ECOWAS‘S INFRASTRUCTURE: A REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE and competitiveness. For WAPP as a whole, trade expansion would reduce the long-run marginal cost of power from $0.19 to $0.18 per kilowatt-hour, a reduction of 5 percent.

**Table 3.5  Differences in electricity production and CO2 emissions under power trade scenarios**

||**WAPP**|**SAPP**|**EAPP**|**CAPP**|**Total**|**WAPP**|**SAPP**|**EAPP**|**CAPP**|**Total**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||**_Produc_**|**_tion differen_**|**_ce (TWh)_**|||**_Emi_**|**_ssions savi_**|**_ngs (millio_**|**_ns of tonnes_**|**_)_**|
|Coal||–41.5|0.7||–40.8||–37.8|0.6||–37.2|
|Diesel|–0.8|–0.3|0.3||–0.8|–0.6|–0.2|0.2||–0.6|
|Gas|–9.2|–5.3|–42.4||–56.8|–4.7|–2.7|–21.5||–28.9|
|HFO|0.2||0.4|–4.9|–4.3|0.1||0.3|–3.6|–3.2|
|Hydro|11.5|47.5|43.4|5.1|107|||||0|
|**Total**|**1.6**|**0.5**|**2.4**|**0.3**|**4.7**|**–5.2**|**–40.7**|**–20.4**|**–3.6**|**–69.9**|

|**Table 3.6 Long-run marginal cost**|**s of power in**|**WAPP**|Gain in|
|---|---|---|---|
|US cents/kWh<br>Trade<br>expansion|Trade<br>stagnation|Absolute<br>differential|LRMC due<br>to trade (%)|
|CAPP<br>7|9|–2|–22|
|EAPP<br>12|12|0|0|
|SAPP<br>6|7|–1|–14|
|**WAPP**<br>**18**|**19**|**–1**|–5|
|Benin<br>19|19|0|0|
|Burkina Faso<br>25|26|–1|–4|
|Côte d‘Ivoire<br>15|15|0|0|
|Gambia<br>8|7|1|14|
|Ghana<br>10|10|0|0|
|Guinea<br>7|6|1|17|
|Guinea-Bissau<br>9|16|–7|–44|
|Liberia<br>8|14|–6|–43|
|Mali<br>25|28|–3|–11|
|Mauritania<br>14|15|–1|–7|
|Niger<br>25|30|–5|–17|
|Nigeria<br>13|13|0|0|
|Senegal<br>43|47|–4|–9|
|Sierra Leone<br>9|10|–1|–10|
|Togo<br>10|11|–1|–9|
|Source: Rosnes and Vennemo 2009.||||

It should be noted that with or without trade, the economic cost of power in West Africa remains by far the highest in Sub-Saharan Africa. Moreover, the benefits of power trade in the region, though significant, are not as large as those found in the CAPP and SAPP areas (table 3.5).

The magnitude of power cost <mark>Burkina Faso 25 26 –1 –4</mark> savings varies hugely across <mark>Côte d‘Ivoire 15 15 0</mark> individual countries in the WAPP area (table 3.6). Small countries that <mark>Gambia 8 7 1 14</mark> have traditionally relied on very <mark>Ghana 10 10 0</mark> expensive small-scale oil-based <mark>Guinea 7 6 1 17</mark> generation would gain the most if <mark>Guinea-Bissau 9 16 –7 –44</mark> they were able to import hydropower <mark>Liberia 8 14 –6 –43</mark> from Guinea. In particular, countries <mark>Mali 25 28 –3 –11</mark> such as Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali, <mark>Mauritania 14 15 –1 –7</mark> and Niger could save between $0.03 <mark>Niger 25 30 –5 –17</mark> and $0.07 per kilowatt-hour, a <mark>Nigeria 13 13 0</mark> percentage reduction in power costs <mark>Senegal 43 47 –4 –9</mark> of between11 and 44 percent. Even in <mark>Sierra Leone 9 10 –1 –10</mark> countries where savings appear more <mark>Togo 10 11 –1 –9</mark> modest—on the order of $0.01 per Source: Rosnes and Vennemo 2009. kilowatt-hour—the aggregate value of these savings can be quite significant. Finally, Guinea the major power exporter under trade expansion, would face an increase in long-run marginal costs due to the need to develop a much larger amount of power, and hence more expensive schemes than those that would be strictly necessary to meet domestic demands alone.

53