• Vol 8, No 8 (2017)
  • Chemical Engineering

The Impacts of Financing Investment Scenarios on Piped-Natural Gas Prices (GPs) for Households in Indonesia

Aji Agraning Bawono, Eny Kusrini


Published at : 27 Dec 2017
IJtech : IJtech Vol 8, No 8 (2017)
DOI : https://doi.org/10.14716/ijtech.v8i8.982

Cite this article as:
Bawono, A.A., Kusrini, E., 2017. The Impacts of Financing Investment Scenarios on Piped-Natural Gas Prices (GPs) for Households in Indonesia. International Journal of Technology. Volume 8(8), pp. 1402-1413
344
Downloads
Aji Agraning Bawono - BPH Migas, Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources of Republic of Indonesia
- Chemical Engineering Department, Universitas Indonesia
Eny Kusrini Chemical Engineering Department, Universitas Indonesia
Email to Corresponding Author

Abstract
image

The objective of this study was to compare the impacts of financing investment scenarios on piped-natural GPs for households in Indonesia using government, business entity, and mixed investment scenarios. Simulations of cash flow were used for a case study of domestic GPs in City X in Indonesia, which originally used only one investment scheme. The GPs is calculated using the cash flow (CF) method. With the cash flow, GPs is calculated based on the sum of investment costs (Capital Expenditure), operating and maintenance costs (O & M), gas purchase costs, administrative costs (A), tax (t), and margin (m) divided by gas volume. A sensitivity test was performed using the models to observe the effects of changes to each component of each variable regarding price calculations for natural gas. The government divided the type of household into two, one class consisting of simple house and small house and the second group consists of luxury homes, apartments, and condominiums. For 100% government investment scenarios, prices were formulated using management fee systems. For 100% business entity investment scenarios, prices were formulated with a method in which an internal rate of return (IRR) equaled a weighted average cost of capital (WACC). For mixed government and business entity investment scenarios, prices were derived by modifying 100% government investment scenarios calculations. A study of setting piped-natural GPs for households that are equiTable, fair, transparent, and able to meet citizens’ purchasing powers was then conducted. Using the calculations and simulations, it was concluded that the government investment scenarios provided the lowest GPs but burdened the state budget. The business investment scenarios provided high GPs and benefitted the firm but not the community. The mixed investment scenario with 50:50 government and business entity investment compotition was recommended for setting GPs; they increased investments and public welfare, could be just and fair, and could meet citizens’ purchasing powers.

Household, Investment Scenarios, Natural Gas, Pipeline, Price

Conclusion

Investment in the development of residential gas pipeline networks can come from three sources, namely governments, enterprises (with equity and debt), and a combination of both. With the mixed investment scenario, the government can reduce subsidies without prejudice and regulate GPs so that they are affordable for the community. Moreover, the government can set and control the profit margins of the business that provides natural gas to ensure a GP that is fair and reasonable in regards to profits for the business and public welfare. Mixed investments, 50:50 composition of government and business entities is the best scenario. In the composition, the government accounts for half of the total investment, while the other half is borne by the business entity. Further research can be focused on calculating gas prices for households using the built, operate, transfer (BOT) scheme.

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by the Oil and Gas Downstream Regulatory Agency of the Republic of Indonesia, the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources of the Republic of Indonesia, and Universitas Indonesia. 

Supplementary Material
FilenameDescription
R1-CE-982-20171207164922.JPG ---
References

Aolin and Qing, 2015, On Natural Gas Pricing Reform in China. Journal of Natural Gas Industry, pp. 374–382

Axel, P., 2009, The Weighted Average Cost of Capital is not Quite Right: A Rejoinder. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 49(4), pp. 1481–1484

Brigham, E.F., Houston, J.F., 2009. Fundamentals of Financial Management, Eleventh Edition. Southwestern Cengage Learning, Mason, Ohio, USA, pp. 327–415

Brigham, E.F., Pettway, R.H., 1973. Capital Budgeting by Public Utilities. Financial Management, Volume 2(3), pp. 11–22

Damodaran, A., 2012. Equity Risk Premiums (ERP): Determinants, Estimation and Implications. Stern School of Business, New York, NY 10012, USA

Damodaran, A., 2013. Country Default Spreads and Risk Premiums. Stern School of Business, New York, NY 10012, USA

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), 1999. Cost-of-Service Rates Manual. FERC, Washington, District of Columbia, USA

Gong, C., Li, L.,  Tian, S., Jiao, J., 2015. The Peak-Shaving Efficiency Analysis of Natural Gas Time-of-Use Pricing for Residential Consumers: Evidence from Multi-Agent Simulation. The Energy Journal, Volume 96, pp. 48–58

Hunt, P., 2014. The Weighted Average Cost of Capital for Electricity and Gas Networks: Submission on the WACC to CMA Energy Market Investigation. London, UK

International Energy Agency, 2012, Gas Pricing and Regulation, China’s Challenges and IEA Experience. Paris Cedex 15, France

International Gas Union, 2017. Wholesale GP Survey–2017 Edition: A Global Review of Price Formation Mechanisms. International Gas Union, Barcelona, Spain

Jianglin, H, 2011, Comparing the Natural Gas Pipeline Pricing between Europe and America and the Revelation to China, Energy Procedia Journal, Volume 5, pp. 659–663

Lee, A., Zinaman, O., Logan, J., Bazilian, M., Arent, D., Newmark, R.L., 2012. Interactions, Complementarities and Tensions at the Nexus of Natural Gas and Renewable Energy. The Electricity Journal, Volume 25(10), pp. 38–48

Miller, R.A., 2006. The Weighted Average Cost of Capital is Not Quite Right. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Volume 49, pp. 128–138

Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources of the Republic of Indonesia, 2013. The Book of Gas Network Development for Households in Indonesia. Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources of the Republic of Indonesia

Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources of the Republic of Indonesia, 2017. Reduce LPG Imports, Government Encourages Utilization of Gas Network. Press conference Number: 00107.Pers / 04 / SJI / 2017.

Moshiri, 2015. The Effects of the Energy Price Reform on Households Consumption in Iran. The Energy Policy Journal, Volume 79, pp. 177–188

Murray, Z., Frank, S., 2015. Investment and the Weighted Average Cost of Capital. How to Calculate WACC. Journal of Financial Economics, Volume 119, pp. 300–315

Purwanto, S.W., Sommeng, A.N, 2013. The Regulation of Business Activities of Natural Gas Through Pipelines. The Oil and Gas Downstream Regulatory Agency of the Republic of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia, pp. 55–102

PwC Indonesia, 2016. Indonesian Infrastructure Stable Foundations for Growth, The second edition of PwC’s annual Indonesian infrastructure report, Jakarta, Indonesia

Tapia, J., 2010. The “Duty to Finance,” the Cost of Capital and the Capital Structure of Regulated Utilities: Lessons from the UK. Journal of Utilities Policy, Volume 22, pp. 8–21

The Oil and Gas Downstream Regulatory Agency of the Republic of Indonesia, 2011. Rule Number 22 of 2011 Regarding the Determination of GPs for Households and Small Customers. The Oil and Gas Downstream Regulatory Agency of the Republic of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia

Weijermars, R., 2011. Weighted Average Cost of Retail Gas (WACORG) Highlights Pricing Effects in The US Gas Value Chain: Do We Need Wellhead Price-Floor Regulation to Bail Out the Unconventional Gas Industry? The Energy Policy Journal, Volume 39, pp. 6291–6300