skip to main content

Investigating a Hampered NRE Utilization in Kaltim’s Energy System: Is there an Energy Policy with a Syndrome of the Energy-abundant Area?

1Department of Energy Security, Faculty of Defense Management, Indonesia Defense University, Indonesia Peace and Security Center (IPSC), Sentul, 16819, Indonesia

2Department of Petroleum Engineering, Faculty of Mining and Petroleum Engineering, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung, 40132, Indonesia

Received: 5 Mar 2021; Revised: 7 Apr 2021; Accepted: 11 Apr 2021; Available online: 20 Apr 2021; Published: 1 Nov 2021.
Editor(s): Grigorios Kyriakopoulos
Open Access Copyright (c) 2021 The Authors. Published by Centre of Biomass and Renewable Energy (CBIORE)
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Citation Format:
Kaltim presumably experiences an energy paradox, where the energy system is unreliable and unsustainable, despite energy-rich. This study presumes that the paradox is caused by the ‘ill-advised energy policy’ shown by ‘energy-area incompatibility’ that is exacerbated by the ‘energy-rich syndrome’ (a mindset of feeling secure due to energy-abundance leading to a wasteful behavior). This study investigates the indication of the syndrome in Kaltim energy policy by first investigating ‘the incompatibility’ and its impacts by examining Kaltim’s geographical characteristics, energy potential, population-distribution, electricity system, and infrastructure. Also, the impacts of retaining the syndrome through cost analyses. This study finds the incompatibility between energy-sources utilization and geographical characteristics, by conducting a descriptive method with data collection and analyses. Kaltim is forest-dominated with scattered-population, suitable with an off-grid system. However, the electricity development is mostly on-grid, fossil-based designed, explaining the difficulties of electrifying the entire Kaltim, although electricity is surplus. While off-grid should be applied to NRE, the massive use of diesel-gen-sets shows wasteful behavior. By conducting a linear-regression method, this study finds that Kaltim’s electricity consumption (indicating the infrastructure sufficiency) is lower than it should be, given its incredible economic performance. The incompatibility causes infrastructure insufficiency. The cost analysis finds that the massively-used fuel oil is the most expensive. The subsidy would be around 0.003%-0.275% of Kaltim GDRP or 17 billion-1.55 trillion IDR. As the new Capital location, NRE is a must for Kaltim. To conclude, NRE utilization is very low, although its potential is huge, and Kaltim’s forested characteristics suit it. NRE only covers 3% of Kaltim’s electricity, while the potential (hydro alone) is more than 6,900MW. The incompatibility causes an unreliable electricity system, although electricity is surplus. Following Kaltim’s geographical characteristics, NRE should be optimized. This study intends to aware the policy-makers of the syndrome, thereby develop a ‘proper energy policy’.
Fulltext View|Download
Keywords: Electricity-cost analysis; Energy-area compatibility; Energy paradox; Energy-rich syndrome; Kalimantan electricity

Article Metrics:

  1. Aditya, N. (2016, February 17). Listrik byarpet di Penajam bikin roda ekonomi masyarakat terhambat. Merdeka.Com.
  2. Afful-Dadzie, A., Afful-Dadzie, E., Awudu, I., & Banuro, J. K. (2017). Power generation capacity planning under budget constraint in developing countries. Applied Energy, 188, 71–82.
  3. Aliev, A. (2017, July 20). Listrik di Kalimantan Timur dan Utara byar pet, ini sebabnya! WE Online.
  4. Andersen, F. M., Baldini, M., Hansen, L. G., & Jensen, C. L. (2017). Households’ hourly electricity consumption and peak demand in Denmark. Applied Energy, 208(September), 607–619.
  5. Asri, N. D., & Yusgiantoro, P. (2020). The energy provision dilemma of coal versus wind from the economic, environmental, and social perspective within the energy security framework. Defense Journal, 6(3), 310–327.
  6. Asri, N. D., & Yusgiantoro, P. (2021). Is sustainability challenging in Indonesia’s energy provision? - Fuel type vs externalities in electricity cost analysis
  7. Bappenas. (2015). Regional Development Analysis of East Kalimantan Province 2015
  8. Best, R., & Burke, P. J. (2018). Electricity availability: A precondition for faster economic growth? Energy Economics, 74, 321–329.
  9. Bhandari, R., & Stadler, I. (2011). Electrification using solar photovoltaic systems in Nepal. Applied Energy, 88(2), 458–465.
  10. BPS. (2017). Statistical Yearbook of Indonesia 2017
  11. BPS. (2018). Statistical Yearbook of Indonesia 2018
  12. BPS Jakarta. (2017). Jakarta in Figures
  13. BPS Kaltim. (2017). Kalimantan Timur Provinces in Figures
  14. Carley, S. (2009). Distributed generation: An empirical analysis of primary motivators. Energy Policy, 37, 1648–1659.
  15. Directorate General of Electricity. (2015). Electricity Statistics 2015
  16. Dong, B., Zhang, Y., & Song, H. (2019). Corruption as a natural resource curse: Evidence from the Chinese coal mining. China Economic Review, 57(December 2018), 101314.
  17. Dutu, R. (2016). Challenges and policies in Indonesia’s energy sector. Energy Policy, 98, 513–519.
  18. East Kalimantan Provincial Government. (2019a). The general plan of regional electricity
  19. East Kalimantan Provincial Government. (2019b). The general plan of regional energy
  20. Friedrichs, J., & Inderwildi, O. R. (2013). The carbon curse: Are fuel rich countries doomed to high CO2 intensities ? Energy Policy, 62, 1356–1365.
  21. Ghimire, L. P., & Kim, Y. (2018). An analysis on barriers to renewable energy development in the context of Nepal using AHP. Renewable Energy, 129, 446–456.
  22. Gómez-navarro, T., & Ribó-pérez, D. (2018). Assessing the obstacles to the participation of renewable energy sources in the electricity market of Colombia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 90(March), 131–141.
  23. Handayani, K., Krozer, Y., & Filatova, T. (2017). Trade-offs between electrification and climate change mitigation: An analysis of the Java-Bali power system in Indonesia. Applied, 208(August), 1020–1037.
  24. Hassani, H., Sattar, M., Odulaja, A., & Santoso, W. M. (2018). A statistical approach for a fuel subsidy mechanism. Energy Policy, 119(May), 666–673.
  25. Kennedy, S. F. (2018). Indonesia’s energy transition and its contradictions: Emerging geographies of energy and finance. Energy Research & Social Science, 41(June 2017), 230–237.
  26. Kosai, S., & Yamasue, E. (2018). Cost-security analysis dedicated for the off-grid electricity system. Renewable Energy, 115, 871–879.
  27. Lestari, G. I. (2020, October 27). Puluhan ribu KK di Kaltim belum teraliri listrik meski ketersediaan setrum surplus 550 MW. Kaltimkece.Id.
  28. López-González, A., Domenech, B., & Ferrer-Martí, L. (2018). Lifetime, cost and fuel efficiency in diesel projects for rural electrification in Venezuela. Energy Policy, 121(March), 152–161.
  29. Majumder, M. K., Raghavan, M., & Vespignani, J. (2020). Oil curse, economic growth and trade openness. Energy Economics, 91, 104896.
  30. Marquardt, J. (2014). A Struggle of Multi-level Governance: Promoting Renewable Energy in Indonesia. Energy Procedia, 58, 87–94.
  31. Martosaputro, S., & Murti, N. (2014). Blowing the wind energy in Indonesia. Energy Procedia, 47, 273–282.
  32. McFarlan, A. (2018). Techno-economic assessment of pathways for electricity generation in northern remote communities in Canada using methanol and dimethyl ether to replace diesel. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 90(March), 863–876.
  33. MEMR. (2015). Kebijakan dan Strategi Pengembangan EBTKE untuk Memenuhi Target Kebijakan Energi Nasional. The Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources
  34. MF. (2016). State Budget Information 2016
  35. MF. (2018a). Financial Note and the 2018 State Budget
  36. MF. (2018b). State Budget Information 2018
  37. Mundaca, G. (2017). Energy subsidies, public investment and endogenous growth. Energy Policy, 110(October 2016), 693–709.
  38. Necolsen, G. (2018, January 3). Genset 10x1 Megawatt sudah terpasang. Tribunkaltim.Co.
  39. Nielsen, H., Warde, P., & Kander, A. (2018). East versus West: Energy intensity in coal-rich Europe, 1800 – 2000. Energy Policy, 122(July), 75–83.
  40. Nouni, M. R., Mullick, S. C., & Kandpal, T. C. (2008). Providing electricity access to remote areas in India: An approach towards identifying potential areas for decentralized electricity supply. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 12(October 2006), 1187–1220.
  41. Oniemola, P. K. (2016). Why should oil rich Nigeria make a law for the promotion of renewable pnergy in the Power sector ? Journal of African Law, 1(August 2015), 29–55.
  42. Partridge, I. (2018). Cost comparisons for wind and thermal power generation. Energy Policy, 112(September 2017), 272–279.
  43. Poudineh, R., Sen, A., & Fattouh, B. (2020). An integrated approach to electricity sector reforms in the resource rich economies of the MENA. Energy Policy, 138(January), 111236.
  44. (2019a, May 5). Deritanya eh..!! Setrum di 298 desa masih dilayani Genset. Kaltim Post.
  45. (2019b, May 5). Di kabupaten ini, masih ada 40 desa yang gelap: 2023 semua teraliri. Kaltim Post.
  46. (2020, October 27). Daya surplus, Kaltim distribusikan setrum ke provinsi tetangga: 69 ribu rumah di Kaltim belum teraliri listrik. Prokal.Co.
  47. PT PLN. (2013). Sistem Ketenagalistrikan Kalimantan Timur dan Utara
  48. PT PLN. (2015). General Plan of Electricity Draft 2015-2034
  49. PT PLN. (2016). The Power Supply Bussiness Plan of PT. PLN 2016-2025
  50. Purba, E. N. N. (2016). Solar power plant application for fisherman’s housing in Arungkeke Village, Jeneponto District, South Sulawesi. Universitas Indonesia
  51. Riva, F., Ahlborg, H., Hartvigsson, E., Pachauri, S., & Colombo, E. (2018). Electricity access and rural development: Review of complex socio-economic dynamics and causal diagrams for more appropriate energy modelling. Energy for Sustainable Development, 43, 203–223.
  52. Sahin, E. S., Bayram, I. S., & Koc, M. (2019). Demand side management opportunities, framework, and implications for sustainable development in resource-rich countries: Case study Qatar. Journal of Cleaner Production, 241, 118332.
  53. Salahuddin, M., & Gow, J. (2014). Economic growth, energy consumption and CO2 emissions in Gulf Cooperation Council countries. Energy, 73, 44–58.
  54. Sarita, M. (2018, April 16). Terpaksa pakai Genset karena listrik PLN tak kunjung terpasang, Alkes RSUD banyak yang rusak. Tribunkaltim.Co.
  55. Satrianegara, R. (2018, February 14). Menteri Jonan: Pembangkit listrik off-grid cocok untuk Papua. CNBC Indonesia
  56. Setyawan, D. (2014). Assessing the current Indonesia’s electricity market arrangements and the opportunities to reform. International Journal of Renewable Energy Development, 3(February), 55–64.
  57. Slough, T., Urpelainen, J., & Yang, J. (2015). Light for all? Evaluating Brazil’s rural electrification progress, 2000 – 2010. Energy Policy, 86, 315–327.
  58. Suárez, J. A., Beatón, P. A., Escalona, R. F., & Montero, O. P. (2012). Energy, environment and development in Cuba. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(5), 2724–2731.
  59. Tarigan, A. K. M., Samsura, D. A. A., Sagala, S., & Wimbardana, R. (2017). Balikpapan: Urban planning and development in anticipation of the post-oil industry era. Cities, 60, 246–259.
  60. Veldhuis, A. J., & Reinders, A. H. M. E. (2015). Reviewing the potential and cost-effectiveness of off-grid PV systems in Indonesia on a provincial level. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 52, 757–769.

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update: 2024-03-03 01:35:06

No citation recorded.