains to be tested
empirically.
1
1.1 Literature on energy, growth and environment causality
Different studies have focused on different countries and time periods with
different methodologies to understand the causal relationship between the
driving variables of economic growth and energy combined with emission
growth. Broadly, the relationship between energy use and economic growth
has been categorized through four hypotheses, namely, neutrality hypothesis,
growth hypothesis, conservation hypothesis and feedback hypothesis (Oztruk,
2010; Payne, 2010). Neutrality hypothesis implies there is no significant
relation between economic growth and energy consumption. Growth
hypothesis asserts that energy consumption plays an important role in
economic growth. Conservation hypothesis suggests that energy conservation
policy does not have any adverse effect on economic growth. Feedback
hypothesis implies that energy consumption and economic growth are
interrelated and there exists an overlapping zone. These studies can be
grouped in two streams. First group of researchers have tried to find out
causality between economic growth and environmental pollution (Grossman &
Krueger, 1995; Dinda, 2004; Stern D. , 2004) and the second group tests the
linkage between economic growth and energy consumption (Kraft & Kraft,
1978; Stern D. , 1993). The linkage between economic growth and energy
consumption is important to understand as energy is an important source of
CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere (Jackson, et al., 2017). Most of the
studies which have tried to explain the relationship between economic growth
and environmental pollution, adopted Environmental Kuznets curve (EKC)
hypothesis as a chosen framework. The inverted U-shape of EKC implies that
initially with rise in per capita income environmental impact intensifies but
later with higher level of economic growth, it gradually declines. Hence,
economic growth can be an important parameter in gradual solution for
environmental degradation. Initially academic literature started with
identification of the relationship between economic growth and environmental
pollution and emission. Researchers have also studied the relationship between
economic growth and carbon emission (Ang J., 2007; Soytasa et al., 2007;
Zhang & Cheng, 2009) and EKC hypothesis particularly tested on the level of
CO2 emission. Coondoo & Dinda (2002) have found that for both developed
2
and developing countries, there exists a causal relationship between economic
growth and environmental pollution i.e. a change in income or emission has its
effect on each other, however, nature of causality may vary. However, Soytasa
et al. (2007) found that for USA there does not exist any trade-off between
income level and energy consumption but energy consumption is directly
related to emission level. Hence, reduction in emission level can be achieved
by reducing energy consumption without hampering the economic growth.
Ang (2007) argued that economic growth, energy consumption and emission
are highly inter-related and proposed an integrated framework to address all
these three factors together. For Malaysia also, he found that there exists a
strong causality in economic growth, energy consumption and environmental
pollution, both in long and short run (Ang J. , 2008). Empirical results suggest
that economic growth is the most important variable in explaining carbon
emission in Turkey (Halicioglu, 2009). For Chinese economy it has been
found that there exists unidirectional causality from GDP to energy
consumption and energy consumption to carbon emission for the period 1960-
2007 (Zhang & Cheng, 2009). All these indicate that actions in energy sector
and policy can help in managing emission in desired direction along with
economic growth. In case of CO2 emission the implication is different from
other pollutant because it is a global pollutant and an important determinant of
greenhouse effects (Galeotti et al., 2006). Some studies argue that for
developing countries there exists one-way causality between economic growth
to CO2 emission (Jalil & Mahmud, 2009). Researchers have found that in
India there exists a short run causality between economic growth and carbon
emission (Ghosh, 2010; Pal & Mitra, 2017). This implies that in short run high
economic growth increases energy demand in the end-use sectors and the coal
dominated energy supply sector results in a rise in carbon emission. However,
any long run relationship between carbon emission and economic growth is
yet to be established. In India long run efforts to reduce carbon emission from
energy use can be generated from deployment of new and efficient technology
and enhancement of non-fossil energy sources without hampering economic
growth (Pal & Mitra, 2017).
3
1.2 Contesting discourses on the nexus of energy, growth and
environment
Economic growth by creating less environmental pressure is achievable by
decoupling GDP growth and emission from energy use (Ramanathan, 2006).
Development path which is followed by a nation is not always integrated
across sectors. Sometimes it is emerged from fragmented decision of different
actors within the economy. Climate change is no longer an environmental
concern only. It has a deep impact on economic, political and social
development. Internalisation of environmental challenges into social and
economic planning can lead a nation to an alternative development trajectory.
Increasingly, countries are coming to realize that, in the long term, climate
change needs to be supported by an integrated, cross-cutting policy approach,
in other words, mainstreamed into national development planning;
understanding the linkages between climate change and national
developmental goals needs prioritisation.
Several alternative discourses have emerged to address the debate of shifting
from traditional single dimensional GDP led growth strategies to address the
relationship between energy, environment and development. Some of those
discourses are, degrowth, steady state economy, limits to growth.
The idea of ‗degrowth‘ which is a relatively newer discourse, questions the
long term feasibility of sustainable economic development. The discourse of
degrowth has been suggested as a possible alternative to the ‗sustainable
development‘ paradigm (Martínez-Alier et al., 2010; Schneider et al., 2010).
The proponents of degrowth have suggested that economic growth is not
sustainable and human wellbeing can also be improved without economic
development (Schneider et al., 2010). It emphasises on the decoupling of GDP
per capita from happiness above certain levels of basic needs. They have
argued that though GDP is one of the important parameters of development
but it is not always a good proxy for social wellbeing.
4
The effectiveness of degrowth strategy can be judged on three parameters of
sustainable development (Baykan, 2007; Bergh, 2011),
1. Economic efficiency
2. Environmental effectiveness
3. Social feasibility
Schneider et.al (2010) defines sustainable degrowth as reduction of GDP by
downscaling both production and consumption. But there arises a question on
economies of scale (Bergh, 2011; Victor, 2012). It is difficult to ensure that
degrowth will always end up in proper downscaling of production process.
Instead it may lead to a less efficient production process where less output are
being produced using more inputs. On the other hand instead of overall
degrowth, ‗selective degrowth‘ of the sectors which are creating more
environmental externalities is desirable (Martínez-Alier et al., 2010). It has
been argued by the supporters of degrowth that degrowth of polluting sectors
actually implies overall degrowth as for most of the developed countries a
large share of GDP comes from these dirtier sectors. Now, if an economy can
clean its energy production sector and shift from secondary sector to tertiary
sector, which is less polluting but more economically efficient, then it can
exhibit reduction in its emission level without curtailing GDP.
Critics say that degrowth strategy does not always mean an effective and
efficient environmental policy also. Degrowth is not a sufficient condition to
reduce environmental externality. On macro level one of the components to
reduce GDP is to raise interest rate (Victor, 2012). This rise in interest rate can
crowd out some good investment along with targeted bad investment. In short
run increased interest may lead to fall in emission due to reduction in GDP but
in the long run it can affect investment in renewable energy and other
innovative efficient technologies and that may cause further increase in
emission of harmful GHGs (Bergh, 2011).
One of the limitation of degrowth relates to the knowledge and technological
innovation (Bergh, 2011). It has been suggested that role of technological
progress under degrowth regime would involve innovation of technology and
lifestyle in such a manner which can limit consumption to a certain level
5
(Schneider et al., 2010). But on the production side technology helps in
producing more goods and services by increasing labour productivity. Under
degrowth scenario labour productivity with improved education and skill will
face a challenge as degrowth can cause an increase in rate of educated
unemployment due to fall in consumption. This questions social feasibility of
degrowth.
A ―steady state‖ economy implies an economy which shows no or minimum
fluctuation in its development parameters. An economy can reach the steady
state after a period of growth or after a period of degrowth (CASSE, 2007). It
has stopped growing in terms of GDP which in turn implies lesser use of
natural resources but continues to improve quality of life by an
environmentally sustainable rate of resource use with a constant human
population. Adam Smith first recognized that there are limit to economic
growth as in long run population growth would push wages down, natural
resources would become increasingly scarce, and division of labor would
approach the limits of its effectiveness. Later John Stuart Mill developed the
concept of steady state economy. According to Herman Daly, steady state is
the sustainable state (Kerschner, 2010). In a steady state economy macro-
economic development is actually zero. This position is conceptually different
from the discourse of degrowth. Here the concept of development lies in
environmental protection, individual wellbeing and social stability (Fritza &
Kochb, 2016).
One of the prime criticisms against the steady state concept to deal with
environmental sustainability is that it lacks in addressing social equality
(Claxton, 2009; Chatterjee, 2011; Lawn, 2011). For developing countries
which are far behind desired standard of living, it is easier to achieve a growth
based economic prosperity. There is no doubt that developing countries are the
hardest hit by climate change. The issues related to development like food
security, health, drinking water, education etc. can be integrated with the
environmental challenge in a more comprehensive manner and both the
challenges can be addressed together. The role of innovation and knowledge
has also been questioned in the steady state type of economy as role of
innovation in our economic system is to support productivity growth.
6
Another discourse which questions the feasibility of sustainable economic
development is the theory of ―limits to growth‖. The discourse of limits to
growth first came into public domain in 1970. It poses resource scarcity as a
threat to human civilization. To address the issue of climate change the
discourse of limits to growth asserts that earth‘s resources need to be used in a
more restricted way. The ―limits to growth‖ theory overlaps environmental
goals with the goal of economic development.
In late 1980‘s discourse of sustainable development emerges as a counter
discourse of the limits to growth theory (Turner, 2008; Eastin et al., 2011).
The scarcity of resources which were demonstrated as a major constraint to
mankind in the limits to growth can be countered by the scientific innovation
(Eastin et al., 2011). In the field of energy use this innovation mainly implies
renewable sources of energy and more efficient generation process with the
help of technologies. It has been proved that, combatting climate change
requires a fundamental change in production and consumption pattern of
energy (IPCC, 2007; 2014a; 2018) which does not conflict with human
progress and economic development. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) has developed various scenarios with different available
technological solutions and public policies. Using these scenarios it has been
shown that there is conceptually no conflict between growth and environment
(IPCC, 2007; 2014a; 2018).
Above stated propositions, regarding the use of natural resources and carbon
emission as a negative externality of production process has posed long-term
economic development as a threat to mankind. The discourse of ―sustainable
development‖ has emerged as a counter theory to all these discourses. And the
sustainability of sustainable development can be answered by using
endogenous growth theory. Neo-classical growth models are characterized by
constant returns to scale with diminishing returns to labour and capital. There
it has been assumed that long run technological change is driven by some
source from outside the economic system which is exogenous. But these
models do not take into account inputs for productions which are exhaustible
and have environmental externalities. Contrary to neo-classical growth model
in endogenous growth theory environmental asset or natural capital has been
7
treated in a more autonomous way (Schembri, 2009). Limited amount of
natural resources does not necessarily imply economy must decline. Technical
change and capital accumulation can offset this effect (Stiglitz, 1974). In
Schumpeterian growth models openness, competition, technical change and
innovation are the drivers of growth (Aghion et al., 2014).The endogenous
growth models suggested that resource scarcity would no longer be an issue in
the way of economic development with the help of technological progress and
innovation (Barbier, 1999; Bovenberg & Smulders, 1995). Instead of treating
technology and innovation as unexplained residual in endogenous model these
are taken as a new factor of production (Schembri, 2009). This innovation
incentivized from the economic activity itself because with this technological
change, growth will no longer exhibit diminishing returns to scale (Barbier,
1999). The exhaustible natural resource can be addressed by this technological
up-gradation (Stiglitz, 1974; Gradus & Smulders, 1993). In literature there
exists a long debate on how to incorporate technological progress, energy
efficiency, and structural change as an endogenous variable in economic
growth model. Hicks first put forward that increase in price of input leads to
innovation (Popp, 2004). Later by using theoretical models researchers
concluded that market based policies such as tax or tradable permit will induce
innovation which will help in reducing environmental degradation.
1.3 Low carbon development: way forward to sustainable
development
In climate change discourse low carbon development has emerged as a much
discussed framework for future long term sustainable development. The idea
of low-carbon development is embedded in the sustainability goal itself
(Sathaye, Shukla, & Ravindranath, 2006). Though there is no agreed definition
of ‗low carbon development‘, the basic idea behind the low carbon growth lies
in maximisation of production with minimising GHG emission by multiple
interventions across economic sectors (IPCC, 2007; Mulugetta & Urban,
2010; Hu et al., 2011; GEA, 2012).
Low carbon development strategy has attracted consideration of both
developed and developing countries as a tool to achieve climate goals. Later in
2010 at the 16th conference of parties (COP) at Cancun it was confirmed that
8
addressing climate change requires a ―paradigm shift towards building a low-
carbon economy that ensures continued high growth and sustainable
development, based on innovative technologies and more sustainable
production, consumption and lifestyles‖ (UNFCCC, 2010). It also requires
participation of broad range of stake holders at the global, regional, national
and local levels.
The concept of low-carbon development was first adopted in the Earth
Summit of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) at Rio-de-Jeniro in 1992 (UNFCCC, 1992) by advocating in
favour of
Change in production process and pattern
Increased use of alternative energy sources
Shift away from private to public mobility service
Efficient management of depleting water resources
In the literature various transformation pathways are advocated regarding how
the goal of ‗low carbon development‘ will be achieved. Researchers concluded
that to get the best possible result it is required to use a mix of both the
technology and use of energy sources with less carbon content, as the potential
of low carbon development mainly based on energy efficiency, changing
industrial and other economic activity structures and use of renewable energy
(Hu et al., 2011). For India power, transport, industries and building are
identified as major emitting sectors (NAPCC, 2008; INCCA, 2010). This
implies that to sustain economic growth on low carbon pathway it is required
to take care of both energy demand and supply sectors.
On the energy supply side electricity is an important part of modern energy
system. Electricity has been universally recognized as one of the most
important inputs for economic and human development. It is also an indicator
of country‘s growth and prosperity. Access to affordable, reliable and
sustainable energy is also put on the agenda of Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs) of United Nations Development Programme (UNDP, 2015a).
At the same time power1 generation from traditional source of fossil fuel has
1
In this study the words ―electricity‖ and ―power‖ are used interchangeably
9
enormously added to the carbon level in the atmosphere. Therefore in SDGs it
is also emphasised that access to energy must be done in an economically
viable and environmentally sustainable manner by using both conventional
and non-conventional emerging energy sources.
To achieve low stabilization level of 430-530 ppm CO2e globally,
electrification of the energy system has been identified as one of the most
important mitigation efforts (IPCC, 2014c). However electricity generation is
the single largest GHG emitting sector in the world. Various studies have
identified that transformation of energy production is an important mitigation
source of emission to achieve global targets of CO 2 concentration level in the
atmosphere (Table 1.1). Coal dominated electricity production system has led
to rapid growth of GHG emission and associated serious environmental
pollution. Replacing fossil fuel with non-fossil fuel for electricity generation is
a contribution towards low carbon energy transition.
Table 1.1: Global carbon emission targets
Target emission Peak Major driver Source
reduction year
440-450 ppm 2020 Low carbon energy supply with Global
CO2e renewable energy and bio energy Energy
Assessment
(GEA, 2012)
430–530 ppm 2020 Low-carbon electricity supply IPCC AR5
CO2e comprising of renewable energy, (IPCC,
nuclear and Carbon Capture and 2014a)
Storage (CCS)
450 ppm CO2e/ 2020 Increase in energy efficiency in the
2oC climate limit industry, buildings and transport World
sectors; reducing the use of the coal- Energy
fired power plants; increasing Outlook
investment in renewable energy (IEA, 2016)
technologies; reducing methane
emissions in oil and gas production
1.5oC climate limit - Renewables are projected to supply IPCC
70–85% of electricity generation with special
increased shares of nuclear and fossil report on
fuels with carbon dioxide capture and 1.5oC
storage (IPCC,
2018)
10
1.4 Relevance of low-carbon growth strategy in India
For developing nations in order to achieve national development goals,
increased demand for electricity is inevitable (Ferguson et al., 2000). If the
structure of electricity production can be shifted from traditional fossil fuel
based thermal generation to sustainable energy sources with more energy
efficient technology and less emitting fuel source then the conflict between
economic development and emission level can be reduced (Chai & Xu, 2014;
Wang & Zou, 2014; Yuan et al., 2014). In recent years there have been
considerable developments in clean electricity generation. One of the
components of this clean electricity is optimal mix of alternative fuel in power
generation. Globally alternative energy source contributes only 18.9% of
primary energy supply and 23.2 % of global electricity supply in 2016 (World
Bank, 2017b). However, in a recent report it has been estimated that to achieve
the goal of Paris Agreement by 2050 globally 70-85% of electricity need to be
supplied from renewable sources with rapid electrification of the energy
system (IPCC, 2018).
Low carbon strategies gained importance in Indian policy documents as well
as a part of both environmental and developmental concern. India is home to
one sixth of world‘s population but accounts for only 6.8% of global energy
use and consumes only 5.25% of electricity produced globally (Enerdata,
2018). India is the third largest producer of power in the world after China and
USA with 1541 TWh of production in 2017 with a 5.33% growth over
previous year (Enerdata, 2018). Despite this increase in generation, the further
expansion of electricity sector is required to meet the new demand as more
than 300 million of Indian populations (22% of total Population) is still
deprived of access to this basic infrastructure and there will be growth in
population in future as well. India‘s per capita electricity consumption is 765
kWh against world average of 3100 kWh (World Bank, 2015) which also
indicates that with growing income and population future demand will further
increase. Being a climate responsible country, economic development without
proportional expansion of carbon emissions has become one of the major
challenges in today‘s development strategy in India.
11
To achieve the target of universal energy access with low environmental
emission, India has redefined low carbon approach with an inter-sectoral
connectedness. India‘s National Action Plan for Climate Change (NAPCC)
and Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC)2 are two significant
low carbon vision documents for India. In 2008 India has adopted its NAPCC,
which identifies eight priority sectors which need serious national measures
with respect to mitigation and adaptation perspective. In UNFCCC India has
been categorised as a Non Annex I country which allows India not to take up
any legally binding commitments for mitigating climate change. However, in
Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in 2009, India had voluntarily
committed to reduce its emissions intensity by 20-25% of its 2005 levels by
2020. The Emission Gap Report (2014) of United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) has recognized that India is among the countries that
have the ability to achieve its voluntary goal. India has given significant effort
to reduce its emission intensity across sectors and this is supported by the fact
that India‘s CO2 emission intensity dropped from 0.6 Kg/ PPP $ of GDP in
1990 to 0.3 Kg/ PPP $ of GDP in 2013 (World Bank) with 60% decrease in
energy intensity from 8 MJ/$2011 PPP GDP to 5 MJ/$2011 PPP GDP during
the same period (World Bank, 2014).
In India power sector being the highest polluting sector got most thrust by
several policy framework and mitigation initiatives. The NDC which is
submitted to UNFCCC prior to Paris Agreement clearly reflects India‘s desire
for economic growth in parity with reduced climate risk. According to NDC
by 2030 India will reduce the emission intensity of its GDP by 33-35 per cent
from 2005 levels and 40 per cent of its cumulative installed capacity will be
comprised non-fossil sources. It is clearly mentioned in NDC that in future
coal will continue to dominate power generation in India. Demand for
electricity in India in 2012 was 776 TWh and it is expected to rise by more
than two folds to 2499 TWh by 2030 (INDC , 2015). To support that demand
special importance has given in energy mix mainly through solar, wind and
efficient generation process with introduction of super critical technology in
2
In the NDC registry of UNFCCC India‘s INDC is mentioned as its first NDC
(http://unfccc.int/focus/ndc_registry/items/9433.php)
12
coal based power plants. It is emphasised that technology and finance are
going to play an important role in achieving these goals.
1.5 Financing of low carbon growth
If low carbon growth path is a favoured way for future development then
assessment of financing need is also an equally important issue. It is accepted
across the nations that there is an overlapping zone between climate goals and
development goals. Many development objectives like better education and
healthcare, access to safe drinking water, improved disaster relief will all
make countries more resilient to climate change (Buchner, et al., 2013). Most
of the investments for energy transition fall in this category which are not
specified for climate change though have a long term impact on emission
reduction and climate change (Ameyama et al. 2016). However, climate
change is an additional threat therefore funding for combating this needs to be
additional and financial resources should not substitute or divert from other
development objectives (Dutschke & Michaelowa, 2006; IPCC, 2007; 2014d).
In a very broad interpretation UNFCCC refers climate finance as the flows of
funds aiming at reducing emissions of GHG and reducing vulnerability of, and
maintaining and increasing the resilience of, human and ecological systems to
negative climate change impacts (UNFCCC, 2014). The bulk of the damage
from climate change is likely to fall on poor developing countries, despite the
fact that they bear little responsibility for causing climate change (Nakhooda
et al., 2011). Climate change mitigation is a global good and being a global
good this should be financed with global money. In its article 4.4 UNFCCC
has recognized that the global nature of the problem of climate change require
a global participation to deal with it and developing countries must get
financial resources from developed nations to minimize adverse effect of
climate change (UNFCCC, 1992). In accordance with article 4.3 of UNFCCC
COP 13 at Bali, 2007 and the COP 15 at Copenhagen, 2009 call for serious
commitment by developed countries to provide ‗new and additional‘ resources
with balance allocation between adaptation and mitigation though it has not
been able to provide any clear idea towards the definition of ‗new and
additional‘.
13
For an economy to shift to a low carbon path requires some specific financing
mechanism. Low carbon power generation requires a huge investment in
infrastructure as low carbon transition of power sector does not only imply
enhancement of renewable energy but also improved energy efficiency and
clean energy infrastructure. To scale up climate finance and its effective
intervention private financing is considered to be an important source.
Countries have implemented various policy instruments, such as capacity
building, information-based instruments, regulatory instruments, market based
instruments, grants, and both concessional and non-concessional loans (Kato
et al., 2014). Each of these instruments is connected by a common goal of
reducing emission intensity of energy use.
1.6 Objective of the present study and research questions
Given this backdrop the objective of this thesis is to understand alternative
ways for expansion of the Indian power sector to achieve a low-carbon future
taking 2030 goals as interim goals and if there are chances of enhancing these
targets for 2050. The challenges and opportunities for financing mechanism of
such a transition is also a part of the objective of this study. Within this
context specific research objectives are
1. To understand and suggest an analytical framework for analysing low
carbon development explore the alternative low carbon growth
opportunities for India with a special focus on Indian power sector.
This we try to cover in chapters 2 and 3.
2. To assess the impacts of different low carbon pathways of Indian
power sector with respect to technology choice and energy use, on the
carbon emission and economic growth. Chapter 4 incorporates this
objective.
3. To understand the investment challenges and opportunities in
implementation of the identified low carbon growth strategies in India
given the financial instrument available domestically and available
14
international financial resources. Chapter 5 will be devoted to this
objective.
Given these objectives of the study, the discussion in various chapters will
also try to answer following research questions:
1) a. What are the drivers of primary energy and secondary emission in
India?
b. Do we observe any trend towards decoupling between energy related
emission and economic growth in India?
2) a. What are the different low carbon future pathways for Indian power
sector subject to different technology and fuel choice?
b. How these low carbon pathways enable India to deliver its NDCs and
beyond?
3) a. How much additional investment is needed to achieve this low carbon
transition for Indian power sector?
b. What are the existing financing mechanisms to support this
transition?
c. What are the effects of different financial support scheme and
financing instrument in mobilizing finance for low carbon electricity sector
in India?
1.7 Scheme of study
The analytical framework adopted in the present study is documented in
Chapter 2. The theoretical models along with the specifications and necessary
details of the empirical models used in the thesis are presented there. Chapter
3 assesses the low carbon growth opportunity for Indian economy with a
special focus on Indian power sector and addresses the research question 1a &
b. Chapter 4 explores different low carbon pathways for Indian power sector
while find answer for the research questions 2a & 2c.
15
Chapter 5 finds the financial implication of low carbon transition of Indian
power sector through answering research question 3a-3c. Chapter 6 presents
summary of the study with concluding remarks.
Figure 1.1: Scheme of Study
16
