108 F. AL-SULAYMAN
Industry, and Mineral Resources (MEIM), now simply the Ministry of
Energy. 35 As outlined in leaked comments to Western financial press
agencies, authorities from these very institutions described the two plans
as being incongruous. Intervention by the royal court and consolidation
of these two sets of plans would take place in 2019, with the PIF receiving
70% of the mandate and only 30% to be managed by MEIM through the
competitive development tender process. More recent developments in
the first half of 2020, suggesting a rift between the PIF and Softbank,
may bring even this arrangement in to question.
All this requires investors both foreign and local, to maintain a detailed
and up-to-date map of the institutional arrangements in the Kingdom
in order to gauge the viability of the proposed plans. What underlies
investors’ and observers’ ongoing skepticism, however, is an understanding that the causes which lie beneath the early changes and reversals
in plans have not been fully addressed. Institutional mandates, and the
plans that lie within them, are regularly and unpredictably in flux. The
fluidity of these arrangements, and perceptions that they are attached
more closely to individuals managing intuitions—at various levels—rather
than the intuitions themselves, has likely slowed progress.
The number of institutions involved in the process of forming and
implementing policy is indicative of this:
• The Ministry of Energy (MoE), formerly part of the Ministry of
Energy, Industry, and Mineral Resources (MEIM)
• The Saudi Electricity Company (SEC)
• The Electricity Cogeneration and Regulation Authority (ECRA)
• The King Abdullah City for Atomic and Renewable Energy
(KACARE)
• King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST)
• The Public Investment Fund (PIF)
• The Saudi Energy Efficiency Center (SEEC)
• Saudi Arabia’s National Energy Services Company (Tarshid)
• Saudi Aramco
• National Grid
The opaque and fluid nature of these relationships and the hierarchies
between these entities continue to shape the way policy is formed,
reformed, and implemented.
Industry, and Mineral Resources (MEIM), now simply the Ministry of
Energy. 35 As outlined in leaked comments to Western financial press
agencies, authorities from these very institutions described the two plans
as being incongruous. Intervention by the royal court and consolidation
of these two sets of plans would take place in 2019, with the PIF receiving
70% of the mandate and only 30% to be managed by MEIM through the
competitive development tender process. More recent developments in
the first half of 2020, suggesting a rift between the PIF and Softbank,
may bring even this arrangement in to question.
All this requires investors both foreign and local, to maintain a detailed
and up-to-date map of the institutional arrangements in the Kingdom
in order to gauge the viability of the proposed plans. What underlies
investors’ and observers’ ongoing skepticism, however, is an understanding that the causes which lie beneath the early changes and reversals
in plans have not been fully addressed. Institutional mandates, and the
plans that lie within them, are regularly and unpredictably in flux. The
fluidity of these arrangements, and perceptions that they are attached
more closely to individuals managing intuitions—at various levels—rather
than the intuitions themselves, has likely slowed progress.
The number of institutions involved in the process of forming and
implementing policy is indicative of this:
• The Ministry of Energy (MoE), formerly part of the Ministry of
Energy, Industry, and Mineral Resources (MEIM)
• The Saudi Electricity Company (SEC)
• The Electricity Cogeneration and Regulation Authority (ECRA)
• The King Abdullah City for Atomic and Renewable Energy
(KACARE)
• King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST)
• The Public Investment Fund (PIF)
• The Saudi Energy Efficiency Center (SEEC)
• Saudi Arabia’s National Energy Services Company (Tarshid)
• Saudi Aramco
• National Grid
The opaque and fluid nature of these relationships and the hierarchies
between these entities continue to shape the way policy is formed,
reformed, and implemented.