Clp - Beyond Copenhagen: Powering Asia Responsibly

None of us can defeat the threat of global warming on our own – but together we can cool the climate and realise our Climate Vision 2050

Beyond Copenhagen Powering Asia Responsibly

CLP Group 147 Argyle Street Kowloon, Hong Kong Tel: (852) 2678 8111 Fax: (852) 2760 4448 www.clpgroup.com

We share one planet, one small blue speck in space. As people, as nations, as a species: we sink or swim together. Ban Ki Moon, UN Secretary-General, October, 2009.

The world faces a dilemma – how to avoid the threat of catastrophic climate change by making massive and sustained reductions in the emission of greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide (CO2), and yet do so in a manner which does not require substantial falls in living standards in the developed world or prevent the people of the developing world from achieving their own legitimate aspirations for a better life. CO2 emissions from the electricity sector have increased by almost 50% in the past ten years. They presently constitute around 40% of global energy-related CO2 emissions. Emissions from the sector are forecast to double by 2030 and, of this increase, about half has been forecast to come from power generation in Asia. There can be no solution to the problem of climate change which does not involve large-scale reductions in emissions from electricity generation in Asia, compared to the emissions which will be produced if we stay on a “business as usual” path to meet the needs of Asia’s people for electricity.

At the 15th United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP15) to be held in Copenhagen in December 2009, the world’s leaders must address the problem of climate change, whilst preserving the social and economic prosperity of those who presently enjoy it and promoting such prosperity for those who do not. As a leading investor-operator in the Asian power sector, CLP has a keen interest in the outcome of COP15. In the following pages, we set out our views on the key issues which the world’s leaders must face and the ways in which, beyond Copenhagen, sound policies must be turned into real solutions.

Andrew Brandler Chief Executive Officer October, 2009

By 2010

The CO2 intensity of our generating portfolio will be reduced to 0.8kg

CO2/kWh or better

The CO2 intensity of our generating portfolio will be reduced

By 2020

By 2035

to 0.7kg

CO2/kWh or better; and

20% of our generating capacity will be noncarbon emitting (including nuclear, large hydro, and more than 5% of other renewables)

The CO2 intensity of our generating portfolio will be reduced to 0.45kg

CO2/kWh or better

These commitments are in addition to the target we set ourselves in 2004 of 5% of our generating capacity coming from renewable energy sources by 2010.

CLP’s Climate Vision 2050 CLP recognises its responsibility to play its part in the collective response needed to address the threat of serious and irreversible climate change.

As well as reducing the carbon intensity of our generating portfolio, CLP also committed in our Manifesto to other initiatives in the fields of renewable energy, nuclear energy, natural gas, clean coal technology, energy efficiency and conservation.

In December 2007, we published our “Climate Vision 2050 – Our Manifesto on Climate Change”. In our Manifesto, we undertook to make deep reductions in the carbon emissions intensity of our power generation capacity and to embark upon a wide range of other actions and initiatives to reduce the carbon footprint of our business and to help our stakeholders reduce their own footprint.

Tackling climate change involves us accepting changes in our way of life and doing business – CLP’s Climate Vision 2050 is our promise to play our part.

Our ultimate goal is to conduct our business in such a way that our carbon emissions are brought down to a level compatible with the global objective of stabilising the concentration of greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere below 550 ppm between now and 2050 – a level at which the global temperature rise can be limited and the most catastrophic effects of global warming may be avoided. At the centre of the Manifesto lies our commitment to reduce the CO2 intensity of our generating portfolio from 0.84 kg CO2/kWh in 2007 to 0.2 kg CO2/kWh by 2050. To reinforce the credibility of our Climate Vision 2050, to establish goals which are relevant to us and our stakeholders today and to allow ourselves and others to track our progress, we have set up a number of intermediate milestones.



CLP’s commitment to contribute to the global response to the threat of climate change will not be judged on the words of our Climate Vision 2050, but on our own success in turning that vision into reality. Since 2007, we have made substantial progress in changing the way that we do business and in setting ourselves off on a trajectory to a low-carbon future. We are heading towards our first intermediate milestone of 0.8 kg CO2/kWh by the end of next year. At first glance, this might seem a modest reduction. But slowing and reversing the increase in the carbon intensity of our generating portfolio is, in itself, a challenging step in circumstances where conventional coal-fired generation remains the dominant means of providing new generating capacity to meet the growing demand for electricity in our region. CLP’s current policy is not to invest in any coal-fired generating plant whose carbon intensity is in excess of 0.95 kg CO2/kWh and we will only invest in plant whose carbon intensity is in excess of 0.85 kg CO2/kWh in exceptional circumstances – such as where such plant forms part of a portfolio whose overall carbon profile is in line with our standards. In line with these disciplines, we have already stepped back from potential investments in coal-fired plant in the region solely on grounds of its high carbon emissions intensity, and irrespective of the short to medium term economic value that might have been gained. Of course, this policy will be reviewed and strengthened as new technologies, such as carbon capture and storage, become commercially viable.



CLEAN COAL

GEOTHERMAL

NUCLEAR

SOLAR HYDRO

WIND

BIOMASS

LNG

Nuclear Power

Realising our Vision CLP’s business spans a range of countries which differ greatly in their socio-economic development, the availability and cost of fuel resources, the quality of their infrastructure and their regulation of the electricity sector. The path we take and the progress we make in reducing the carbon intensity of our operations vary according to local market conditions. In our Climate Vision 2050, we identified five areas within which specific local or national initiatives can help us to meet our climate commitment at the Group level.

Renewable Energy (RE) In 2004, CLP set itself a voluntary RE target of 5% of its generating capacity by 2010. To date, CLP owns over 1,300 equity MW of total renewable energy, representing about 10% of our generating portfolio. This compares with only about 1% in 2004, when we made our commitment. Our progress in delivering our RE target has involved a range of technologies throughout the Asia Pacific region.





We are now the largest external investor in renewable energy both in the Chinese mainland and in India. Our portfolio includes a range of renewable energy sources, namely wind, hydro and biomass.



We are exploring solar energy projects in Thailand and India as well as testing the potential for geothermal energy in Australia.



In Hong Kong, we have secured the Environmental Permit to develop a 200MW offshore windfarm in the southeastern waters.



In 2008, we set up a new Group level function, Carbon Ventures, to support the Group’s understanding of new clean energy technologies, such as solar technologies, which may be deployed in potential projects in the Asia Pacific region.

Nuclear power, which plays an integral part in CLP’s fuel mix in Hong Kong, has the dual operating benefits of zero CO2 and zero air pollutant emissions. In our Climate Vision 2050, we undertook to continue and, if possible, increase our investment in nuclear generation, including in the Chinese mainland and particularly South China. While we appreciate that nuclear power may not be accepted by all countries, we recognise the role it plays in mitigating climate change risks.

In October 2009, with the support of the Central People’s Government and the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), CLP announced the extension through to 2034 of the existing arrangements in respect of the Daya Bay Nuclear Power Station, in which CLP will continue to hold a 25% stake and to take up to 70% of the power from Daya Bay.



We are also looking to extend our involvement in nuclear energy in China through our existing relationship with the China Guangdong Nuclear Power Corporation (CGNPC).

Natural Gas Natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel for power generation. We are increasing our investment in gas-fired generation, including supporting infrastructure.

In 2009, we commissioned a new 420MW combined cycle gas-fired power station at Tallawarra in New South Wales. This is amongst the most efficient fossil-fuelled power stations in Australia.



CLP is participating in measures to bring additional, long-term supplies of natural gas to Hong Kong. The completion of the second West to East Natural Gas Pipeline from Turkmenistan to Guangdong, new gas wells in the South China Sea and the construction of the new Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) receiving terminal at Dachan Island in the Pearl River Delta will provide three complementary sources of gas to support our Hong Kong operations. Once these gas supplies are available, we plan to increase the use of natural gas to up to half of our fuel mix in Hong Kong, thereby reducing our reliance on coal.



In India, Gujarat Paguthan Energy Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (GPEC), our gas-fired power station of 655MW is operating well. We are ready to expand this station once more gas sources are available.



Clean Coal Technology We undertook in our Climate Vision 2050 not to build additional conventional coal-fired generating capacity in Hong Kong or in developed countries. We have respected this engagement. We have also undertaken to move along the path towards clean coal technology.

For any new coal-fired plant that we build, we are using progressively newer generation technology that is more efficient than conventional technology. For example, the greenfield coal-fired power station at Jhajjar in India we started in 2009 will use supercritical generating technology which, by increasing combustion temperature and pressure, increases plant efficiency and lowers carbon intensity levels.



The same technology has been applied to our Fangchenggang power plant in Guangxi, China, which has been in operation since 2008.



We are looking at ways to reduce emissions at Yallourn in Victoria, Australia, CLP’s only brown coal-fired power station. In July 2009, we started a pilot project with Ignite Energy Resources to develop a direct coal-to-oil and upgraded dry coal process from the brown coal (lignite) at TRUenergy’s Yallourn mine. It is predicted that the process will reduce carbon emissions intensity by 40% when using the coal for power generation.

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)

Energy Efficiency and Conservation Energy savings constitute the largest and most cost-effective opportunity for emissions reduction. In addition to a wide range of initiatives within our own facilities to promote energy efficiency and conservation, we have reinforced our efforts and capability to help others do the same.

There is job growth in renewables, there is job growth in energy efficiency and there is job growth in developing innovative industries and technologies to successfully meet the challenge of climate change. The Hon. Peter Garrett AM MP, Australian Government Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, February, 2006.



Since 1999, CLP has carried out over 800 energy audits for large commercial and industrial customers in Hong Kong, including 90 in 2008 alone, helping these companies to improve energy efficiency by 20%.



We have also extended our energy efficiency services to Hong Kong-owned manufacturers in Guangdong through a dedicated subsidiary established in Shenzhen, China, in 2008.



In late 2008, we established Eco Home, CLP’s first energy efficiency specialty store, to introduce the concept of green living with more than 100 energy-efficient appliances on display.



In Australia, our TRUenergy business offers energy efficiency to customers via a free programme to install low flow shower heads and energy efficient light globes as well as advising low income households and customers experiencing financial hardship on energy efficiency through our Customer Welfare Programme.

Clean coal or CCS could potentially make significant reductions in carbon emissions from existing fossil-fired power stations and could be a way for fossil fuel use to continue in the medium-term. The technology of CCS is known and understood, and proven at small scale. There are still issues to be resolved on its long-term performance and on the security of CO2 storage, but use on a commercial scale could be feasible from 2020 onwards. It would be possible to retrofit carbon capture to many existing power plants, thereby reducing carbon emissions more quickly than could be achieved by other means. At present, however, in the absence of the right government policies and funding mechanisms, the energy market is falling short of an environment to encourage investment in new technology. Installing carbon capture currently represents a cost with no return and therefore has no basis for investment. If, however, there was a value of, say, US$50 per ton of CO2 that was sustainable and widely applicable, the position would change dramatically. In that scenario the technology would reach its tipping point and progress rapidly. Costs would come down; and by 2020s, there could start to be significant reductions in carbon emissions.





Moving to a Low-Carbon World – Learning from our Experience Over the years, CLP has gained considerable experience in managing the dilemma of meeting people’s need for reliable, adequate and affordable energy in a way which is environmentally sustainable. We aim to capture the lessons we have learned, so as to further improve our performance going forward, and to contribute that experience to the debate on the energy sector’s role in addressing climate change.

Low-Carbon Emitting Generation is Capital Intensive Amongst those lessons learned, is that the move towards low-carbon emitting generation is highly capital intensive. For example, the capital cost of a 50MW wind farm today is in the region of US$75 to US$100 million. At the other end of the scale, the cost of, say a 2,000MW nuclear power station may be several billion dollars. At the end of 2009, CLP’s own capital expenditure in renewable energy will be considerably in excess of US$500 million. Investments in cleaner energy are made over a long time horizon – the typical life span of a wind farm may be 20 to 30 years, while a combined cycle gas-fired power station may have a working life of between 30 and 40 years. At the same time, the returns from investment in renewable energy are moderate. This is especially so in light of the risks associated with generating electricity in ways which, because electricity prices do not properly reflect the cost of carbon emissions (or the benefits of reducing those emissions), may well be uneconomic when compared with conventional coal-fired generation.

In 2020, the energy sector in non Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries would need to make US$200 billion of extra investments in clean power, energy-efficiency measures in industry and buildings and next-generation hybrid and electric vehicles. For this, developing countries will need some financial support from OECD countries.

Governments cannot bring the innovation, drive, creativity and resources to bear that the private sector can. But the private sector cannot complete the cycle from research to deployment and commercialisation without the right kind of government incentives and support. We need to be in an active conversation with the private sector to understand what they need and how we can support each other. Todd Stern, U.S. Special Envoy on Climate Change, March, 2009.

The Effects of National Policies and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Lowering the emissions from power generation in Asia can only be achieved with massive investment. This investment (whether it is funded by shareholders or external lenders) can only be made if the necessary policy support for clean energy is in place. This support comes from two levels. The first is the multi-lateral framework offered by the CDM of the Kyoto Protocol. The second is the national policy measures offered by central or local governments to promote the growth of clean energy. We were first involved in the CDM in 2006. As of July 2009, we have nine registered CDM projects in China. CLP’s experience to date is that the CDM has played a relatively small part in the promotion of clean energy investment. Until now, CLP’s earnings under the CDM from our minority-owned projects have been minimal; from our majority-owned projects, they have been zero. The reasons are threefold: There are practical difficulties in the CDM process; The price of carbon credits is volatile. For example,    the European CO2 allowances prices fell from about €30 to    just €8 between July 2008 and February 2009 and now stand     around €13;   As a consequence of the price volatility, the CDM has not been a     reliable source of revenue. On the other hand, national policy measures such as mandatory RE targets, preferential electricity tariffs, tax breaks or subsidies and relief from customs duties have played a direct, meaningful and supportive role in every renewable energy project in which CLP has invested – and, in almost every case, the existence of these policy measures has made the difference between a decision      to invest or not.

Nobuo Tanaka, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency, UNFCCC climate change talks in Bangkok, October, 2009.





Different Energies, Different Markets, Different Challenges We have learned the importance of distinguishing between the various types of clean energy and the differing characteristics of each of the markets within which we might be contemplating such investments. For example, our experience in biomass has made clear the vulnerability of this renewable energy source to local issues of fuel supply availability and price – to the point where, at present, we are no longer contemplating further investment in this type of renewable energy. In contrast, wind energy, provided that policy support is available in the form of a stable long-term preferential tariff, is becoming a proven means of adding renewable energy capacity in a manner which is reasonably predictable in terms of technical reliability, performance and output. We have seen that the “newer” renewable energy sources, such as solar, geothermal or tidal power still face major hurdles in terms of operating performance, reliability and, above all, cost relative to conventional forms of power generation. Our participation in Australia in Solar Systems, a developer of concentrated solar photovoltaic technology and equipment, where in 2009 we wrote off an investment of around US$40 million, was a sharp and unwelcome lesson on the risks associated with the deployment of early stage clean energy technologies. The economic downturn and credit crunch of recent times has heightened the difficulties in bringing such technologies to commercial realisation. Over the short to medium term, we see wind and hydro power as making the major contribution to the growth of renewable energy capacity in Asia, with solar energy, probably in the form of large-scale solar photovoltaic installations, gradually moving into commercial scale deployment. CLP has its part to play in the deployment of solar energy and other emerging, but reasonably proven clean energy in Asia. However, we see no reason to change our earlier view that, absent significant policy and technological development, the large-scale commercial deployment of clean coal technology, in the form of CCS is unlikely before the later part of the 2020s. Our experience has also taught us that different markets offer quite different opportunities for clean energy. Sometimes this is for climatic or geographical reasons, but more often because of wide variances in national or local policy support. For example, within the markets in which CLP operates, Thailand and Rajasthan in India presently offer the most supportive tariff regimes for solar power. Australia, China and India all provide good policy support for wind energy. The Chinese government is subsidising wind farms through a tariff of well over 50% above that of coal-fired power generation, and is offering numerous tax benefits (such as VAT rebate and tax holidays) targeted at renewable energy enterprises.

Finally, the most important lesson we have learned, and one which may be applicable to many other companies, is that we can change the way we carry on our business. We can start to make significant reductions in carbon emissions compared to those which would result from “business as usual”. The commitment we made in 2004 to achieve 5% of our generating capacity from renewable energy sources by 2010 was the subject of a great deal of internal debate. We were not sure that we could achieve this and we were concerned about the consequences of setting a target and missing it. Nonetheless, we took a conscious decision to set ourselves a challenging target, one which would demand a change in our behaviour, rather than a modest target which we could achieve with ease. Our success in meeting and exceeding our RE target has taught us that setting challenging goals, and making these public, promotes fundamental changes in the way we do business and gathers the necessary stakeholder support, including from our shareholders, for these changes. This is the philosophy we adopted in our Climate Vision 2050, where we set demanding targets for reductions in the carbon emissions intensity of our generating portfolio. We do not know whether we can achieve these targets, especially when they are heavily dependent upon external support, such as from governments, lenders and technology providers. We do know that we shall do our best to turn that vision into reality.

There is no silver bullet in climate change policy and solutions; only silver buckshot. We are going to need every one of these policy solutions, every one of these measures to reduce greenhouse gases enough to avoid the most catastrophic consequences. So whether that’s energy efficiency, or renewable energy, or carbon capture and sequestration from our existing coal plants or all the policies that lead us to that – we will need every one of those. Terry Tamminen, Advisory Board Member of the Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford School of Law, April, 2009.

My ministry will provide financial assistance amounting to 12 rupees (30 cents) per kilowatt hour in case of solar photovoltaic and 10 rupees per kilowatt hour in case of solar thermal power fed to the electricity grid. Vilas Muttemwar, then Minister of State (independent charge), Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India, January, 2008.

10

11

Beyond Copenhagen CLP is one of the nine member companies of the Electricity Utilities Sector Project initiated by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) in 2000. This aims to promote a better understanding of the sustainability challenges facing the electricity sector, examine potential business contributions and explore policy needs (see www.wbcsd.org for details). In “Power to Change: A business contribution to a low-carbon electricity future”, which was issued as part of this Project, the member companies identified six urgent needs which required the efforts of all stakeholders in the industry.

Securing investment in electricity infrastructure



Bringing more power to more people



Promoting end-use energy efficiency



Diversifying and de-carbonising the generation fuel mix



Accelerating research and development



Reinforcing and smartening electricity grids

CLP’s own experience has been that, in its current form, the CDM has not played a major role in the development of clean energy in Asia Pacific. However, the CDM forms part of the existing international architecture to tackle climate change and can facilitate the deployment of viable clean technologies. The mechanism should not be scrapped, but it should be improved and refined, such as by:

From an electric utility perspective, CLP believes that the success of COP15 in Copenhagen should be judged by the contribution that it makes to achieving these six objectives. To do so, COP15 will need to deliver a multilateral policy framework which:



streamlining the project registration process for small projects or for classes of projects;



extending the CDM to all technologies which result in measurable, reportable and verifiable emissions reductions such as large hydro, nuclear power and clean coal technologies;

• improves and extends the existing CDM;



relaxing requirements for “additionality” for CDM registration (the need to demonstrate that a given project has only proceeded because of the availability of CDMs). The CDM should not disadvantage or penalise countries which have supportive local clean energy policies by undermining the extent to which it can be argued that the application of the CDM was a prerequisite to project development;



removing the scope for national applications or interpretations of the CDM which inhibit its fair and efficient operation – such as the imposition of national levies on CDM revenues or allowing only local businesses to qualify for CDMs;



promoting a more stable and predictable value of carbon credits, including through establishing a longer-term regime than the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol from 2008 – 2012, as well as mechanisms to safeguard credit price volatility from derivative speculation.

• promotes, encourages and enables a broadening range of national measures which will secure carbon emission reductions within individual countries and markets; • provides the massive amounts of stable and direct funding required for the development and demonstration of technologies that have yet to become technologically proven, such as CCS.

…developed countries should honour their commitments regarding capital and technology transfer; however, in this regard, little progress has been made… Xie Zhenhua, Vice Chairman, National Development and Reform Commission, People’s Republic of China, May, 2009.

12

13

The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities embodies the consensus of the international community. Adherence to this principle is critical to keeping international cooperation on climate change on the right track. Hu Jintao, President of the People’s Republic of China, during US tour, September, 2009.

There are massive differences between the developed world and the developing world and, within these, great variations in the energy capabilities, needs and characteristics of individual countries. In the spirit of common but differentiated responsibilities, COP15 should not strive for a “one size fits all” solution – it must leave the scope, and provide encouragement, for national, bilateral, regional or other multilateral policies and initiatives. All of these could be formally recognised under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), approved as a contribution to the global effort to tackling climate change and be measured, reported and verified through the UNFCCC. These policies and initiatives from developing countries, which would come principally in the form of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), should support the accelerated deployment of clean energy infrastructure and technology by promoting:

Economic viability and sustainability. This would include removal of any barriers (financial, structural and institutional) to the introduction of low-emissions technology, streamlined planning and approval processes, and most importantly, rewarding investment through economic support in the form of preferential tariffs, fiscal assistance and the like.



The availability of capital. This will itself be encouraged by the economic viability of the clean energy project. Even so, public funding, supplemented by international financial institutions such as the International Finance Corporation and Asian Development Bank, may be required to leverage or encourage private sector lending or to promote projects and technologies where the early stage analysis of risks and rewards may not be sufficiently favourable to attract large scale private sector finance.



14

Supporting infrastructure. Clean energy, for example, the large-scale installation of wind farms, depends on supporting infrastructure such as a robust and flexible transmission system. Government or other public sector investment will be necessary to put in place such infrastructure.



Governance and regulatory stability. Because of the long-term nature and substantial capital costs involved in the provision of clean energy infrastructure, governments must put in place credible institutional frameworks for the energy sector. These frameworks must operate within the context of stable, fair, objective and predictable political and legal systems. There must be respect for the legitimate rights of owners of existing electricity infrastructure assets, as well as respect for contracts and intellectual property rights.



Recognising the demarcation between the responsibilities of governments and those of the private sector. In the case of the drive to cleaner energy, whilst business can play its part, the primary responsibility must be on government to lead, educate and inform the people whom they serve about the costs, benefits and consequences of a low-carbon power sector. In the absence of community support, government and businesses operating within those communities will be consistently handicapped in their efforts to deploy cleaner energy solutions on a durable basis.

The development of these national policies will be the key item on the post-Copenhagen agenda for all of us in the Asian power sector – governments and business alike. Policies which are not based on an objective assessment of their technological, markets and economic consequences can destroy the capital value of existing infrastructure – threatening the smooth low-carbon transformation of our industry, creating an adverse investment climate and undermining the stability of the existing industry players. On the other hand, appropriately timed and carefully constructed policies, developed in the context of clear, long-term national energy strategies will promote the transition to cleaner energy.

Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) – Australia The Australian Government released a Green Paper in July 2008, followed by a White Paper the following December, outlining the scope and focus of the CPRS. The CPRS is an emissions trading scheme that proposes a cap and trade mechanism to achieve its long-term target of a 60% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2000 levels by 2050. The Scheme has sparked ongoing debate on a number of issues including the level of transitional assistance that should be given to coal-fired generators, in particular those in Victoria. The transition measures the government has proposed will not be sufficient to keep the industry healthy enough for new investment in the much needed and cleaner energy infrastructure of the future to meet rising demand. The Government needs to understand the far-reaching damage it will deliver by not getting the policy right. When we talk about appropriately timed and carefully constructed policies, we should link them with efficient investment decisions and the preservation of energy security, and avoid capital stock destruction. If the CPRS was implemented in its current form, the energy market as a whole would face supply reliability and price volatility issues. The proposed CPRS will also damage Australia’s ability to attract new investment, particularly in a sector in which energy demand is forecast to significantly increase over the next decade.

15

Enhancing the implementation of adaptation is a priority for India, given our high vulnerability to climate change and the fact that climate change impacts can pose a significant risk to economic and social development and poverty alleviation efforts. Climate Change Negotiations: India’s submissions to the UNFCCC, August, 2009.

Irrespective of the steps that the world takes beyond Copenhagen to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, some climate change is inevitable (and may already have occurred). Adaptation to the consequences of climate change is necessary, yet the burden will fall most heavily on the developing world, including in Asia – countries which have contributed least to the existing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere and which are least able to bear the consequences and burden of adaptation. COP15 should encourage economic, regulatory and institutional measures, at multilateral, regional and national levels to allow developing countries to adapt to climate change. COP15 should also promote financial and technical support to help them do so, such as by the effective implementation and extension of the UN Adaptation Fund.

We aim to report openly and honestly on our past activities, present tasks and future plans so that our stakeholders can make an informed judgment on our performance. If you want to learn more about CLP’s work in powering Asia responsibly, have a look at some of our other reports – they’re all available online: www.clpgroup.com

CLP looks to the years beyond Copenhagen to be characterised by a new and enduring multilateral framework within which the world can address the unprecedented threat to our way of life posed by climate change. We need this framework to encourage, reward and oversee a broad range of national policies and measures, each tailored to the specific needs of individual countries, but all aimed at contributing to meeting the ambitious goals which Copenhagen must set for large scale and long-term reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from the energy sector. CLP will play its part on the debate of these issues, at Copenhagen and beyond, and more importantly, in the achievement of the goals that are set.

Our Manifesto on Air Quality & Climate Change 2004

CLP Renewables 2007

CLP New Power for Renewable Energy 2007

2008 Annual Report 2008

CLP Online 2008 Sustainability Report 2008

CLP Technology Roadmap 2008

We welcome your views and questions on Beyond Copenhagen – Powering Asia Responsibly. Please contact: Group Public Affairs Fax: (852) 2760 4448 Email: [email protected]

16

CLP Climate Vision 2050 – Our Manifesto on Climate Change 2007