PACR of a project (1987-97) to promote the development of new or innovative products or processes relevant to the Indian energy sector (PACER project). The project was implemented by the Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India (ICICI). PACER provided conditional grant assistance totaling $15.6 million to 29 projects, comprising 2 solicited and 27 unsolicited proposals. Of these, 18 projects have been completed, 5 are under implementation, and the remaining 6 were truncated. Of the 18 completed projects, 6 have already been commercialized and repayments to PACER have started. PACER has had a positive impact on the energy research scenario in India. Several technology development projects relating to energy efficiency, energy conservation, and alternative fuels were taken up that might not have seen the light of day but for PACER. Only a few projects like the Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) “Pressurized fluidized bed gasifier” project might have materialized without PACER. According to a report prepared by the Business Consulting Group (BCG), the potential impact of PACER funded projects likely to see commercialization in India is estimated at Rs. 73 billion, on an annualized basis, for the 12 projects visited by BCG. This speaks volumes for the national benefit of the PACER program. Lessons learned cover three categories. (1) Project approach. (a) PACER has demonstrated the benefits of consortia research. The program is replicable in other sectors where science and industry must cooperate for the greater benefit of industry and country, e.g., agro-processing, steel, electronics, waste management, telecommunications, and watershed management. (b) A program like PACER needs external inputs from experts who can provide critical and unbiased insights into evaluation of projects. A strong and effective Peer Review Committee helps considerably in this area. (c) Adequate thought needs to be given to consortium fit and members’ interest in commercialization. (d) A Request for Proposal (RFP) approach should be preferred over unsolicited proposals. RFP should be initiated at the outset of such a program in order to channel efforts in the desired direction at an early date. (2) Implementation approach. (a) Ten years is inadequate to see the fruits of such a program. (b) Monitoring of assisted technology development projects can be improved by having clearly defined milestones/benchmarks. This would put pressure on promoters regarding timing and results. (c) The upper limit ($3 million) for financing subprojects under such programs needs to be flexible so that projects are not left incomplete due to lack of funds. (d) Promoters should contribute at least 30% of project funding in order to demonstrate their commitment to the project. (3) Sustainability. Indian industry is generally reluctant to deploy its high-cost funds on research and development. Programs like PACER lower the “risk” to industry and create a better environment for technology development and commercialization. The sustainability of energy research in non-aid situations is doubtful in most cases, given the pressing need to deploy the scarce high-cost funds in competing areas. However, the technologies developed using PACER funds were relevant to the Indian situation. Many of these hold good promise, e.g., power generation from waste heat recovery in the cement industry, beneficiation of high-ash coal for power generation, distillery spent wash treatment along with cogeneration of power, and solar thermal steam generation. In order to adopt these technologies using their own funds, several Indian companies have begun approaching technology developers for technology transfer. (Author abstract, modified)
