Indonesia 211
with the lack of familiarity with and sense of belonging to a relatively new technology. Another contributing factor to limited use of communal biogas systems
was the location of digesters, which is often far from the communities. A consequence is that they only use biogas for shared needs such as water heating for
drinking during community meetings, but not to benefit from cooking in their
households.
Finally, a further barrier was suggested to stem from the lack of long- term
incentives to engage in household biogas. Some stakeholders, especially policymakers, perceived the need for biogas adoption to go beyond ‘cooking only’ and
rather to target value- adding activities to keep farmers engaged in the long run.
This sentiment is related to the ‘outscaling’ pathway suggested in terms of cobenefits generated that can become increasingly attractive in the longer term;
the policymakers questioned the potential of household biogas to deliver these
benefits.
The high initial investment cost is a further barrier or implementation risk,
according to the representative of Bappenas. Whether sufficient government
funding is available to meet the investment costs for renewable energy is
dependent on the political situation. However, the future situation and its
impact on investment are far from predictable. This type of investment relies on
clear renewable energy targets, an appropriate policy framework, and strong and
clear co- operation between public and private actors, where each actor plays its
own key roles (Masini and Menichetti, 2012). In this case, the role of policymakers is to create incentives in order to achieve effective investment (IEA,
2007), while the private sector is expected to buffer the financial requirement
towards the low- carbon economy (Masini and Menichetti, 2012). However,
while the roles of the public and private sectors are either overlapping or leaving
gaps, the investment risk remains higher. The risk on the initial investment is
thus closely related to the three identified uncertainties that stem from the government influence.
The representatives of ESDM, Bappenas, and PLN stated their specific
interest in larger- scale biogas and electricity generation. However, the government and the electricity companies have made limited advances in generating
electricity from biogas. Concerns over technology development and infrastructure included the limited capacity of biogas- to-electricity plants to generate
energy and electricity tariffs. The representative of PLN was concerned about
whether or not electricity generation would be as sustainable in terms of continuity of feedstock supply. This needs to be ensured before buying the electricity from the providers, especially when entering into a long- term contract or
partnership. Feed- in tariff schemes could play a critical role in this regard. Also,
a PLN representative suggested that if the regulations were weak and technology remained inadequately developed, then production costs would continue to
be too high for wide market penetration. The high associated production cost
may also result in a higher electricity tariff and thereby be passed on to the end
users. Under this scenario, electrification in remote areas would become very
difficult to achieve.
with the lack of familiarity with and sense of belonging to a relatively new technology. Another contributing factor to limited use of communal biogas systems
was the location of digesters, which is often far from the communities. A consequence is that they only use biogas for shared needs such as water heating for
drinking during community meetings, but not to benefit from cooking in their
households.
Finally, a further barrier was suggested to stem from the lack of long- term
incentives to engage in household biogas. Some stakeholders, especially policymakers, perceived the need for biogas adoption to go beyond ‘cooking only’ and
rather to target value- adding activities to keep farmers engaged in the long run.
This sentiment is related to the ‘outscaling’ pathway suggested in terms of cobenefits generated that can become increasingly attractive in the longer term;
the policymakers questioned the potential of household biogas to deliver these
benefits.
The high initial investment cost is a further barrier or implementation risk,
according to the representative of Bappenas. Whether sufficient government
funding is available to meet the investment costs for renewable energy is
dependent on the political situation. However, the future situation and its
impact on investment are far from predictable. This type of investment relies on
clear renewable energy targets, an appropriate policy framework, and strong and
clear co- operation between public and private actors, where each actor plays its
own key roles (Masini and Menichetti, 2012). In this case, the role of policymakers is to create incentives in order to achieve effective investment (IEA,
2007), while the private sector is expected to buffer the financial requirement
towards the low- carbon economy (Masini and Menichetti, 2012). However,
while the roles of the public and private sectors are either overlapping or leaving
gaps, the investment risk remains higher. The risk on the initial investment is
thus closely related to the three identified uncertainties that stem from the government influence.
The representatives of ESDM, Bappenas, and PLN stated their specific
interest in larger- scale biogas and electricity generation. However, the government and the electricity companies have made limited advances in generating
electricity from biogas. Concerns over technology development and infrastructure included the limited capacity of biogas- to-electricity plants to generate
energy and electricity tariffs. The representative of PLN was concerned about
whether or not electricity generation would be as sustainable in terms of continuity of feedstock supply. This needs to be ensured before buying the electricity from the providers, especially when entering into a long- term contract or
partnership. Feed- in tariff schemes could play a critical role in this regard. Also,
a PLN representative suggested that if the regulations were weak and technology remained inadequately developed, then production costs would continue to
be too high for wide market penetration. The high associated production cost
may also result in a higher electricity tariff and thereby be passed on to the end
users. Under this scenario, electrification in remote areas would become very
difficult to achieve.