Sc e n ar io s an d Stra teg ie s for Clean Powe r Deve lo pmen t in th e Ph ilipp in es

POWER SWITCH!

University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas (WWF Philippines) U.P. Electrical and Electronics Engineering Foundation
Prepared by: Prof. Rowaldo R. del Mundo Charito M. Isidro Remife L.Villarino-de Guzman Fidelpio V. Ferraris With inputs from: Rafael Señga Ina Pozon Liam Salter

2003, Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas (WWF Philippines) / University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory This report was produced by the University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory for the Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or means without the prior written permission of the Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas and the University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory.

Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas WWF Philippines
LBI Building # 57 Kalayaan Avenue, Quezon City Tel. No. (632) 433-3220 to 22

University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory (UPSL)
German Yia Hall, University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City Tel. No. (632) 924-4150 Fax No. (632) 434-3660 Email: solar@eee.upd.edu.ph Web: http://www.upd.edu.ph/~solar

POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................vi LIST OF APPENDICES.................................................................................................viii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................ix EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................x 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................... 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 2 Introduction................................................................................................ 1 Technology and Resource Assessment for Clean Power Development ............................................................... 1 Historical Performance of the Philippine Power Sector ..................... 4 Scenarios under the Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 ................... 7 Clean Power Development for the Philippines .................................... 8 Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................10

ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES AND RESOURCES FOR CLEAN POWER.................................................................................................13 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Clean Energy Technologies .................................................................14 Resource Assessment...........................................................................20 Cost Comparison of Power Generation Technologies .....................32 Environmental Externalities ..................................................................35 Mitigation Options ...................................................................................37

3

HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE OF THE PHILIPPINE POWER SECTOR ......................................................................38 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Historical Energy Demand and Installed Generating Capacity ..............................................................38 Historical Reliability Performance ........................................................41 Historical Environmental Performance ...............................................42 Cost of Electricity....................................................................................46
page i

University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas, Inc. UPEEE Foundation

...............................3.........................................................2 4.............................................................. UPEEE Foundation page ii ....................................75 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....68 HEGS-MCPD Scenario .............81 Transmission and Distribution Development ......64 LEGS-ACPD Scenario.................3 4..........................................49 DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario .....................................2 5..............................................4 Energy Planning ..........................................................................................POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 4 SCENARIOS UNDER THE PHILIPPINE ENERGY PLAN FOR 2003-2012..50 DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario ...................................................................................................................1 4................................................. Inc.......................................................................1 5..........3 5....71 HEGS-ACPD Scenario.......................4 National Energy Planning Process ....83 7 REFERENCES .2 6..................82 Incentive Programs ..48 Gross Domestic Product Projections ........................84 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas........1 6............................1 4...............................................81 6.............................................................82 Rules and Regulation ...............3 6.........................................................4 LEGS-MCPD Scenario...63 5.............57 5 CLEAN POWER DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS...................................

.......44 Share of Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy in the Energy Mix.... 1991-2001 .............45 Energy Mix and Carbon Dioxide Emissions.............................................. 1999-2001 . Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario.......................................................9 Figure 4........................... 1999-2001.....................7 Figure 4...................................6 Figure 3...................................................................39 Electricity Generation by Grid............5 Practical Wind Resources in the Philippines ........... 1999-2001 ....1 Figure 4............................... UPEEE Foundation page iii ..2 Figure 3............. 1991-2001.....................7 Figure 3..50 DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the Low Economic Growth Scenario........56 Generation under the High Economic Growth Scenario..........................................................................................39 Electricity Consumption...............................POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.45 National Energy Planning Process .....................1 Figure 2.........41 Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type................. 19912001.......53 Fossil Fuel Consumption for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario...4 Figure 4..................5 Figure 3................. Gross Domestic Product and Population........................................................................................40 Total Installed Generating Capacity by Source..................................23 Practical Small Hydro Resources in the Philippines....3 Figure 3.................49 Generation under the Low Economic Growth Scenario.................. Inc.........27 Electricity Consumption by Sector..............6 Figure 4.............59 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas....................... 2001............ 19992001.....8 Figure 4............................................57 DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the High Economic Growth Scenario .....................53 Coal and Oil-Based vs..............58 Figure 4.........................40 System Peak by Grid...................................................................................................................................................................................................3 Figure 4..9 Figure 4......2 Figure 3...........................51 Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario.....8 Figure 3.................................................1 Figure 3.....................................................2 Figure 4..................10 Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario........................55 Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario.. 1991-2001 ..............................4 Figure 3.43 Energy Mix.................................

................12 Energy Mix for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario...........................20 CO2 Emissions for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario...................................................................67 CO2 Emissions for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario......4 Figure 5...................................................................................................73 Figure 5..................................74 Figure 5........13 Coal and Oil-Based vs...............69 Coal and Oil-Based vs.............................................................74 Figure 5........77 Figure 5................14 Fossil Fuel Consumption for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario........................................................7 Figure 5.......................................................71 Figure 5....77 Figure 5.....8 Figure 5..................18 Coal and Oil-Based vs............................79 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas...........16 Installed Generating Capacity for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario.............10 CO2 Emissions for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario ............................................1 Figure 5...................17 Energy Mix for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario ....70 Fossil Fuel Consumption for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario...2 Figure 5..................................19 Fuel Consumption for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario................65 Energy Mix for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario ........................... Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario ..................78 Figure 5............................................................9 Installed Generating Capacity for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario............69 Energy Mix for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario ...................................................13 Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario. UPEEE Foundation page iv ...............11 Installed Generating Capacity for the HEGS-MWPP Scenario........ Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario ...................................75 Figure 5.............................73 Figure 5.................................67 Installed Generating Capacity for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario..... Inc.............POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Figure 4....................60 Figure 4..................................................................................66 Coal and Oil-Based vs....66 Fossil Fuel Consumption for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario...........................................60 Figure 4........6 Figure 5......................78 Figure 5..15 CO2 Emissions for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario.............. Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario ..............3 Figure 5...............................................................................................................................................11 Share of Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy in the Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario .....62 Figure 5.........................12 Fossil Fuel Consumption for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario..5 Figure 5...................70 Figure 5. Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario..........

36 Emission Factors for Various Power Plants ....17 Table 3.....1 Table 1............22 Practical Wind Resources in the Philippines ..........7 Table 2...........................................46 NPC and IPP Production Cost at 1990 Constant Prices....................................................................42 NPC Average Electricity Rates......................4 Table 2.........................POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines LIST OF TABLES Table 1................................................15 Table 2................................ 1991-2001 ....................14 Table 2.....8 Table 2......................... Inc..........................................34 Value of Air Emissions Reductions in California . UPEEE Foundation ......... 1991-2001 ........2 Table 2....36 Energy Consumption by Sector............26 Small Hydro Power Sites Verified by the DOE ..................22 Available Large Hydro Resources .................3 Table 3...5 Cost Comparison of Power Plants................................................ 2 1994 Philippine Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector ................11 Table 2................................30 Available Geothermal Resources for Power Generation.........................................................25 Philippine Small Hydro Electric Potential ............ 1991-2001 ....6 Table 2.............................................................9 Table 2............2 Table 3.................32 Cost Comparison of Power Plants.................5 Table 2...................1 Table 2.....47 page v University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas..........................................................................1 Table 3.................26 Practical Small Hydro Resources in the Philippines................26 Projected Supply of Biomass Resources ......................3 Table 2...................................................................28 Philippine Bagasse Electric Potential........13 1994 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Philippine Energy Sector ........ 2 Typical Capacity Factors of Power Plants and Levelized Generation Costs.10 Table 2...........................................13 Table 2..............2 Table 2..........38 Reserve Margin.4 Table 3................12 Table 2......................................33 Typical Capacity Factors of Power Plants and Levelized Generation Costs....16 Table 2......36 Carbon Dioxide Emissions of Different Power Plant Types .................42 Historical Environmental Emissions for the Philippine Power Sector ...31 Philippine Natural Gas Resources.............................13 Philippine Wind Electric Potential ..............................

.....55 Generation Costs for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario...POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 4....2 Table 4................. UPEEE Foundation page vi ............................................... 2003-2012..........1 Table 4.............................52 Environmental Emissions for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario....................................7 Low and High GDP Forecasts for 2003 to 2012 ...........58 Environmental Emissions for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario......................56 Percentage Reserve Margin for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario...49 Percentage Reserve Margin for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario..............62 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.......................................................................................3 Table 4........6 Table 4................5 Table 4...................... Inc..........................4 Table 4...61 Generation Costs for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario ....................

Inc.POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Wind and Hydro Potential in the Philippines Historical Performance of the Philippine Power Sector 1991-2001 Economic Scenarios and DOE Plans for the Power Sector 20032012 Clean Power Development Options University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. UPEEE Foundation page vii .

Inc. UPEEE Foundation .POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AWPP BCF Btu CC CENECO CER CH4 CO CO2 FFHC GHG GWh HAEGS HEGS IPPs ktonne kW LEGS LOLP MERALCO MMBFOE MWPP NMVOC NOx NPC NREL N2O PPA Aggressive Wind Power Penetration billion cubic feet British thermal unit combined cycle power plant Central Negros Electric Cooperative Certificate of Emissions Reduction methane carbon monoxide carbon dioxide First Farmers Holdings Corporation greenhouse gas gigawatthour Historical Average Economic Growth Scenario High Economic Growth Scenario Independent Power Producers kilotonne kilowatt Low Economic Growth Scenario loss of load probability Manila Electric Company million barrels of fuel oil equivalent Moderate Wind Power Penetration non-methane volatile organic compound nitrogen oxides National Power Corporation National Renewable Energy Laboratory nitrous oxide purchased power adjustment page viii University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.

Inc. UPEEE Foundation page ix .POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines SO2 UNDP UPSL VMC sulfur dioxide United Nations Development Programme University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Victorias Milling Company University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.

This study focuses on reliability.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction An area that has great potential for greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction is the power sector. d) Geothermal Power Plants. it is not used in this study because data available in the Philippines is insufficient to do so.g. mainly the power industry. In 1994. renewable energy technologies and cleaner fossil-based technologies such as natural gas). given that clean energy technologies and resources are available. cost and environmental performance (particularly GHG emissions) of the power sector. these technologies will be at the bottom of the list. of total net GHG emissions in the country.. the energy sector accounted for 50. Hence. Clean Energy Technologies For the clean energy technologies. Although it ranks only second to the transport sub-sector in terms of GHG emissions.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 1 1. accounts for more than thirty (30) percent as a result of the burning of fossil fuels. or roughly 47 percent.038 million tonnes of the 100. the assessment focused on technology measures that reduce carbon intensity of energy (e. such as the circulating fluidized bed combustion system. UPEEE Foundation page 1 . which could be treated as a resource in energy planning. Of the energy sector GHG emissions. and e) Natural Gas-Fired Power Plants. is considered as “relatively cleaner” only to pulverized coal plant technology. The following are the clean energy technologies that could be utilized for clean power development in the Philippines: a) Wind Energy Conversion Systems. b) Hydroelectric Power Plants. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.738 million tonnes. the power sub-sector represents a large opportunity for carbon emissions reduction and sequestration. Other renewable energy technologies were excluded on the basis of cost competitiveness and/or maturity of technology.2 Technology and Resource Assessment for Clean Power Development This study has assessed the technologies and resources that could be used to pursue clean power development in the Philippines. if considered in power development with the objective of pursuing environmental sustainability. c) Biomass Energy Conversion Systems. the energy industries. Inc. Improved coal technologies. 1. In particular it looks into scenarios that would entail switching to clean energy technologies from conventional fossil fuel-based technologies for grid-connected power generation. Despite the high potential of technology measures that reduce energy intensity.

800 1.750 – 1.000 – 1. $/kWa 850 – 1. UPEEE Foundation page 2 .400 1. capacity factor) were developed based on the life cycle of each power generation technology and the four economic factors mentioned above. years 30 20 20 20 30 30 20 50 30 50 20 Investment Cost.8174 3.2277 1.750 – 1. (c) fuel cost.0405 0. and (d) the level of generation (also called capacity factor).4376 12.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Cost Comparison of Power Generation Technologies The economics of power generation technologies depends on several factors. Screening curves (costs per kWh vs.0405 0.68 Table 1.1: Cost Comparison of Power Plants Type of Power Plant Oil-fired steam turbine Oil-fired gas turbine Oil-fired combined cycle gas turbine Diesel motors Pulverized coal-fired power plant Fluidized bed coal power plant Wind technologies Hydroelectric power plants Fluidized bed combustors (for biomass) Geothermal technologies Gas-fired combined cycle gas turbine (for natural gas) Typical Economic Life. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Actual industry discount rates may be higher depending on the following factors: required equity return. $/MWh 41.2282 2. Inc.2: Typical Capacity Factors of Power Plants and Levelized Generation Costs1 Power Plant Type Geothermal Coal (Pulverized coal plant) Coal (Pulverized coal plant) Hydro Oil-fired steam turbine Natural gas combined cycle Oil-fired gas turbine Wind Without ancillary services With ancillary services Diesel Capacity Factor (%) 88 82 82 57 54 54 31 30 30 9 Levelized Generation Cost $/kWh PhP/kWh 0.800 1.550 700 – 900 550 – 650 1. including: (a) investment cost.0794 0.0494 0.0625 0.200 – 1.12 0 0 3. market risks.500 1. regulatory risks.1059 0. Table 1.000 450 .10 11.150 – 1. (b) operation and maintenance cost.1 below shows the costs used in this study. $/kWa 17 – 20 11 – 14 14 – 18 14 – 16 30 – 35 44 – 45 20 – 25 40 – 70 44 – 45 29 – 38 14 – 18 Fuel Cost.500 700 – 900 Annual Fixed O & M Cost.7153 5.2282 2.0602 2.53 0 36.40 9.0512 0.56 73. Table 1.8236 4.93 32. country risks and availability of financing.000 – 3.5219 1 A discount rate of 12% was used to derive levelized generation costs.1101 0.04 49.0193 0.3644 6.250 2.0557 2.

clean renewable energy technologies will be the least cost option for power development in the Philippines Clean Indigenous Energy Resources Energy resource assessment was conducted based on secondary data to quantify the available indigenous resources that can be utilized by the clean energy technologies as “fuel”.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines The above screening curve table was used in preparing the alternative power development plans in this study. On the other hand. the need for policy instruments and mechanisms that will create a more secured investment climate for renewable energy developers cannot be overemphasized. dollar discount rates. scope of analysis. Assessment was made for wind. Studies vary in their estimation of externality costs because of a number of factors. hydro. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.600 MW of installed wind power capacity in the Philippines that can generate about 2 True costs will vary for a number of reasons.g. These costs were derived using only the cost of the power plant technology. including variability of fuel costs. However. connection to the transmission system. Inc. population density. abatement cost values for the North Coast of California. The figures used are only intended for relative comparison. In this study. Further. It is therefore deemed reasonable to use the lowest available value in developed countries for purposes of evaluating the prospective performance of a power development plan. geothermal and natural gas resources for power development. abatement technologies. It can be concluded that if environmental externalities will be considered.2 It can be noted that on life-cycle basis. Environmental Externalities A number of studies have attempted to put a cost on the various externalities caused by power generation using the abatement cost or the damage cost approach. which has the lowest abatement costs among the districts of California. including site specificity (e. These figures were used in the absence of actual abatement cost assessment for the Philippines. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has estimated that there are 76. The abatement cost approach uses the cost of pollution control as a proxy to the true externality cost. renewable energy technologies can be competitive with conventional fossil fuel-based technologies. were used to compute for the cost of externalities of the different power development plans. these costs do not include site development costs. the damage cost approach puts a value on the damages that may be directly attributable to a particular pollutant. among others. among other things.S. transformer costs and taxes. emissions reduction policy. Thus. will be imported from developed countries such as U. UPEEE Foundation page 3 . most power developers are biased to fossil-based power plants because of its comparative advantage in terms of investment cost and shorter recovery period.A or Europe. geographical and climatological conditions). operations and maintenance cost and fuel costs. Resource assessment and mapping conducted in the past for the Philippine archipelago have shown that the country has a big wind power potential. if required in the Philippines’ power generation sector. Moreover. biomass..

Using the second screening criterion similar to that use in the wind resource assessment. the UPSL identified 236 small hydro sites in the country with an aggregated capacity of about 2. local natural gas production would be supplemented by imported natural gas. The application of the second criterion further reduced the number of sites to 1. Inc. cost and environmental emissions.442 GWh. (i.931 MW. the most significant of which is that found in Malampaya and San Martin in Palawan. This include considering only sites with power density of at least 500 W/m2. UPSL estimates the electric power potential of bagasse at 235. Only those sites whose connection (i. Of all the biomass resources in the country.308 MW. A few natural gas finds in the Philippines have been made. For the purposes of this study. UPSL considered only bagasse from sugarcane processing as practical resource for grid connection. respectively in the country.323 MW. which generated a total of 10. construction of transmission lines) will cost up to 25% of the total life-cycle cost were considered. The Philippine government is considering plans to develop a local natural gas industry. with a combined estimated reserves of 2.935 GWh annually can be obtained from additional verified geothermal sites in the Philippines. limiting the transmission investment cost to 25% of total investment cost) resulted to the elimination of three sites from the small hydro resource pool. UPEEE Foundation page 4 . A re-analysis of the NREL small hydro resource assessment was also conducted. This first criterion reduced the number of wind sites to 2. total geothermal installed capacity amounted to 1.200 MW that could generate about 8. In addition to existing geothermal power facilities. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. The Philippines power sector largely depends on geothermal energy to meet the demand and energy requirements of the country. This potential is spread all over the country where sugar centrals are situated. A second criterion that relates to grid connection costs was also used. storage.771 to 4. an estimated capacity of 1. In 2001. Other biomass resources are still facing problems or issues like collection. a re-analysis of the NREL wind mapping data was conducted. Selecting only the sites with capacities of 5 MW or more as criterion. The transmission system of the National Transmission Company (TransCo) was overlaid to the GIS based wind resource map to determine the proximity of the sites to the grid. and competing uses to be viable for large-scale power generation. This accounts for 14% and 22% of the total installed capacity and total generation.) of the Philippine power sector from the period beginning 1991 to 2001 was also assessed in this study.404 MW potential. 1.038 with 7.e.e.3 Historical Performance of the Philippine Power Sector The performance (in terms of reliability.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 195.731 billion cubic feet (BCF).. If this pushes through.. Additional screening criteria were imposed to determine practical and viable wind power sites.7 MW.092 with an aggregate potential of 14.200 GWh of electricity per year.

the Luzon Grid has a share of 36. In 2001 for example. Visayas and Mindanao share the remaining balance almost equally. respectively. In order to meet the growing demand for electricity. This validates the clamor of the people regarding high electricity rates which is due to oversupply since most of the generating facilities are operating under the take-or-pay contract with the National Power Corporation (NPC) and other distribution utilities. 9136 (Electric Power Industry Reform Act) was enacted and the national government has intervened in the market due to the growing clamor against the Purchase Power Adjustments (PPA) in the electric bills. respectively. the reserve margin (i. Historical Cost Performance This study also assessed the power development in the Philippines by analyzing the cost of electricity. accounting for 31% and 29% energy share for the year 2001. The commercial sector accounts for 21% of the total consumption for 2001. However. Inc. these rates were unbundled into 76% and 24% for generation and transmission. Visayas and Mindanao. It was noted that the rates of NPC is for its bundled generation and transmission services. For purposes of this study. that the generating capacity of the power system in the Philippines can be considered highly reliable.3% annually from 1991 to 2001. The interruptions that the country has been experiencing can be attributed to the unreliable transmission and distribution systems and their operations.402 MW in 2001. The industrial and residential sectors. that the industrial sector demand grew only by 5. from mid 1990’s onward..e. The rest are attributed to own use. It can be concluded. It should be noted however. The analysis has shown that the generating facilities in the early 1990’s were performing very badly from the point of view of reliability.789 MW in 1991 to 13. UPEEE Foundation page 5 . are the biggest users of electricity. The increase in rates is attributed to the economic performance of the country (as exhibited by the exchange rates) and due to the take-or-pay contracts of NPC with Independent Power Producers (IPPs).7% annually for the 11-year period.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Energy Demand and Installed Capacity The Philippines electricity consumption posted a moderate growth rate of 8.A. The rates of NPC appear to be increasing annually except for the year 2001 when R. Historical Reliability Performance To analyze the reliability performance of the power system in the Philippines. generating capacity compared to the system peak) from 1991 to 2001 was determined from historical data. the energy demand in the country was distributed among the three (3) main islands of Luzon.5% while that of the residential sector grew by 11.049 GWh energy generation which represents 77% of the requirements of the country.184 GWh of the total 47. the Philippines power sector performance went to the other extreme of having excessive capacity compared to the demand. Bulk of the energy demand and consequently the generation comes from the main island of Luzon. losses and miscellaneous uses. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. the installed generating capacity in the country doubled in 11 years with 6. Geographically. therefore.

the net increase in CO2 for the 11-year period is 73%. which emits more greenhouse gases. This contradict the avoided cost principle of the NPC IPP Program that IPP power development project proposals will be accepted as it offer electricity at prices lower than or at least equal to NPC rates. The main culprit here is that the IPPs’ return on investments were guaranteed by the take-or-pay contracts with NPC and the distribution utilities. It is also worthwhile to note that with the existence of the Non-NPC IPPs (permitted to operate through Executive Order 215).71% in 2001. coal power plants are the major contributors.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Records also show that the production cost of IPPs were always higher than the NPC rates. renewable hydro share decreased from 20% to 5% over the same period.49% in 1991 to 62. For the CO2 emissions. The share of non-renewable sources in the energy mix even increased from 57. generation share from oil-based power plants declined from 49. there is difference of PhP 1.279 tons in 1991 to 10. particularly the NPC. Over the period considered. This explains why the emissions of the power sector almost doubled in only 11 years. on the other hand. Clearly.222 tons in 2001. However. the shift is only towards the use of coal. and not towards the utilization of renewable resources. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. This scenario allowed the continued dominance of non-renewable fuels. from 8% in 1991 to 40% in 2001. which range from PhP 4. This indicates the poor coordination of the plans of the IPPs that deal directly with Distributors in the context of centralized planning of the government. In addition.541 tons in 1991 to 7. CO2 emissions from oil-based power plants. particularly those owned by electricity distributors like Manila Electric Company (MERALCO).00 per kWh. Looking into the energy mix to link the environmental performance of the power sector. coal contribution increased more than fivefold.00 to PhP 3.9% in 1991 to 21.082.471.338. Inc. Historical Environmental Performance The environmental performance of the Philippine power sector from 1991 to 2001 (measured in terms of the amount of gases and particulates that are emitted by the electric power generating plants) shows that CO2 emissions increased by 74 percent while the rest of the air emissions increased by 10 to 169 percent. decreased by 21 percent from its level of 9. Its contribution increased almost ten times from 1. UPEEE Foundation page 6 . Accounting the changes in oil and coal.236.00 to PhP 6. many power plants were installed even though there were already excess generation capacity in the system.00 per kWh.9% in 2001. it can be concluded that that non-renewable energy have remained greatly dominant over renewable energy as source of fuel for power generation. This considerable difference can be attributed to the cost of distribution and to the PPA of IPP’s that sell electricity directly to the distributors. Comparing the average rate of NPC with that paid by the consumers.665 tons in 2001.

500 MW) and oilbased plants (1.632 GW for 2003 will increase to 20. natural gas and oil-based sources in the energy mix which is 34%. respectively. Geothermal plants will contribute only 2%. Inc. operations and maintenance and fuel would require a total cost $ 23. SOx and other emissions. In terms of reliability.2012 The prospective performance of the Philippine Power Sector was also assessed based on the Philippine Energy Plan 2003 – 2012 prepared published by the Department of Energy. the reserve in 2003 will be 66%.368 million in abatement cost. this scenario would require 124. environmental emissions and costs were calculated similar to that of the historical performance assessment. Total installed capacity of 14. UPEEE Foundation page 7 .16/kWh. For example. The contribution of non-renewable energy sources to the energy mix. Although this is expected to decline to 22% by 2012. on the other hand will increase by 24%.5 million barrels fuel oil equivalent (MMBFOE) of oil.3 million tonnes. The increase in the share of renewable energy generating capacity will come from a 795 MW large hydro. it is still unrealistic to expect that cost of electricity in the Philippines in the near term will decrease under this scenario. No additional capacity addition for natural gas is expected in the period. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.57% annually. While the generation cost for this scenario is estimated at PhP 3. This scenario will require $ 29.775 MW). with the continued dominance of coal plants. Oil-based and natural gas plants will contribute 17% and 26% to the CO2 emissions. Reliability. The increase in demand will be met mostly by increases in coal power plants (3. renewable energy’s share will decrease to only 22% in 2012. 91. based on the low economic growth projections of NEDA. These emissions will be the direct result of the share of coal.706 MW by 2012.263 billion cubic feet (BCF) of natural gas.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 1.4 Scenarios under the Philippine Energy Plan 2003 . 65 MW wind and a 40 MW geothermal capacity additions. the planned capacity additions will result in high reserve margins.2 million tonnes of coal would have to be imported.828 million (UPSL estimate at 2002 present value). Total CO2 emissions for the DOE plan for the low economic growth scenario is 309. 124. The increase in the use of coal will account to contributing 55% of the total CO2 emissions for the period. Capacity additions. Of these amounts.5 MMBFOE of oil and 80. To meet the energy requirements. The environmental emissions resulting from DOE’s generation plan for the low economic growth scenario would result in an increase in CO2.142 GWh in 2003 to 106. respectively for year 2003. PDP for the Low Economic Growth Scenario The PEP. 24% and 4%. the Purchased Power Adjustment (PPA) component in the electricity bills of the end users is still expected to result in higher cost due to the high reserve margins.9 million tonnes of coal and 1.430 GWh in 2012) over the entire period at an average rate of 7. From a share of 37% in 2003. shows that energy generation will increase by 93% (55.

37% in 2003 decrease to 20% in 2012 Natural gas . PDP for the High Economic Growth Scenario The DOE also prepared a power development plan based on high economic growth projections of NEDA.470 GWh in 2012 (213% increase for the 10-year period) c) Reserve Margin: d) Energy Mix: 25% (minimum) to 65% (maximum) Coal Oil R. increasing by 195% from 2003 to 2012.556 GWh in 2003 to 118.E.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines The PEP under the Low GDP Scenario reflects the continued preference on the use coal.756 MW in 2012 (56% increase for the 10-year period) b) Energy generation: 55. two (2) alternative power development plans (or strategies) that will meet the demand of the Low Economic Growth Scenario and the High Economic Growth Scenario of the PEP were prepared by UPSL. and will require $ 32. Notably. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. capacity addition and utilization of renewable energy (geothermal. . These strategies are the following: • Moderate Clean Power Development (CCPD) Plan In this plan. Inc. this plan can be judged as a business-as-usual plan that will only replicate (or be even worse than) the historical performance of the Philippine power sector from the point of view of sustainable development. UPEEE Foundation page 8 . within the planning period. biomass. wind and hydro power) and natural gas plants are given priority over that of non-renewable plants for power generation. Analysis of the PEP under this scenario indicates that the plan is also a business-as-usual plan that will perform no better than the historical performance of the Philippine power sector.995 million in abatement cost.632 MW in 2003 to 22.5% in 2003 increase to 16% in 2012 .5 Clean Power Development Options for the Philippines Using the clean energy technologies and resources. nor the scenario for the low economic growth.24% in 2003 decrease to 17% in 2012 With the continuous decline in the share of renewable energy.16% in 2003 increase to 47% in 2012 . 1. The following performance indicators can be expected if this scenario push through: a) Installed capacity: 14. Total installed capacity of wind power plants is allowed to reach a maximum of 5% of the peak demand. greenhouse emissions is expected to further soar.

This will translate to a 72% total share of clean energy in the energy mix by 2012. Inc. Note.800MW natural gas power plants (maximum generation of 23. which is PhP 3. the capacity additions starts only in 2008. O&M and fuel costs. Moderate Clean Power Development (MCPD) Plan To meet the demand of the Low Economic Growth Scenario. as compared with the PEP. The plans that correspond to the High Economic Growth Scenario are detailed in Chapter 5. The total cost calculated for this plan is $23. The share of coal and oil in the mix will be reduced by about 11% at the end of the period.000 GWh annually) for the next twenty years. that these reserve margins do not take into account the ancillary diesel engines.450 MW in 2003 to 8. It was assumed in these plans that the local natural gas industry will be able to supply fuel for up to 3. The natural gas contribution will also increase from 24% to 31%. the strategy is to utilize all the practical renewable energy resources where possible without caps. Total CO2 reduction as compared with the PEP is 44. For all the plans. only the power development plan to meet the Low Economic Growth Scenario of the PEP 2003 – 2012 is presented. from the period 2003 to 2012. This translates to a 69% total installed capacity for the combined natural gas and renewable energy plants.16/kWh. The share of renewable energy in the energy mix will increase from 37% to 41%.592 million and the average generation cost is PhP 3. In this summary.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines • Aggressive Clean Power Development (ACDP) Plan For this plan.6 million tonnes. UPEEE Foundation page 9 . respectively. Assuming a five-year lead-time for the planning to commissioning of the additional power plants. The percentage installed reserve margin for the years 2008 onwards is kept as close as possible to the corresponding PEP reserve margins for comparison. The additional natural gas requirement will be supplemented by imports from the neighboring Asian countries and other natural gas producers until new local resources are developed.12/kWh. this plan will increase the renewable energy plant installed capacity by 95% (from 4. this plan will save $235 million in the planning period.685 MW in 2012) and the natural gas plant capacity by 117% (from 2.983 MW in 2012). Considering the investment. the 2003 to 2007 capacity additions were based solely on the PEP list of committed projects. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Cost penalties for intermittent power plant capacity beyond 5% (based on peak demand) was also imposed to account for the additional ancillary services. however. This average generation cost is even cheaper than that of the PEP Low GDP scenario. This plan will reduce the GHG emissions and abatement costs for the Low GDP Scenario by 14% and 21%. which serve as frequency regulating plants for the wind power plants.763 MW in 2003 to 5.

the ACPD plan will increase the renewable energy plant installed capacity by 159% (from 4. the country has to resort to biomass.17/kWh.$10 per tonne.520 MW in 2012) and the natural gas plant capacity by 95% (from 2. With the current price of CO2 at $2 . This will translate to a 79% total share of clean energy in the energy mix by 2012. While the PEP has tried to address these problems.16/kWh but five centavos (PhP 0. These alternative plans are comparable to the PEP in terms of costs. Considering the investment. The share of renewables in the energy mix will increase from 37% to 48%. At the current CO2 prices ($5 per tonne) in the market.05) per kWh more expensive than the Moderate Clean Power Development Plan due to the additional ancillary services for the intermittent wind power supply.67/tonne of CO2. O&M and fuel costs.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Aggressive Clean Power Development (ACPD) Plan To meet the demand of the Low Economic Growth Scenario. new natural gas sites must be identified and developed. This study has assessed the technologies and resources in the Philippines that could be tapped for clean power development. This plan will reduce the GHG emissions and abatement costs under the PEP Low GDP Scenario by 18% and 27%. respectively.881 million and the average generation cost is PhP 3.383 MW in 2012). The total cost calculated for this plan is $23. This translates to a 79% total installed capacity for the combined natural gas and renewable energy plants.763 MW in 2003 to 5. the Moderate Clean Power Development Plans are viable greenhouse gas mitigation option for the Philippines offering so many University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. as was done in this study.450 MW in 2003 to 11. this plan will cost an additional $41M in the planning period compared to the PEP low GDP plan. There are even opportunities that can create additional dollar income from carbon trading and local employment. To avoid significant amounts of GHG emissions in the future. it fails to consider the implications of the activities in this sector to the environment that could even be more important if only the externalities will be considered in the economics of energy supply. Inc. The natural gas contribution will also increase from 24% to 31%. from the period 2003 to 2012. 1. This is comparable to the PEP Low GDP scenario. small hydro. wind and natural gas technologies. To support power switching.6 Conclusions and Recommendations The Philippine power sector from 1991 to 2001 has not performed very well in terms of reliability and cost to end-users. this plan will create an opportunity for the country in the carbon market. In addition. This study also offers two alternative paths (moderate and aggressive) through the alternative clean power development plans. The share of coal and oil in the mix will be reduced by about 20% at the end of the period. natural gas importation may be pursued. which is PhP 3. UPEEE Foundation page 10 . This translates to a mitigation cost of $0.

therefore. Consider the economics of smaller capacity. To increase the number of candidate renewable energy plants in planning. - • Institutionalize a participative planning process. Since power developers will only respond to the government call.and overcapacity. Transmission and Distribution Development Transmission and distribution infrastructure should be developed to increase access to renewable energy sites.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines opportunities both for the developers and the country. This decentralized planning scheme will result in a more realistic demand forecast and will address local issues on energy. more rigorous and site-specific resource assessment must be conducted. Inc. Energy Planning The first step in developing the market for clean energy is to introduce reforms in the process of energy planning itself. Resource assessment and local supply and demand balance can be done at the provincial level. is attractive as the price of carbon is expected to increase in the future. Include energy efficiency as a demand side option in energy planning models. it is important that the Philippine Energy Plan reflect the call for clean power development. A decentralized planning process down to the level of the local government and participated by the stakeholders in the locality should complement the top-down planning process at the national level. UPEEE Foundation page 11 . Pursuing Clean Power Development plans requires the development of a “clean energy” market in the country through effective policy instruments and mechanisms that will secure the investment climate while protecting public interest. following load growth to deal with the overcapacity issue (in contrast to large capacity power plants currently used in energy planning). Electrification planning can be done in the municipality/city levels. Use coal-fired fluidized combustion technology as benchmark fossil-based plant instead of pulverized coal. This could be achieved through the following: • Improve the power development planning models Include environmental externalities in planning models to reflect the true cost to society of energy decisions. Increase the number of candidate Renewable Energy-based Power Plants in the selection process. While this planning process allows for a greater degree of public participation. it will also entail capacity building for local government units in the areas of planning and resource assessment. most of which are site specific. Transmission facilities should deliberately be expanded toward locations of promising renewable energy sources. as well as issues on under. Switching to cleaner energy. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. A set of measures that should be made to attract more investments in renewable generation technologies in the future discussed below.

income tax holidays and tax credits) and non-fiscal (e. This may include subsidy for resource assessment and feasibility studies for serious developers of renewable energy. particularly on the required technical analysis and compensating equipment.. UPEEE Foundation page 12 . Inc.. operation and control of nonconventional. • • Incentive Programs • The Department of Energy must ensure that renewable energy development should always be included in the Philippine Investment Priorities of the Board of Investment to ensure that the fiscal (e.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines The cost of such an expansion should be borne by the transmission or distribution utility.g. The System Operator should be allowed to procure ancillary services needed by the Grid to accommodate intermittent wind power and pass on the cost to all users of the Grid. The Philippine Grid and Distribution Code (PGDC) must be clear on its requirements and procedures on the connection. These plants must “feed-in” the Grid at minimum prices that will guarantee the returns of power developers. tax exemptions.g. An assistance program should be created for renewable energy development. The Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) should allow such an expansion even if it does not initially show recovery of investment. • • University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. run-of-river small hydro and biomass) should be given priority in the dispatch of generating units. renewable energy-based power plants. simplification of custom procedures and importation of consigned equipment) will be available for renewable energy developers. Dedicated Financing Windows that allow longer repayment periods for renewable energy-based development. Rules and Regulation • The Wholesale Electricity Spot Market (WESM) Rules must provide that intermittent and small-scale grid-connected renewable energy generation systems (such as wind. This cost mechanism will ensure that all electricity consumers will share the cost of such a development.

458 8.038 ktonnes of the 100.980 15.330 954 245 14.335 N2O 717 0 12.738 Source: The Philippines’ Initial National Communication on Climate Change Table 2. accounts for more than thirty (30) percent as a result of the burning of fossil fuels.801 3.87 227 217 10 50. Manufacturing Industries 3. the energy industries.497 15. mainly the power industry. as shown from Table 2.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 2 ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES AND RESOURCES FOR CLEAN POWER An area that has great potential for greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction is the power sector. Oil TOTAL EQUIVALENT CO2 EMISSIONS * does not include emissions from biomass Source: The Philippines’ Initial National Communication on Climate Change CO2 47.2: 1994 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Philippine Energy Sector* (equivalent ktonne CO2) SECTOR A.890 3.369 4.038 10.403 31. Inc.59 216.140 2. In 1994.368 2.190 226.544 1. Fuel Combustion Activities 1. of total net GHG emissions in the country.1. Residential 6. given that clean energy technologies and resources are available.157 CH4 1.335 15. Of the energy sector GHG emissions.596 0 -2.509 9. Transport 4. Although it ranks only second to the transport in terms of GHG emissions.130 7. as shown in Table 2. Commercial/Institutional 5.185 3 CH4 1. Table 2. Energy Industries 2.038 3 The University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory (UPSL) calculated a slightly different value from that of the Philippines’ Initial National Communication on Climate Change. or roughly 47 percent.985 7 20. The UPSL came up with 13.603 33. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.094 7. Fugitive Emissions from Fuels 1.359 1. UPEEE Foundation page 13 .800 6.811 15.72 9.759 11 170 45 1 1.335 10.1: 1994 Philippine Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector (equivalent ktonne CO2) SECTOR Energy Industry Agriculture Waste Land Use & Forestry TOTAL EQUIVALENT CO2 EMISSIONS CO2 47.094 100. Agriculture B. Coal Mining 2.529 2 N2O 717 40 347 43 0 285 3 Total 49.548 ktonnes of CO2 for the Energy Industries for the year 1994. the energy sector accounted for 50.738 ktonnes. the power sub-sector represents a large opportunity for carbon emissions reduction and sequestration.774 55.2.246 Total 50.

These technologies may be an attractive alternative to conventional fossil fuel-based generation technologies in terms of its environmental benefits. These technologies will then be evaluated to determine their viability for the Philippine power sector. This is done by looking at ways to improve the performance of existing power plant components like boilers. improvement of power plant heat rates). Measures that Reduce Energy Intensity One way of reducing the energy intensity of the economy is by minimizing energy losses in the system. Levine and Walter D. 1.. The Philippines Department of Energy (DOE) has already started a Heat Rate Improvement Program. Inc.g.2 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. These technologies may be classified as4: • • • measures that reduce the energy intensity of the economy (e. energy conservation. Brown. 4 Marilyn A. measures that reduce the carbon intensity of energy (e.S. it looks into scenarios that would entail switching to clean energy technologies from conventional fossil fuel-based technologies for grid-connected power generation.. p. improvements could be made to improve the efficiency of existing power plants by decreasing their heat rates. However. This measure is a cost-effective method of achieving CO2 reductions in that it would not entail large costs for equipment although it would require capability-building activities. In power generation. (U. In the sections that follow. they must compete with the same technologies in terms of other criteria such as cost. i. which is expected to achieve a substantial amount of energy savings. technologies and r esources that could be used to reduce GHGs from the power sector shall be discussed and evaluated to determine what could be used in the Philippine power sector. Short. renewable energy technologies). turbines and generators.1 Clean Energy Technologies Clean energy technologies are those that result in relatively fewer GHG emissions per unit of energy service delivered as compared to conventional technologies. 2. cost and environmental performance (particularly on GHG emissions) of the power sector. Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future. In the following sections. a number of clean energy technologies shall be discussed. and measures that integrate carbon sequestration into the energy production and delivery system. UPEEE Foundation page 14 .g. resource availability and technology maturity before application on a significant scale could be expected..: Interlaboratory Working Group on Energy-Efficient and Clean Energy Technologies). In particular. Mark D. the heat energy in Btu required by the power plants to produce a kilowatt-hour of electric energy.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines This study focuses on the reliability.e.

which could be treated as a resource in energy planning. on the characterization of new commercial buildings in the Philippines. lighting technologies.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Another measure is the use of efficient end-use devices. the Energy Labeling Program for Refrigerators and Freezers. UPEEE Foundation page 15 . University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. lighting and other office equipment. (Philippines: Department of Energy). Measures that Reduce the Carbon Intensity of Energy For the electricity generation sector. 59. respectively5. 8 Philippine Energy Plan 2002-2011. 9. These categories are not absolute in that they sometimes overlap and some particular technology types fall under two or more categories. In the industrial sector.7 MMBFOE from 2002 to 20118. Batangas and Pampanga. p. The DOE has for some time been implementing an efficiency and energy-labeling and standard program to help consumers select electric appliances and equipment. wind. Rizal. Inc. hydro. p. renewable energy sources. 5 Philippine New Commercial Building Market Characterization. Aside from it’s being clean. In a study made by Leverage International (Consultants) Inc. mentioned in the material for the March 12. potential energy savings could be realized in the use of high efficiency motors. (Philippines: Department of Energy. 1998 meeting for the Motor Energy Efficiency Enhancement Program. They are as follows: • Renewable energy technologies These are technologies that harness the energy from renewable energy sources for power generation. Quezon. technologies that reduce carbon intensity of energy can be classified in a number of categories. The program is expected to achieve a potential energy savings amounting to 9. biomass and geothermal energies. Cavite and parts of the provinces of Laguna. it is not used in this study because data available in the Philippines is insufficient to do so. 7 The study referred to is the Asian Development Bank-funded Long Term Power Planning Study conducted by SRC in 1994. The program includes the Efficiency Standard and Labeling for Room Air Conditioners. Renewable energies include solar. Despite the high potential of technology measures that reduce energy intensity. the Fluorescent Lamp Ballast Energy Efficiency Standard and the Performance Certification of Fans and Blowers. 32% and 10% could be realized from more efficient air conditioning. Improved technologies for electricity-consuming end-use devices are available in the market like more efficient motors. 1998). it was mentioned that energy savings amounting to 39%. refrigerators and air conditioners. A study conducted in 1994 estimated energy savings amounting to 423 GWh and about 74 MW of capacity could have been realized by the year 2010 in the Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) franchise area6 alone had a high efficiency motors program been implemented in 19977. 6 MERALCO is the distribution utility that services Metro Manila. because of its “inexhaustibility” addresses other challenges of the energy sector such as sustainability and energy security. Bulacan.

Inc. Hydro Power. initial estimates for wind penetration levels are between 5% and 20%.000 MW by the end of 2001. rives and falls. which are as follows: micro hydro resources are those with capacities less than 100 kW. Yih-huei Wan and Brian K. This water will return to the earth’s surface as precipitation (e. UPEEE Foundation page 16 . The kinetic energy of the wind can be converted to mechanical energy by means of a wind turbine. It is a renewable form of energy because the energy of flowing water ultimately comes from the sun. mini-hydro for those with capacities from 101 kW to 10 MW. For the Philippines. Hydro power refers to the use of falling or flowing water for power. Hydro power resources come in various sizes. p. 10 The World Energy Commission uses a different classification from that used by the DOE.g. 1993). Large hydro resources are those with capacities greater than 10 MW. intermittent generation will require additional ancillary services to be provided in the grid. and therefore translates to higher electricity costs. Also. through rain or snow) and part of it will eventually contribute to the flow of streams. Various modeling studies show that wind generation capacities could amount from a low value of 4% to a high value of 50% of system load9. Intermittent power would affect power system operability and stability and therefore poses limitations on levels of penetration of wind power. it generates some amount of GHG gases as a result of the rotting of organic matter that get submerged in reservoirs. large hydro as those with capacities greater than 10 MW10. The University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory (UPSL) is currently doing studies to determine acceptable wind penetration levels considering economics and the stability of the transmission system. but the amount of emissions is small as compared to fossil fuelbased electricity generation. Factors Relevant to Utility Integration of Intermittent Renewable Technologies. particularly in the United States. The Canadian Hydropower association estimates that GHG emissions from hydro facilities is 60 times less than that of coal power plants and 18 times less than that of natural gas power plants11. Water evaporation from the oceans and other parts of the earth’s surface consumes about one fourth of the total solar incidence on the planet.. and.and small-hydro resources. (Colorado: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 11 Quick Facts. 2. 49. The Philippines Department of Energy (DOE) classifies hydro resources based on its potential capacity. and. Canadian Hydropower Association University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 1. small hydro resources are those with capacities from 1 to 10 MW. depending on system conditions. 9 p. 49. mini-hydro resources are those with capacities ranging from 100 kW to 1 MW. Thus. This mechanical energy can then be used to run electric generators to produce electricity. In some cases. Utilities’ operational experience. has been limited to low wind power penetration levels so far. the Philippine definition of mini-hydro encompasses the WEC mini. Parsons. as follows: micro-hydro for hydro resources with capacities ranging from 1 to 100 kW. with worldwide installed capacity totaling to 24. Wind energy conversion technology (WEC) is a mature technology. Wind Energy. Hydro power is considered a clean technology because it is renewable and does not emit air pollutants.

Landscape destruction b.000 dams all over the world. associated with a number of negative impacts. Among them are: Ecological Effects a. In the Philippines. Geothermal energy is not entirely GHG emissions-free. Various hydro projects in the Philippines have dislocated thousands.000 dam years. 4. Increase in water pollution e. Technologies that can be used to generate power from biomass include gasification-electric generation systems and burner technologies similar to that used for coal. the Agno River Basin Development Program resulted in the loss of hectares of Ibaloy ancestral lands and the subsequent dissolution of several Ibaloy communities. which served as livelihood of the Ibaloys. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. In places where the earth’s heat flow is concentrated. biomass energy is a renewable resource that can be used for base load electric generation. Rearrangement of water resources d. Silting Social Impacts A major negative social impact of large hydro projects is the dislocation of population.however. Inc. the frequency of disasters involving dams is 1 disaster for every 120. high efficiencies. this energy may be harnessed in the form of steam or hot water. Biomass Energy. The alteration of the local ecosystem also resulted in the loss of resource base. Like hydro and geothermal power. They are – large hydro in particular . UPEEE Foundation page 17 . Destruction of fish habitat and fisheries c. which can subsequently be used for power generation. Geothermal energy refers to the heat stored in the rocks within the earth.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Hydro power facilities offer other benefits such as low generation costs. Speculation also arise that dams cause earthquakes in its surrounding areas. little maintenance. long life and high levels of reliability. With about 15. 3. Geothermal Energy. but it emits far less greenhouse gases as compared to fossil fuel-based counterparts. Risk and Safety Major disasters involving dams have occurred in the past at 6 to 10 year intervals. Displacement/wiping out of plant and animal species f.

Distributed energy technologies can be located on the site where the resource is available or near the place where the energy is to be used. Solar Energy.000 per installed kilowatt. which. integrated gasification combustion cycle (IGCC) systems and coal-fueled diesel engines. Photovoltaics. hydrocarbon fuels need to undergo a process of reforming to produce hydrogen. however. which is the form of fuel required for the electrochemical reaction to take place. concentrates the power of the sun. distributed energy technologies are small and modular. with sizes ranging from a few kilowatts to a few megawatts. coal is still widely used around the world for power generation because it is abundant and cheap. sometimes requiring around $3. Various research and development efforts in the past three decades have been successful in coming up with technologies that give better efficiencies than the conventional pulverized coal technology or that convert coal into liquid or gas fuels. But since this type of plant is normally used for peak load applications. Many such technologies have been demonstrated in various countries but still remain not widely used because its high investment costs are quite prohibitive. For most fuel cells. Costs are prohibitive. These include fluidized bed systems such as pressurized fluidized bed combustion (PFBC) and circulating fluidized bed combustion (CFBC).POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 5. Solar thermal engines make use of solar concentration systems. Greater local control of the system and waste heat utilization lead to higher energy efficiencies. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. • Clean coal technologies Coal in itself is considered not a clean fuel because of the relatively high levels of carbon dioxide and pollutant emissions resulting from its combustion as compared with other fuels. ranging from $2.000 to $4. Solar radiation may be converted to electricity by using solar thermal engines or photovoltaic cells. Newer plants are actually achieving efficiencies greater than forty percent. • Gas turbines Current gas turbine plants have efficiencies of around thirty percent. Despite its unfavorable environmental reputation.000 per kilowatt of installed capacity. convert solar energy directly to electricity in a solid-state device called the solar cell. to generate high enough temperatures to heat and boil water to drive steam engines. as the name implies. and thus. • Distributed energy technologies Unlike centralized generating units. this would have a relatively low impact on emissions reduction. Clean coal technologies are costly. on the other hand. less GHG and air pollutant emissions. Fuel cells have efficiencies ranging from 40 to 60 percent and could achieve very negligible carbon and air pollutant emissions when paired with carbon separation technologies. • Fuel cells Fuel cells are devices that convert fuel and oxygen to electricity and heat by means of an electrochemical reaction. Inc. UPEEE Foundation page 18 .

University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. For the power sector. And because they are located near the load. including combined cycle gas turbines and fuel cells. and provide waste heat (cogeneration). Natural gas could be used to fuel a number of power generating technologies. biomass fuels could also be used for distributed generation to produce a gaseous fuel that can be burned in diesel. Employing such devices in power generation facilities would require significant capital cost and may thus increase the cost of electricity. • Natural gas technologies Natural gas is a fossil fuel that has clean burning properties and lower CO2 emissions as compared to other fuels. These could provide standby generation and base load generation.or gas motors or in gas turbines. wind turbines and microturbines. UPEEE Foundation page 19 .POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Distributed power units could be connected directly to consumers or to the transmission or distribution grid. particularly combined cycle gas turbines. Some of these technologies. devices for carbon sequestration use the process of adsorption of carbon dioxide on materials like activated carbon. peak shave. Through a process called gasification. Inc. turbine generators and renewable technologies like solar photovoltaics. zeolites or inorganic membranes. Technologies used for such applications include internal combustion enginegenerators. Measures that Integrate Carbon Sequestration Carbon sequestration involves the capturing of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or keeping it from reaching the atmosphere. • Improved fossil fuel-based technologies Aside from clean coal technologies. have investment costs that are competitive with other conventional power generation technologies. transmission and distribution costs can be reduced. fuel cells. newer and more efficient versions of conventional fossil fuel-based technologies have been and are being developed and designed.

3. Wind Power The wind resource analysis and mapping study for the Philippine archipelago conducted by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) shows that the country has plentiful wind electric potential. 6.2 Resource Assessment The technologies described above would be rendered useless without the energy resource required to run them. Mindoro. however. Financial and Economic Implications of Wind Energy Applications for Power Generation. The study. hub height = 40 2 m. and adjacent islands. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. The following sections will quantify the amount of clean energy resources in the Philippines.9 MW. would more than double total installed capacity to 173. Panay. Palawan. amounting to 97. capacity/km = 6. Samar.000 installed capacity. Leyte. The NREL study identified six regions in the country where the best wind resource in the country are located.000 sites in the country. which will then be subsequently used for the generation of power switching scenarios. these sites could support at least 76.4 m/s or greater). Assessment of Technical. UPEEE Foundation page 20 2 . The NREL study identified around 10. In contrast to the optimistic estimate of the NREL. Including sites with moderate wind resource levels. Cebu.equivalent to an annual average wind power of 300 W/m2 or greater12 (wind speeds of 6. 14 UNIDO.000 GWh/yr. turbine spacing = 10D by 5D. (1994). was not able to include factors such as transmission and grid accessibility constraints in the assessment.200 GWh/yr. 2. rotor diameter = 38 m. an earlier study by the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) in 1994 puts the wind electric power potential for the entire Philippines at a very conservative value of 250 MW14. 5. Negros.600 MW bringing the total estimated power generation from wind to 361. well-exposed east-facing coastal locations from northern Luzon southward to Samar. the wind corridors between Luzon and Mindoro (including Lubang Island). the Batanes and Babuyan islands of north Luzon. 13 Assumptions used by NREL to come up with estimates are: 500 kW turbine size.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 2. 4.600 MW of installed capacity and generate 195. occupying a total area of 11. with good to excellent resource levels . Inc. 12 In one of the NREL scenarios. the higher interior terrain of Luzon. areas with annual wind power densities of 300 W/m or greater were assumed to have sufficient potential for the economic development of utility-scale wind energy. the northwest tip of Luzon (Ilocos Norte).055 km2 or roughly 3. between Mindoro and Panay (including the Semirara Islands and extending to the Cuyo Islands).34% of total Philippine land area. According to the study13. These are: 1. eastern Mindanao.

It was commissioned in 1996. Two committed wind projects are expected to contribute a significant amount of electricity to grid. In tandem with a diesel generator. It is significant to note two issues that developers of these two wind power projects had to address.75 percent for consulting services) and a 40-year repayment period (inclusive of a 10-year grace period). 2. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. respectively. among which are the following: 1. A 3-kW system in Bantay. this system is used to power up a relay station of the Philippine Telegraph and Telecommunications Company (PT & T). A 10-kW system in Pagudpod. current utilization are mostly to run wind pumps and a few small-scale turbine generators. Proponents of these projects were able to secure power purchase agreements with the local distribution utility. there are more than 500 wind pump and 9 wind turbine installations in the country. Tagaytay. Ilocos Norte in Luzon. which they used to obtain financing. The PNOC-EDC project was given a soft loan amounting to $48 million dollars by the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) at annual interests below 1 percent (0. At present. This is a pilot project of the National Power Corporation to electrify a number of households. These are the 40-MW North Luzon Wind Power Project (NLWPP) of the Philippine National Oil Company-Energy Development Corporation (PNOCEDC) and the 25-MW wind project of Northwind. project proponents were able to obtain very lenient and attractive financing schemes. Further. UPEEE Foundation page 21 . A 25-kW system in General Santos in Mindanao. 4. These wind facilities will both be located in Ilocos Norte. 3. All wind turbine installations are of the stand-alone type. Inc.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Despite the vastness of wind resources in the country. Batangas in Luzon. that for the NLWPP.95 percent for goods. Project proponents claim that they will be able to sell electricity at prices below that of the grid. 0. that the PNOC-EDC was required to put up 42 kilometers of transmission line and 130 transmission line towers/poles to connect to the nearest transmission line trunk. First is the absence of site-specific wind assessment data. A 25-kW stand-alone system in Picnic Grove. which are scheduled for commissioning in 2006 and 2004. Ilocos Sur in Luzon. which required the developers to collect at least two-years of wind speed measurements. Second is the connection of the wind farms to the transmission grid. It is in operation since 1994. Transmission facilities are quite far from the wind sites.

092 2. The transmission line components to connect the site to the existing grid will not exceed 25% of the levelized cost of the combined generation and transmission cost.3 and 2.755 11. This distance was multiplied by a factor of 1.277 Visayas 305 330 2.668 1. km 2 Potential installed capacity.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines For the purposes of the present study.206 14.699 Table 2.092.363 44.5 to adjust for topography and other factors that may affect the routing of the transmission system.397 Philippines 2.363 MW.1.738 Mindanao 47 49 336 1. a re-analysis of the NREL data was conducted by the UPSL using the following criteria to screen for viable wind power sites: 1.168 6. the UPSL computed for the linear distance between the wind site and the nearest existing substation. GWh/yr Luzon 1.4 summarize the results of the re-analysis.400 MW potential.4: Practical Wind Resources in the Philippines (with wind power density ≥ 500 W/m2 and transmission cost constraint) Luzon 686 753 4. Tables 2. km 2 Potential installed capacity. with an aggregate potential of 14. Locations of these sites are shown in Figure 2. 2.038 with 7.047 Number of sites Total area.132 7. GWh/yr University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.865 Mindanao 64 66 455 1. as well as its corresponding estimated electric capacity and annual generation.404 23. To compute for transmission cost. MWe Estimated Annual Generation.381 35. Power density of at least 500 W/m2. The first criteria reduced the number of wind sites to 2. UPEEE Foundation page 22 . The application of the second criteria further reduced the number of sites to 1.032 Philippines 1.038 1.3: Philippine Wind Electric Potential (with wind power density ≥ 500 W/m2) Number of sites Total area.900 15. Appendix A identifies the provinces where these wind resources are located. Table 2. Inc. MWe Estimated Annual Generation.527 7.437 Visayas 360 385 2.

900 MWe Estimated Annual Generation: 15. Inc.738 GWh Mindanao Number of sites: 47 Potential Installed Capacity: 336 MWe Estimated Annual Generation: 1.1: Practical Wind Resources in the Philippines (with wind power density ≥ 500 W/m2 and transmission cost constraint) University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.277 GWh Visayas Number of sites: 305 Potential Installed Capacity: 2. UPEEE Foundation page 23 .032 GWh Figure 2.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Luzon Number of sites: 686 Potential Installed Capacity: 4.168 MWe Estimated Annual Generation: 6.

6 and 2. By the end of 2001.5 lists down identified sites for large hydro16. 16 Two of these sites. selecting sites with capacities of 5 MW or more. These hydro power facilities range in size from 1 to 360 MW and includes reservoir type (dams) and run-of-river systems15. sites whose transmission line components needed to connect to the existing grid must not exceed twenty five percent of the levelized combined generation and transmission investment costs.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Hydro Resources Hydro power contributes a large amount of energy to grid-based electricity in the country.e. UPEEE Foundation page 24 . This water may then be used to augment supply during low flow periods and thus ensure a relatively constant supply of power. The DOE has verified a number of these small hydro sites. Kalayaan and San Roque.2 shows the location of the sites selected. as listed in Table 2. Table 2. the UPSL identified 239 small hydro sites in the country with an aggregated capacity of about 2. with an annual production of 7. 17 As per WEC definition. Inc.7 shows the results of the application of the criteria mentioned above. while Figure 2. on the other hand. These resulted to the elimination of three sites from the small hydro resource pool.. are committed projects. Tables 2.327 MW. An additional screening criterion was used. Using this criterion. a total of 2. Run-of-river systems.8. The UPSL made a re-analysis of the small17 hydro resource assessment made by the NREL.104 GWh. i. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. In addition to the existing hydro power generation facilities.518 MW of hydro power is installed in the Philippines. make use of the natural flow of a rivers as head. 15 Impoundment dams involve the impounding of a large volume of water in or upstream of power plants by use of reservoirs or dams. a number of large hydro sites in country to be used as candidate power plants for energy planning.

9 3. Inc.140.6 Isabela Quirino Apayao Mindoro Oriental Benguet Benguet Abra Mindoro Oriental Quirino Laguna Quezon Ifugao Ifugao Benguet Kalinga Apayao Kalinga Pangasinan Kalinga Kalinga TOTAL PHILIPPINES University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.387.6 to 2. UPEEE Foundation page 25 .8 Province Estimated Capacity (MW) 60 46 360 13.8 29 29 108.5: Available Large Hydro Resources Site LUZON Abuan Addalam Agbulo Aglubang Amburayan Bakun A/B Binongan Catuiran Diduyun Kalayaan PS Kanan Lamut Matuno Nalatang Pasil B/C Saltan A/B San Roque Tanudan D Tinglayan B Total Luzon VISAYAS Pacuan Sicopong Timbaban Villasiga Total Visayas MINDANAO Agus III Bulanog-Batang Lanon Hydro Lake Mainit Liangan Pugo D/BA Pulangi V Tagoloan Total Mindanao Lanao del Norte Bukidnon South Cotabato Agusan del Norte Lanao del Norte Agusan North Cotabato Bukidnon 225 150 21 22 11.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2.189.9 44 300 68 841.3 Negros Oriental Negros Oriental Aklan Antique 33 17.6 93 45 175 24 332 350 113 12 52 to 250 45 42 34 345 27 21 2.338.3 to 3.

2 Camarines Norte Eastern Samar Samar Iloilo City Negros Oriental Zamboanga del Norte Agusan del Norte Zamboanga del Norte North Cotabato Zamboanga del Norte University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.131 Number of sites Potential installed capacity.6 28.231 Number of sites Potential installed capacity.0 4.308 12.8: Small Hydro Power Sites Verified by the DOE Site LUZON Colasi Total Luzon VISAYAS Amandaraga Bugtong Igbolo Siaton Total Visayas MINDANAO Lower Dapitan Taguibo Middle Dapitan Libungan Upper Dapitan Total Mindanao TOTAL PHILIPPINES Province Estimated Capacity (MW) 1. GWh/yr Table 2. Inc.686 Visayas 9 58 305 Mindanao 96 978 5.4 3.7: Practical Small Hydro Resources in the Philippines (sites with power capacity ≥ 5 MW and transmission cost constraint) Luzon 131 1.0 4.0 3.291 6.0 5.786 Visayas 9 58 305 Mindanao 96 978 5.8 7.4 14.272 6.140 Philippines 236 2. GWh/yr Table 2.140 Philippines 239 2.0 1.327 12.8 44.4 10. MWe Estimated Annual Generation. UPEEE Foundation page 26 . MWe Estimated Annual Generation.0 4.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2.6: Philippine Small Hydro Electric Potential (sites with power capacity ≥ 5 MW) Luzon 134 1.0 1.

POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines

Luzon Number of sites: 131 Potential Installed Capacity: 1,272 MWe Estimated Annual Generation: 6,686 GWh

Visayas Number of sites: 9 Potential Installed Capacity: 2,308 MWe Estimated Annual Generation: 12,131 GWh

Mindanao Number of sites: 96 Potential Installed Capacity: 978 MWe Estimated Annual Generation: 5,140 GWh

Figure 2.2: Practical Small Hydro Resources in the Philippines (sites with power capacity = 5 MW and transmission cost constraint)

University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas, Inc. UPEEE Foundation

page 27

POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines

Biomass In the past, biomass has contributed a significant amount to the national energy consumption, amounting to as much as 30% of the total energy mix. However, the contribution of biomass to grid-based electricity is yet to be seen. Among identified biomass resources in the Philippines include forestry resources and fuel wood, bagasse (residue resulting from the extraction of sugar cane juice), rice hull, coconut residues, animal wastes and municipal solid wastes. Table 2.9 shows the projected supply of these biomass resources, as estimated by the Philippines Department of Energy. Table 2.9: Projected Supply of Biomass Resources (petajoules)
Type Rice Residues Coconut Residues Bagasse Fuelwood Animal Wastes Municipal Wastes TOTAL 2005 56.43 134.75 95.47 608.54 79.12 736.40 1710.69 2010 62.28 148.78 116.14 693.63 83.20 833.14 1937.19 2015 68.81 164.27 141.28 796.05 87.41 934.77 2192.60 2020 75.95 181.35 171.90 919.21 91.87 1040.48 2480.76 2025 83.88 200.20 209.11 1067.51 96.56 1149.12 2806.38

Source: Promotion of Renewable Energy Sources in South East Asia (PRESSEA) website

This high resource estimate for biomass resources has led to optimistic opinions regarding grid-connected electricity generation systems using biomass. A joint report by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the World Bank estimates power from biomass that can be exported to the grid, as follows: 60 to 90 MW from bagasse, 40 MW from rice hull and 20 MW from coconut residues. Although the paper and sugar industries already are using their biomass residues to generate heat and power for their own use, grid-connected systems have yet to materialize. Two promising power generation projects using biomass as fuel are in the development stage, both of which will be located in the province of Negros Occidental in Region VI (Western Visayas Region) 18. These are the Victorias Bioenergy and the Talisay Bioenergy projects, both of which are joint undertakings of Bronzeoak Ltd of the United Kingdom and Venture Factors of the Philippines.

18

In 1999, Region VI accounted for almost 2 million tones of the total 3.6 million tones, roughly 54%, of bagasse produced from sugar mills all over the country.
University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas, Inc. UPEEE Foundation page 28

POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines

The first project will involve the construction of a biomass-fired cogeneration plant inside the Victorias Milling Company (VMC) complex19. The plant, which will consist of two 161.5-tonne/hr boilers and a 50-MW steam turbine generator, will supply all the steam and power requirements of the VMC refinery facilities20, and sell excess power to the local electric cooperative Central Negros Electric Cooperative (CENECO).21 Fuel would consist of bagasse and cane trash from VMC, bagasse from other mills, and if needed, wood chips from local sustainable plantations 22. It is estimated that the plant would consume 741,000 tonnes of bagasse annually. It is also estimated that the project could sell about 1.6 million certificate of emissions reduction (CER) credits over a 10-year period. The project would cost about US$ 100 million23. The plant is expected to sell electricity at a price below that of the grid. Commercial operation of the plant is scheduled on October 2005. The second project, Talisay Bioenergy, is similar to VBI but smaller in scale. It will involve the construction of a cogeneration plant in the facility of First Farmers Holdings Corporation24 (FFHC). The plant, which will consist of two 85-tonne/hr boilers and a 30-MW steam turbine generator, will supply all of FFHC’s steam and electricity requirements in exchange for the mill’s bagasse production. The plant will also provide any additional steam and electricity requirements of the FFHC at commercial rates. Electricity that will be produced by the plant in excess of FFHC’s requirements will be supplied to the local transmission grid. Commercial operation of the plant is scheduled on August 2006. The project will cost approximately US $ 60 million. Projects like the Victorias and Talisay Bioenergy projects provide economically attractive options to sugar mills for the provision of its energy requirements and dealing with its waste products. As a matter of fact, two similar projects are also being explored for possible development, also in Region VI. Table 2.10 shows UPSL’s estimates of the electric potential of bagasse in the Philippines on a per region basis. These estimates take into account that bagassefired systems are normally cogeneration systems25.
19

Victorias Milling Corporation has the largest milling facilities in the country, with a milling capacity of 15,000 tonnes of cane per day. 20 VBI and VMC had an initial understanding to have a 30-year energy supply agreement. Additional steam and electricity requirements of VMC will be provided by VBI at commercial rates. 21 Part of the power that will be generated by VBI will go to CENECO: 26 MW during the on-season and 43.6 MW during the off-season. A 30-year “take-or-pay” Power Supply Agreement has already been executed between CENECO and VBI. 22 Bagasse and cane trash from VMC will be provided to VBI free of charge. Bagasse will also be acquired from other plantations to supplement fuel supply. In case the amount of available bagasse and cane transh could not meet plant demands, wood chips will be acquired from industrial tree plantations. Bronzeoak and Venture Factors plan to put up Biofuel Resources, Inc. that would establish industrial tree plantations using short term tree crops. 23 Aside from plant facilities, this cost includes the construction of a 138-kV switching station and a tieline connector approximately 3 km long. 24 FFHC has a milling capacity of 4,800 tonnes of cane per day. 25 Cogeneration systems produce electricity and heat (steam) simultaneously. Fuel consumption for cogeneration systems using bagasse as fuel is around 3kg of bagasse for every kWh of electricity produced. This value already takes steam production into account.
University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas, Inc. UPEEE Foundation page 29

380 MW. respectively. additional geothermal resources could be expected in the future as the Philippines has nearly used most of its geothermal resource sites.7 7. total geothermal installed capacity amounted to 1.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Because of problems with such issues like collection. 700 MW. which the mills have to dispose.8 32. Table 2. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.6 17. Despite sugar mills’ own use of bagasse for fuel.0 4. In 2001.442 GWh.200 MW and energy of 8. UPEEE Foundation page 30 .6 127. bagasse has traditionally been used in large quantities. storage and competing uses. Unlike other biomass fuels. Very small.8 235.935 GWh can be obtained from the verified geothermal source candidates in the Philippines.10: Philippine Bagasse Electric Potential Region 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 Name Ilocos Region Cagayan Region Central Luzon Southern Tagalog Bicol Region Western Visayas Region Central Visayas Region Eastern Visayas Region Northern Mindanao Southern Mindanao Potential Installed Capacity (MW) 0. if any.2 3. Visayas and Mindanao respectively. which are like associated with the use of biomass fuels for large scale power generation. accounting for 14% and 22% of the total installed capacity and total generation. Of the total estimated capacity.9 5. there usually remains a considerable amount of this waste material. an estimated capacity of 1.7 TOTAL PHILIPPINES Geothermal Power The Philippines power sector largely depends on geothermal energy to meet the demand and energy requirements of the country. Inc. In addition to existing geothermal power facilities. particularly to fuel boilers in sugar mills.931 MW and geothermal generation was 10. this study only looks on the potential of bagasse for grid-connected electricity generation. as listed in Table 2.0 22. and 120 MW come from Luzon.11.1 14.

If this pushes through. Lobi Mahagnao Total Visayas MINDANAO Lakewood Manat-Amacan Total Mindanao PHILIPPINES TOTAL *committed plant Source: DOE Location Potential Installed Capacity Sorsogon Sorsogon Albay Oriental Mindoro Benguet Bataan Batangas Kalinga Benguet 10 40 20 20 10 20 20 120 120 380 40 20 60 40 40 200 300 700 80 40 120 1.200 Negros Occidental Negros Oriental Leyte Leyte Biliran Central Leyte Central Leyte Zamboanga del Sur Davao del Norte Natural Gas A few natural gas finds in the Philippines have been made. which will involve the laying down of a natural gas pipeline network in Luzon and the construction of liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities at different points in the country. 26 These are proven fields. The Philippine government is considering plans to develop a local natural gas industry. Cabalian Leyte Optimization Biliran Mt.11: Available Geothermal Resources for Power Generation Name LUZON Bacman I Rangas Tanawon Manito Montelago Daklan Mt.12 lists down identified natural gas fields in the country and their corresponding resource sizes.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2.771 to 4. UPEEE Foundation . Natib Mabini Batong Buhay Buguias-Tinoc Total Luzon VISAYAS Northern Negros* Dauin Mt. the most significant of which is that found in Malampaya and San Martin in Palawan26. Table 2. Source: PEP 2002-2011.731 billion cubic feet (BCF). page 31 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. local natural gas production would be supplemented by imported natural gas that would come from the Trans ASEAN Gas Pipeline to meet demand. with a combined estimated reserves of 2. Inc.

538 243 Resource Size (BCF) Prospective 3.720 60 176 78 11.. 29 Capacity Factor (CF) refers to the percentage of the rated capacity of the power plant used for 8. renewable energy-based plants have high investment costs. coal plants could cost twice as much as diesel plants but the fuel cost for diesel plants could be 2 to 4 times the cost of coal per kWh of electricity generated. (c) fuel cost. For fossil-fuel-based power plants.13 include only the costs of the technologies but not the associated site-specific costs that could be more expensive than the plant itself. In addition.340 359 4 7. Renewable energy technologies.12: Philippine Natural Gas Resources Gas Field PROVEN Camago-Malampaya San Martin San Antonio POTENTIAL Mindoro-Cuyo Cotabato Cagayan Central Luzon Source: Philippine Natural Gas Plan Minimum 2. For example. in general entail high investment costs. The fuel costs in Table 2.3 Cost Comparison of Power Generation Technologies The investment. (b) operation and maintenance (O&M) cost. Mathematically. energy production (kWh) CF = × 100 plant capacity(k W) × 8. the prices of fuel are likely to differ at the time this study is released. one year).13 lists for different fuels used for power generation are based on typical power plant efficiencies. and (d) the level of generation (also called capacity factor29).e.760 518 2. Wind and hydro plants do not require fuel but do not run at full capacity due to availability of resources. The costs shown in Table 2.158 322 637 Maximum 4. O & M27 and fuel costs28 comparison of the different types of power plants are shown in Table 2.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2.760 hours University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. UPEEE Foundation page 32 .760 hours (i. namely: (a) investment cost.210 1. the type of power plants that will 27 28 Figures used for power plant investment and O&M cost are only intended for relative comparison. The fuel costs used in this study do no include import duties. the economics of power generation technologies depends on several factors. Being site-specific.594 2. it is notable that the technologies that require low investment normally require fuel with high cost. Inc.277 454 2. Clearly. renewable energy-based power plants have to address these issues that will ultimately determine the viability of the power projects. Screening curves can be developed to determine the optimum power generation plan considering these four factors.13. In general.060 1. Furthermore. Using these curves. The high front-end cost associated with renewable energy technologies is often cited as one of the reasons for the high perceived risk for these technologies. the total investment costs vary with site preparation and the required transmission lines to enable the plants to deliver power to the grid.

“intermediate” or “peaking” plants (i. Furthermore.550 700 – 900 550 – 650 1.12 0 0 3. These values were used by the UPSL in the cost assessment of the power development plan prepared by DOE and in preparing an alternative plan for simulating the fuel-switching scenario for the Philippine power sector discussed in the following chapters. Inc. They are however useful in evaluating and developing energy plans.750 – 1. depending on the site/environment. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.250 2. $/MWh 41. Geothermal steam and biomass fuel costs also vary. Table 2.800 1. Table 2.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines operate as “baseload”. which will operate at high.500 1. except for Clean Coal Technologies Considering the availability of the resource and reliability of the technologies.14 also shows the corresponding levelized cost of generation for each power plant type using the typical capacity factors.750 – 1.150 – 1.200 – 1. UPEEE Foundation page 33 .000 450 . the prices of fuel are likely to differ by the time this study is released. transmission line and transformer costs.400 1.53 0 36. O&M and fuel costs31 of the different power plant technologies.800 1.04 49..40 9.000 – 1. $/kWa 850 – 1. Table 2. 30 Investment costs used in this study do not include site preparation.000 – 3.13: Cost Comparison of Power Plants Type of Power Plant Oil-fired steam turbine Oil-fired gas turbine Oil-fired combined cycle gas turbine Diesel motors Pulverized coal-fired power plant Fluidized bed coal power plant Wind technologies Hydroelectric power plants Fluidized bed combustors (for biomass) Geothermal technologies Gas-fired combined cycle gas turbine (for natural gas) a Typical Economic Life.500 700 – 900 Annual Fixed O & M Cost. medium or low capacity factor) could be determined/selected.93 32.10 11. coal and natural gas do not include import duties. on a life-cycle basis. 31 Fuel costs for oil. $/kWa 17 – 20 11 – 14 14 – 18 14 – 16 30 – 35 44 – 45 20 – 25 40 – 70 44 – 45 29 – 38 14 – 18 Fuel Cost.68 From “ The Environmental Manual for Power Development”.14 to satisfy the minimum offtake character of the IPP contracts.56 73.e. Deutsche Gessellschaft für technishe. It should be emphasized that the actual capacity factors that may be achieved in operation may not fall on the v alues given in Table 2.14 shows the typical capacity factors based on the investment30. is competitive in comparison with conventional fossil fuel-based generation. years 30 20 20 20 30 30 20 50 30 50 20 Investment Cost. These figures are intended only for relative comparison of the different power plant technologies. These values show that electricity generation from renewable sources.

33 The low capacity factor computed for diesel plant is 9%.0405 0. market risks.1059 0.8236 4.8174 3. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. country risks and availability of financing.5219 32 A discount rate of 12% was used to derive levelized generation costs.2282 2.2277 1. UPEEE Foundation page 34 . Inc.2282 2. meaning it will be used for load following and/or peaking applications.0625 0.0405 0.0602 2. Actual industry discount rates may be higher depending on the following factors: required equity return.7153 5.3644 6.14: Typical Capacity Factors of Power Plants and Levelized Generation Costs32 Power Plant Type Geothermal Coal (Pulverized coal plant) Coal (Pulverized coal plant) Hydro Oil-fired steam turbine Natural gas combined cycle Oil-fired gas turbine Wind Without ancillary services With ancillary services Diesel33 Capacity Factor (%) 88 82 82 57 54 54 31 30 30 9 Levelized Generation Cost $/kWh PhP/kWh 0.0557 2.0512 0.1101 0.0193 0.0494 0.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2.4376 12.0794 0. regulatory risks.

POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 2. costs associated directly with the production of electricity from various technologies and resources were discussed.16 shows the factors used in this study to arrive at the CO2 emissions of each type of power plant in tonne CO2/GWh. Power generation technologies. Second. Table 2. 3. In the case of electricity generation. The values were calculated based on the generic data recommended for power development analysis. as determined by the California Energy Commission using both the abatement and damage cost approaches. its contribution to total greenhouse emissions is more substantial since coal plants are normally used for base load generation while oil based plants are mostly used for load following and peaking applications. natural ecosystems. population density. there is a pronounced difference between damage cost and pollutant cost values. however.4 Environmental Externalities In the previous section. as published in the CRC Handbook on Energy Efficiency (1997). University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Other air pollutant emissions for different power plants are listed in Table 2.g. “Pollution represents an external cost because damages associated with it are borne by society as a whole and are not reflected in market transactions. abatement cost values for the North Coast of California. Except for particulate matter. Söderholm. Luleá University of Technology. were used to compute for the cost of externalities of the different scenarios. From the values given. an externality is “an unpriced benefit or cost directly bestowed or imposed upon one agent by the actions of another agent”34. It should be noted that even though coal seem to have a lower CO2 emission level than conventional power plant types. Studies vary in their estimation of externality costs because of a number of factors. emissions reduction policy. 2002). By definition. scope of analysis. These effects are called externalities. the damage cost approach puts a value on the damages that may be directly attributable to a particular pollutant. 35 Jonathan Koomey and Florentin Krause. externality costs differ among different districts. are directly associated with effects that affect people’s welfare.15 shows the value of various air emissions in California. currently a leader in externality policy. abatement costs are normally higher that damage cost estimates. crops and property. First.” A number of studies have attempted to put a cost on the various externalities caused by power generation using the abatement cost or the damage cost approach.. On the other hand. a number of things could be noted. Table 2. “Introduction to Environmental Externality Costs”. Sundqvist and P. “Power Generation Choice in the Presence of Environmental Externalities.17. The abatement cost approach uses the cost of pollution control as a proxy to the true externality cost35. 34 T. Inc. According to Koomey and Krause (1997). p. “Pricing Power Generation Externalities: Ethical Limits and Implications for Social Choice” (one of the six self-contained papers included in Sundqvist’s Doctoral Thesis. UPEEE Foundation page 35 . These costs are what normally dictate an energy planner’s choice of which power generation technology to use. In this study. geographical and climatological conditions). externalities include various pollutants that cause damage to receptors such as human health. including site specificity (e. which has the lowest abatement costs among the districts. among others.

p. and PM – particulate matter Table 2.06 0.55 0.02 0.08 0.75 16.03 0.03 0.02 Source: The Environmental Manual for Power Development.66 0.59 DC – damage cost.31 PM 31.32 3.07 AC 5.84 1.04 Source: Computed from data give in “The GHG Indicator: UNEP Guidelines for Calculating Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Business and Non-Commercial Organizations.61 763.05 0.42 1.98 2.99 4.52 1. except for geothermal which was computed from DOE data Table 2.65 0. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.40 726. AC – abatement cost.88 0. I – internalized.85 6.30 6. ROG – Reactive organic gases.10 5.08 10.99 0.96 I 2.01 North Coast DC 0.57 1.85 I 13.20 2. 10.4 6.03 0. Inc.16: Carbon Dioxide Emissions of Different Power Plant Types Power Plant Type Geothermal Pulverized Coal Oil Combined Cycle Natural Gas Combined Cycle Oil Steam Turbine Oil Gas Turbine Diesel tonne CO2/GWh 45.66 0.51 San Joaquin Valley DC 0.31 AC 1.02 17.44 1.01 0.03 0.06 0.03 NOx 4.04 0.45 AC 11.53 0.74 2.71 San Diego DC 1.00 2.45 6. Luleá University of Technology.88 Bay Area DC 2.00 3. NOx – Nitrogen Oxide.64 2. Deutsche Gessellschaft für technishe 36 Lifted from “What Causes the Disparity of Electricity Externality Estimates?”.53 0.34 1.75 0.37 0. 2002).15: Value of Air Emissions Reductions in California 36 ($/pound of pollutant) District Pollutant South Coast DC SOx NOx CO ROG 4.55 AC 13.73 Environmental Emissions CO CH4 NMVOC N2O 0.01 9.10 8.76 3.71 9.17: Emissions Factors for Various Power Plants (tonne/GWh) Plant Type Coal Oil combined cycle Natural gas combined cycle Oil steam turbine Oil gas turbine Diesel SO2 7.72 11. one of the six selfcontained papers included in Sundqvist’s Doctoral Thesis.00 0.18 15.99 4.00 0.83 441. SOx – Sulfur Oxide.75 11.72 AC 5.01 3. UPEEE Foundation page 36 .82 713.85 0. Sundqvist cites the 1992 Electricity Report by the California Energy Commission as the source of these data.05 Particulates 0.99 565.66 2. CO – Carbon Monoxide.78 1.98 3.40 7.52 0.71 5.12 12.98 Sacramento Valley DC 0.99 1.05 1.08 0.00 4.37 12.83 0.35 0.47 3.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2.87 0.28 4.04 0.43 Ventura County DC 0.01 0.18 AC 4.02 0.00 0.02 1. “Power Generation Choice in the Presence of Environmental Externalities.05 0.03 0.10 0.26 0.72 0.00 0.02 0.07 AC 2.03 0.10 867.00 2.88 9.39 6.02 0.

5 Mitigation Options As a result of the technology and resource analyses made by the UPSL. it was assumed that infrastructure would be built to support an expanding natural gas industry. storage and competing uses.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 2. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. the following clean energy options were used for the generation of alternative planning options discussed in Chapter 4 of this report: • • • • • Wind power Hydro Biomass (bagasse) Geothermal power Natural gas For biomass. UPEEE Foundation page 37 . wood wastes. only bagasse was considered as option. The UPSL did not consider other forms (rice hull. coconut residues) in the generation of alternative options for grid-connected electricity generation as they are still associated with problems such as that of sourcing. Inc. collection. On the use of natural gas.

459 1995 8.936 8. Inc. it also had the highest peak demand (5.042 2.734 30.1). Significant also was the growth in the consumption of the commercial sector. that the industrial sector demand grew only by 5.340 6. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. With most of the industrial and commercial activities centered in Luzon.754 41.067 1. or at an average annual growth rate of 7.1: Energy Consumption by Sector. the energy demand in the country was distributed among the three (3) main islands of Luzon.5% while that of the residential sector grew by 11.3% annually from 1991 to 2001 as shown in Table 3.353 10. and the whole of the Philippines. Bulk of the energy demand and consequently the generation comes from the main island of Luzon. This is almost twice of the 4.444 921 1.901 12.471 6.1.049 GWh energy generation which represents 77% of the requirements of the country.735 33.649 1992 6.154 4.226 5. 3.4 shows system peak demand of the power supply system from 1991 to 2001 for the Luzon.191 957 2.267 1.713 47.859 823 1. Figure 3.894 9. with 31% and 29% share respectively.071 25.910 8.223 6.290 2001 13.797 1998 11.452 1.3.684 762 1.368 4.536 5.390 6.072 11.098 14. Table 3.547 10.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 3 HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE OF THE PHILIPPINE POWER SECTOR In the following sections is an assessment of the performance of the Philippine power sector from the period beginning 1991 to 2001. Visayas and Mindanao as shown in Figure 3.849 41.132 4.543 934 1. It should be noted however. The system peak for the whole Philippines reached 7. As shown in Figure 3.238 26.432 2000 12.835 MW in 2001).590 5.249 4. Visayas and Mindanao share the balance energy almost equally.725 12. In 2001 for example.196 5.081 MW peak demand in 1991.7% annually for the 11-year period.395 721 1.950 1.725 9.578 1999 11.708 1997 10.870 1993 6. UPEEE Foundation page 38 . respectively. whose demand grew by 108% from 1991 to 2001. Both the economic performance and population growth remain as the main factors driving the consumption pattern of energy of the country.167 1. environmental emissions. Data for the historical performance of the Philippine Power Sector is given in Appendix B.086 3. and cost.339 952 1.013 12. The industrial and residential sectors.184 GWh of the total 47.6%.875 8.132 4.282 5.554 1996 9.579 1994 7.150 7.345 45. are the biggest users of electricity (Figure 3.176 25.847 9.865 10. Performance is assessed in terms of reliability. Visayas and Mindanao grids.049 Geographically. Visayas and Mindanao lag far behind with only 893 and 954 MW peak demand.2. 1991-2001 (GWh) SECTOR Residential Commercial Industrial Others Own Use Losses Total 1991 6.512 13. the gross domestic product and the population growth from 1991 to 2001 demonstrate a strong correlation with the consumption of electricity.053 4.1 Historical Energy Demand and Installed Generating Capacity The Philippines electricity consumption posted a moderate growth rate of 8.682 MW in 2001.531 1.037 39. the Luzon Grid consumed 36.851 1.477 8.128 36.

Inc.1: Electricity Consumption by Sector. UPEEE Foundation page 39 .2: Electricity Consumption. 2001 120000 90000 80000 100000 70000 80000 GWH / GDP (x10M) 60000 60000 50000 POP (x1000) 40000 40000 30000 20000 20000 10000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 year Electricity (GWH) GDP (BPhP) Population (in million) 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 0 Figure 3. the installed generating capacity in the country doubled from 6.5) This corresponds to the growth in demand that also doubled in the same period.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Power Losses 12% Utilities Own Use 5% Others 2% Residential 29% Industrial 31% Commercial 21% Figure 3.789 MW in 1991 to 13. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.402 MW in 2001 (Figure 3. 1991-2001 In order to meet the growing demand for electricity. Gross Domestic Product and Population.

000 10.000 30. Inc.000 15.000 35.000 20.000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 Luzon 1995 Visayas 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Mindanao Philippines Figure 3.3: Electricity Generation by Grid.000 GWH 25. 1991-2001 (GWh) 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 Luzon 1995 Visayas 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 MW Mindanao Philippines Figure 3. UPEEE Foundation page 40 . 1991-2001 (MW) University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 50.000 45.000 40.000 5.4: System Peak by Grid.

Inc. It may be recalled that the Philippines experienced a power crisis that started in the late 1980’s and persisted in the mid 1990’s that almost crippled the national economy due to supply deficiency. UPEEE Foundation page 41 . University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. This criterion is considered high but is needed to support their industries.000 14.2 Historical Reliability Performance The historical data for the system peak demand and installed generating capacity indicate that the generating facilities in the early 1990’s were performing very badly from the point of view of reliability. the National Power Corporation has to resort to rotating “brownouts”. To analyze further the generating capacity vis-à-vis the system peak.000 6. people complain of high cost of electricity allegedly due to over supply as there is “too much” installed generating capacity.S.000 MW 8.000 0 1991 1992 1993 Oil-Based 1994 Coal 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Hydro 2000 2001 Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 3. In developing countries. This validates the clamor of the people regarding high electricity rates which is due to oversupply since most of the generating facilities are operating under the take-or-pay contract with NPC and other distribution utilities. Hence. the reliability criterion is very much lower compared to that in developed countries.A. Today. the National Power Corporation since the power crisis has adopted 1day/year LOLP.000 4.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 16.000 12.5: Total Installed Generating Capacity by Source. In other countries such as the U. the generating capacity reliability criteria of one day per ten years (1 day/10 year) of Loss-of-Load Probability (LOLP) translates to about 20% reserve margin. The reserve margin based on dependable capacity shows that there is indeed a large excess generating capacity in the Philippines. 1991-2001 (MW) 3.000 2.2 presents the reserve margin of the power system from 1991 to 2001. There was not enough generating capacity.000 10. Table 3. In the Philippines..

363 11.450 9.296 6.402 66.3.666 11.989 2001 Level 18. The interruptions that the country has been experiencing can be attributed to the unreliable transmission and distribution systems.497 11.908 12.209 35.55 45. UPEEE Foundation page 42 . The CO2 emissions increased by 74 percent while the rest of the air emissions increased by 10 to 169 percent.99 79.931 1999 6.949 1993 4.789 1992 4.185 2001 7. therefore. The environmental performance of the Philippine power sector from 1991 to 2001 is summarized in Table 3.17 78.212 1995 5.124 587 975 415 10.352 11.807 20. that the generating capacity of the power system in the Philippines can be considered highly reliable.3 Historical Environmental Performance Another way of evaluating the performance of the power sector is in terms of the gases and particulates that are emitted in the air by the generating plants.014 1994 4.611 % Increase 74 64 150 29 54 10 103 169 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.808 9.411. A complete list of emissions for each year from 1991 to 2001 is provided in Appendix B.796 904 1.075 842 29.2: Reserve Margin.762 189.72 11.725 58.46 8.729 146.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines It can be concluded.76 37.726 16.580.45 85.3.193 1997 6. Inc.91 3.93 92. Historical Environmental Emissions for the Philippine Power Sector (tonne) Environmental Emissions CO2 SO2 NOx CO CH4 NMVOC N2O Particulates 1991 Level 10.96 78.431 2000 7.081 6. This part of the study has quantified the environmental emissions of the power plants in the country.76 70.816 11.621 7.36 61.762 1998 6.48 53. 1991-2001 (%) 1991 Peak (MW) Installed Capacity (MW) Percentage Reserve Margin (installed) Dependable Capacity (MW) Percentage Reserve Margin (dependable) 4. Table 3.233 115. Table 3.60 83.732 1996 5.687 8.682 13.291 9.98 91.400 13.18 74.

000.9 shows how carbon dioxide emissions varied with the energy mix within the 1991 to 2001 period. Figure 3. Figures 3. The CO2 emissions however from oil-based power plants decreased by 21 percent from its level of 9.000.000 tonne CO2 12. The net increase in CO2 due to the changes in oil and coal is 74%.000.000.338. it is necessary to look at the power development as measured by the energy mix.51% to 37.000 10.6: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type.6 shows that the coal power plants are the major contributors in greenhouse gases. the share of coal-based generation increased by 427%. Inc. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.471.7 and 3.000.8 show that nonrenewable energy have remained greatly dominant over renewable energy as source of fuel for power generation.279 tons in 1991 to 10.000 16.71% in 2001.236. the percentage share of oil-based power generation declined by 58%. 20.000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Figure 3.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines For the CO2 emissions.000. decreased from 42. Its contribution increased almost ten times from 1.000.000 2.49% in 1991 to 62.000. In order to analyze the factors that brought about the environmental performance of the power sector.29% during the same period.000.000 6. This scenario allowed the continued dominance of non-renewable fuels.000 14.000 18. on the other hand. The share of renewable sources. Figure 3. The energy mix indicates the intensity of contribution of renewable energy resources as fuel for power generation.082.000. 1991-2001 (tonne) The share of non-renewable sources in the energy mix even increased from 57. Over the period considered. However.000 4. UPEEE Foundation page 43 .000 8. Note from this figure how much the CO2 emissions decreased and increased with the generation from oil-based and coal power plants.222 tons in 2001.665 tons in 2001.541 tons in 1991 to 7.

This explains why the emissions of the power sector almost doubled in only 11 years.063 MW of natural gas plant already installed in 2001 and another 1. for 2003 to 2012). and not towards use of renewable resources.700 MW installed by 2002. however. renewable hydro and geothermal sources share decreased by 25% and 1%. more energy generated from this source can be expected in the coming years. 1991-2001 (%) University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. respectively over the same period. Combining the generation from natural gas in the year 2001 with that of the renewable sources.7: Energy Mix. With 1. (Chapters 4 and 5 discuss the scenarios under the DOE Philippine Energy Plan and UPSL alternative scenarios. respectively. Inc.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines In addition. Clearly. which despite being non-renewable is considered cleaner fuel for power generation. the percent share of cleaner fuels increased a bit from 37% (renewable only) to 39% (renewable plus natural gas). This leaves the percent share of non-renewable (coal and oil) to 61%. 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Coal 1996 Natural Gas 1997 1998 1999 Hydro 2000 2001 Oil-Based Geothermal Figure 3. is the emerging use of natural gas. the shift is only towards use of coal. which is a cheaper fuel. One thing to note. UPEEE Foundation page 44 .

000 GWh 25.000. UPEEE Foundation page 45 . 1991-2001 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 45.000.000.000.9: Energy Mix and Carbon Dioxide Emissions.000 6. Renewable Energy and Natural Gas in the Energy Mix.000.000.000 tonne CO2 12.000 5. Inc. 1999-2001 (%) 50.000 15.000 16.000.000.000 30.000 8.8: Share of Coal and Oil-Based vs.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Coal and Oil-Based Renewable and Natural Gas Figure 3.000.000 4.000 18.000 0 Figure 3.000 10.000 40.000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro CO2 20.000 2.000 10.000 20.000 14.000 35.000.

In addition. It is worthwhile to note that with the existence of the Non-NPC IPP’s (permitted to operate through Executive Order 215).02 0. Interestingly.23 1. Table 3. Table 2.37 0. respectively.4: NPC Average Electricity Rates. particularly that of the electricity distributors like MERALCO.28 1. many power plants were installed in excess of what was actually needed. Comparing the average rate of NPC with that paid by the consumers.01 3.85 1.08 2. the law has mandates to reduce the rates of electricity in the Philippines.29 2. respectively.08 2. there is difference of PhP 1. The average rates and the estimated unbundled generation and transmission rates of NPC from 1995 to 2001 are shown in Table 3.65 2.68 2. This considerable difference can be attributed to the cost of distribution and to the IPP’s that sell electricity directly to the distributors.90 2. UPEEE Foundation page 46 .POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 3. except for the year 2001 when R.47 1997 2.84 2.52 Year 1998 2. As a result.00 to PhP 3.00 to PhP 6.96 0.64 2000 3.63 0.96 1.34 3. 9136 (Electric Power Industry Reform Act) was enacted.62 1999 2.67 2.43 1996 2. and the cost of which has to be paid off through the Purchased Power Adjustment (PPA).15 1.77 1.93 1.75 2001 3. IPP costs were always higher than NPC rates.77 2.52 1. Inc. 1991-2001 (PhP/kWh) 1995 1. the average rates consist of the actual operating expenses and the financing charges of NPC.00 per kWh. for the years 1995 to 2001 by fuel type. It was noted that the average rates of NPC is for its bundled generation and transmission services. the rates of NPC were unbundled into 76% and 24% for generation and transmission.4 Cost of Electricity This study also assessed the power development in the Philippines by analyzing the cost of electricity. which range from PhP 4.25 2. respectively The average rates of NPC increased annually from 1991 to 2001.00 per kWh.58 1. The increase in rates is attributed to the economic performance of the country as measured the exchange rates and allegedly due to the take-or-pay contracts of NPC with Independent Power Producers (IPPs).92 3.20 0.70 Luzon Visayas Mindanao Philippines Generation Transmission Note: Generation and Transmission Rates assumed 76% and 24% of the average rate.25 1.14 1.02 2.4. For purposes of this study. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.02 1. many power plants were installed without the benefit of proper coordination through the centralized planning of the NPC or the government.44 1.49 0.35 0.12 2.5 show the production cost of NPC and IPPs.A.

0232 0.0203 * Lifted from “Renewable Energy Prospects for Supplying Electricity in the Deregulated Market in the Philippines” by J.0331 0.0254 0.0366 0.0047 0.0270 0.0125 0.0100 IPP --0. G.0195 0. Estiva and M.0462 Hydro NPC IPP 0.0276 0.0428 0.0177 0.0236 0.0111 0.0303 0.0386 0.0281 0. N.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 3.0067 0.0110 0.0092 0.0230 0.0358 0.0349 0. UPEEE Foundation page 47 .0326 0.0360 0.0244 0.0167 0.0233 Coal NPC 0.0150 0.0538 0.0294 --0.5: NPC and IPP Production Cost at 1990 Constant Prices (US$/kWh)* Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Oil-based NPC IPP 0.0267 0.0252 0.0284 0.0281 0.0276 0.0450 0.0109 0.0662 0.0212 0.0198 0.0265 0.0394 0.0329 0.0431 0.0137 0.0683 Geothermal NPC IPP 0.0038 0. Guzman University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.0367 0. Inc.0284 0.0369 0.0302 0.

the DOE projects the national and regional energy and power requirements based on the forecast of the National Economic Development Authority’s (NEDA) Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Gross Regional Domestic Product (GRDP). Hinging electricity demand on the country’s economic activity. as shown in the above figure. on the other hand. As illustrated in Figure 4. make their own demand and expansion plans based land-use. UPEEE Foundation page 48 . Interestingly. such as MERALCO and the electric cooperatives (EC’s). O&M and fuel) indicated in Tables 2. in which all the main inputs and arguments to the plan are based on the national macroeconomic and the energy sector goals. Note that the program pertains to the rural electrification program. Small renewable energy projects. 37 For the scenarios in this chapter as well as in Chapter 5. the “least cost” criterion is the primary factor in determining the power plant projects and line-up for the planning period. the national government through the DOE employs a top-down approach. and projected increase in customers. The current top-down approach. are considered through the electrification program only. Costs computed are for comparative purposes only and may not be e qual to the actual costs. in particular.14 in Chapter 2 were used. Actual industry discount rates may be higher depending on the following: required equity return. TRANSO. power plant costs (investment. regulatory risks.13 and 2. Distribution utilities (DU’s). which aims to bring electricity to the un-electrified areas. country risks and availability of financing University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. These projections are then used by the National Transmission Corporation (TRANSCO) to plan the transmission requirements of the country. market risks. it is evident that the non-integration of the renewable energy resources projects in the PDP could limit the development of renewable energy as an important alternative power resource. In the PDP. serve as primary inputs to the Power Development Plan (PDP).1.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 4 SCENARIOS UNDER THE PHILIPPINE ENERGY PLAN FOR 2003 TO 2012 This section discusses the current national energy planning process and DOE’s energy generation plans for 2003 to 2012.1 National Energy Planning Process In coming up with an energy plan. A discount rate of 12 percent was used. is a critical part of the Philippine Energy Plan. DU’s and EC’s. it is only until the DOE puts in specific goals for the renewable energy sector can it be factored in to the PDP. With the existing approach. Inc. while it is very effective in supporting the national goals. allows limited public and local government participation that espouses their interests. where the power plant type and capacity additions and retirement are indicated. the plans formulated by the DOE. Relating this type of approach to the historical performance (as discussed in the previous section) of the renewable energy. 37 4. renewable energy and other energy resources project planning do not directly form part of the PDP. particularly in local environmental protection and power development. historical sales. which in turn.

1.80 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2010 Note: GDP values for 2003 to 2006 are actual NEDA forecasts.14 1.156.27 1. the DOE estimated GDP values based on the average growth rates forecasted by NEDA. Coal. The GDP projections for the two scenarios.01 1.95 1.74 1. UPEEE Foundation page 49 .62 1.44 5.10 1.487.80 5.04 5.80 5.51 6.091.60 1.23 5.646.276. Oil.229.69 1.57 5.70 6.642.387. In this report. as well as the its corresponding growth rates are shown in Table 4.552.91 1. Inc.23 High GDP GDP Growth Rate (billion PhP) (%) 1. These two scenarios are based on the NEDA’s low and high projections of the country’s GDP and are aptly named the Low GDP and High GDP scenarios. For 2007 to 2012.01 6.70 1.1: Low and High GDP Forecasts for 2003 to 2012 Year Low GDP GDP Growth Rate (billion PhP) (%) 1.80 5.467.85 4. the DOE uses two economic scenarios from which to forecast future energy requirement of the country.59 1. Philippine Energy Plan Top-Down Approach Figure 4.838.11 1. Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.48 1.343.80 5.2 Gross Domestic Product Projections In the Philippine Energy Plan for the period 2003-2012.09 1.96 5.23 5.737.138. Table 4. etc.51 1.23 5.1: National Energy Planning Process 4.23 5.29 6.80 5. the low GDP scenario will be referred to as the Low Economic Growth Scenario (LEGS) and the high GDP scenario as the High Economic Growth Scenario (HEGS).POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Generation Planning (DOE) Transmission Planning (TRANSCO) Distribution Planning (PUs & Ecs) Small Renewable Energy Projects Power Development Program Electrification Program Other Energy Sectors Planning NRE.079.732.311.64 5.82 1.203.564.413.23 5.24 1.

O & M and fuel costs. Costs calculated do not include ancillary. the UPSL computed the amount of emissions that would be generated and the cost of electricity generation38 for both plans of the DOE for 2003 to 2012.2: Generation under the Low Economic Growth Scenario 38 Generation costs were calculated using generic data for investment. the DOE formulates generation plans for the two economic scenarios. generation would almost double to 106.57% annually and 93% over the entire period. transmission and distribution costs. In addition. 39 Details of the calculations made for this section are provided in Appendix C. energy generation is projected to increase at an average rate of 7. For this period.430 GWh in 2012. From 55. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. 120000 100000 80000 60000 GWh 40000 20000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4. 4. Inc.142 GWh in 2003.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines In the PEP.3 DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario Energy Generation Figure 4.2 shows the energy generation projected by the DOE that would meet the future energy requirements in 2003 to 201239. These plans will be discussed in the following sections. UPEEE Foundation page 50 .

500 MW. UPEEE Foundation page 51 . respectively40.632 GW and will increase to 20.3: DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the Low Economic Growth Scenario 40 In the PEP. Notably.000 15.775 MW and 3.3. These high reserve margins would translate to higher electricity prices during the period. which are more capital intensive. Reserve Margin and Reliability Table 4. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.2 summarizes the results of the UPSL’s calculation for the DOE’s plan for the LEGS. will be due to a 795 MW hydro capacity.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Wind Demand (MW) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4. Notable are the considerably high reserve margins for 2003 to 2009. 65 MW wind capacity and a 40 MW geothermal capacity additions. As shown in Figure 4.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Installed Generating Capacity Total installed capacity for 2003 is 14. amounting to 800 MW. 25. which is a more expensive fuel. committed and indicative capacity additions for each year in the planning period are given. No additional capacity addition for natural gas is expected in the period.706 MW by 2012. the increase in demand requirement will be met mostly by increases in oil-based and coal plant capacities of 1. The increase in the share of renewable energy generating capacity.000 MW 10. For indicative plant additions. The table also computes the capacity that would be required if the percentage reserve margin was kept at 20%.000 5. this scenario is very similar to how the Philippine power sector performed historically.000 20. Inc. the UPSL assumed that indicative base load capacity will be coal plants while intermediate and peaking plants corresponds to oil-based plants. and renewable energy plants. These figures just show the continued preference on the use coal over natural gas.

033 Installed Capacity (MW) 14. Renewable energy sources.143 GWh generation.6. 41 This assumes that: local natural gas production can support 3.440 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Energy Mix For the LEGS.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 4.393 tonnes of coal would have to be imported41. 91.405 19. natural gas and oilbased sources will supply 34%.600 11. the PEP expects that for the year 2003.756 20.706 Percentage Reserve Margin (%) 66 59 52 42 33 29 27 24 24 22 Capacity Required for 20% Reserve Margin 10.5) for the planning period indicates minimal thrust towards more use of renewable energy sources and cleaner fuels. The combined contribution of coal and oil to the energy mix.066 tonnes of coal and 1. as it was in 2001. Imported fuel would cost $4.277 11. 2003-2012 Peak Demand (MW) 8.2: Percentage Reserve Margin for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario.865 16.208 GWh energy production annually. on the other hand will increase to 59% in 2012 to from a value of 38% in 2003. From a share of 37% in 2003.324 million.332 13. respectively. and.5 million barrels of oil.889 17.869 13. of the total generation.833 9.615 15.505 18.139 11. A look at the energy mix (Figures 4. renewable energy’s share decreases to 22% in 2012.4 and 4.263 billion cubic feed (BCF) of natural gas for the whole planning period.565 17.777 20.5 tonnes of oil and 80. Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements.576 17.519 10. Inc. Contribution from wind sources stays insignificant for the whole period.632 15.396 15. Of these amounts. will supply 26% and 11%.813 14. of the total 55. coal. UPEEE Foundation page 52 .367 14. • University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.576 16.443 16. • share of imported coal is 87. this scenario would require 124.895. 124. The breakdown of the fossil fuel that would be consumed in the LEGS-PEP scenario is shown in Figure 4.3% of total consumption. respectively.423 12.120 15. 24% and 5%.997 12.814 15.015 16. particularly geothermal and hydro. Clean fuels’ (renewable energy and natural gas) share in the energy mix decreases from 61% to 41% by 2012.800 MW capacity of 23.224.

Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. UPEEE Foundation page 53 . Inc.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4.4: Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Coal and Oil-Based Renewable Energy and Natural Gas Figure 4.5: Coal and Oil-Based vs.

324. Generation Cost The present value of the costs calculated for the PEP-LEGS is given below. Appendix C shows the amount of emissions for the whole planning period.189 $ 2. NOx and particulates for the North Coast of California.828. Geothermal plants contribute only 2%.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Environmental Emissions and Abatement Costs The environmental emissions resulting from DOE’s generation plan for LEGS are calculated in this report. and operations and maintenance costs involved in the operation of the different plants to meet demand and energy requirements for the scenario.292 $ 23. As would be expected.3 million tonnes. fuel.137. Total CO2 emissions for the period amounts to 309. UPEEE Foundation page 54 . Oil-based and natural gas plants contribute 17% and 26% to the CO2 emissions. Table 3. Average generation cost for the period is PhP 3.434 $ 9. Inc. Total cost of abatement for this scenario is $ 29.4 lists down the generation costs calculated for each year of the planning period. along with the assumptions used. SOx and other emissions. respectively.7 shows the contribution of each type to the CO2 emissions.1592 per kWh. These generation costs were computed from the values for investment.479.744. as given in Chapter 1.707.916 42 Abatement costs values in this chapter and the chapters that follow were computed using abatement costs for SOx . Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: $ 11. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Table 4. Coal contributes 55% of the CO2 emissions for the period.376. These do not take into account the effect on the generation cost by deals made with independent power producers.391.3 shows the values for the years 2003 and 2012 and Figure 4.71642.454.368. the increase in the use of coal would result in an increase in CO2.

289 112.611 489.000 0 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 4.000 10.788 54.778.850 159.000 60.581 952 19.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100.6: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario Table 4.000.323 644 3.000.000 40.000 30.712 21.000 80.000.432 2.647 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000.000 (tonnes) 50.000 20.362 282 1.3: Environmental Emissions for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (tonnes) Emission Type CO2 SO2 NOX CO CH4 NMVOC N2O Particulates Year 2003 18.821 295. UPEEE Foundation page 55 .000 90.000.000.000.669.000 70. Inc.389 55.000.927 Year 2012 46.000.000.

Inc.000 5.000 35.0553 0.000.000.0592 0.0601 0.0564 0.0612 0. UPEEE Foundation page 56 . 2003-2012 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average Assumptions: Discount rate Inflation rate Fuel escalation rate * $1 = PhP 55 Generation Cost $/kWh 0.000.3636 3.000.7: Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario Table 4.000 tonne CO2 30.000 25.000.000.0568 0.1592 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 20.000.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 50.000.2123 3.0409 3.000 10.0574 12% 3% 2% PhP/kWh* 3.0429 3.000 15.0997 3.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4.000 45.2548 3.0554 0.0564 0.3072 3.000.1229 3.1026 3.4: Generation Costs for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario.000.0584 0.000 40.0447 3.0553 0.

UPEEE Foundation page 57 .556 GWh in 2003 to 118. 140000 120000 100000 80000 GWh 60000 40000 20000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4.4 DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario Energy Generation In the high economic growth scenario. increasing more than 200 percent within the ten-year planning period. corresponding to a 56% increase within the ten-year planning period.470 GWh in 2012.756 MW in 2012. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. the percentage reserve margin in the HEGS is considerably high. with a minimum value of 26% and a maximum of 65%. Figure 4.5 lists down the percentage reserve margins for the PEP Plan for the HEGS. Table 4.8: Generation under the High Economic Growth Scenario Installed Generating Capacity Installed generating capacity would increase from 14.8 shows the expected generation under the HEGS.632 MW in 2003 to 22.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 4. A large part of this increase is due to the addition of coal plants. Figure 4. generation is expected to increase from 55.9 shows how the installed generating capacity would change from 2003 to 2012. Inc. Reserve Margin and Reliability Similar to LEGS.

756 Percentage Reserve Margin (%) 65 57 49 39 30 25 26 29 30 26 Capacity Required for 20% Reserve Margin 10.000 MW 10.148 21.615 15. 2003-2012 Peak Demand (MW) 8.000 5. Inc.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25.9: DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the High Economic Growth Scenario Table 4.674 20.120 15.854 16.5: Percentage Reserve Margin for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario.359 14.727 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Wind Demand (MW) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4.000 20.563 13.883 9.765 18.031 17.378 13.000 15.424 12.709 14.560 12.469 11. UPEEE Foundation page 58 .308 18.790 18.633 10.660 11.632 15.005 21.562 16.106 Installed Capacity (MW) 14.155 20.423 15.065 16.806 22.865 16.

98. While the share of renewable energy declines to 20% by 2012 from 37% in 2003. The breakdown of fossil fuels that will be used in the HEGS-PEP scenario is shown in Figure 4. 184. Much of the increase in the share of non-renewable energy may be attributed to oil whose shares increase from 5% to 17%.11.5 million barrels of oil 85. and natural gas whose contribution ranges from 24% to 17% for the period considered. Coal share remains very significant at 47% in 2012.10 and 4.120 tonnes of coal and 1. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Energy Mix From Figures 4. Inc. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Wind Figure 4. Of these amounts.127 million.12.5 million barrels of oil. it is quite evident that dependence on non-renewable energy for power generation remains strong. Total cost of imported fuel is $5.211 tonnes of coal would have to be imported. this scenario would require 184.272 BCF of natural gas for the whole planning period.10: Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements.322. the share of non-renewable energy increases to 80%.835. UPEEE Foundation page 59 .

000.000.000 60.000.000.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Non-Renewable Energy (w/o Nat Gas) Renewable Energy with Nat Gas Figure 4.12: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 4.000 80.000 30.000 70. Inc.000.000 10.000.000 90.000 40.000.11: Share of Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy in the Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario 100.000 (tonnes) 50.000.000. UPEEE Foundation page 60 .000 20.000.

POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Environmental Emissions and Abatement Costs With the continuous decline in the share of renewable energy in the energy mix from 37% to a mere 20% within the planning period.064 21.6: Environmental Emissions for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario (tonnes) Emission Type CO2 SOx NOx CO CH4 NMVOC N2O Particulates Year 2003 19.896 Based on the installed capacities and energy generation indicated in the PEP for the HEGS.022.211 111. greenhouse has emissions is to further soar.236.843 167.820 61.317 326.294.059.610 778 4.995.945 70.165. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.132 Generation Cost The PEP-HEGS Scenario will require the following costs: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: $ 12.13 illustrates the contribution of each energy source to CO2 emissions resulting from the DOE plan for the HEGS.599 970 19. Total CO2 emissions for the period is 347.758 $ 25.6.751 283 1.829 631. An estimate of the environmental emissions is provided in Table 4.7 for energy generation cost for 2003 to 2012. Figure 4. Inc. the UPSL obtained the following shown in Table 4.764.779. UPEEE Foundation page 61 .913 $ 2.076. Table 4.2 million tonnes.680.677 Year 2012 565.409 2.059.225 $ 10. Total abatement cost for the HEG-PEP Scenario is $32.568.050.

1488 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.0543 0.000 20.0175 3.000.000.0553 0.9853 3.000.000.7: Generation Costs for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario.0557 0.2021 3.0542 0.0612 0.000 tonne CO2 30.0582 0.2889 3.000 40.3646 3. 2003-2012 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average Assumptions: Discount rate Inflation rate Fuel escalation rate * $1 = PhP 55 Generation Cost $/kWh 0.0392 3.0573 12% 3% 2% PhP/kWh* 3.0635 0.0549 0.0640 2.000 10.13: Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario Table 4.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 4.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 60.000.000.0555 0. UPEEE Foundation page 62 .0598 0.0545 3. Inc.4908 3.000 50.9810 2.

For all the options. • Aggressive Clean Power Development Option For this option. 43 Natural Gas Plan. It is assumed in these options that the local natural gas industry will be able to supply fuel for up to 3. The annual installed capacities per fuel type for each grid are provided in Appendix D. and emissions for the abovementioned options. UPEEE Foundation . the strategy is to utilize all the practical renewable energy resources where possible while keeping the appropriate reserve margins and diversity of resources. fuel usage. which were used as basis for the above options. are given Appendix A. four alternative strategies were used to develop mitigation scenarios that meet the demand and energy requirements of the Low Economic Growth Scenario and t e High Economic Growth Scenario.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 5 CLEAN POWER DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS Using the mitigation options identified in Section 2. The following sections discuss the resulting energy mix. biomass. however. capacity addition and utilization of renewable energy (geothermal. on the other hand. The capital costs of the ancillary diesel engines are. The candidate and practical renewable resources. DOE page 63 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. lifted from the PEP. which will serve as back up to the wind power plants. h These strategies are the following: • Moderate Clean Power Development (CCPD) Option In this option. The 2003 to 2007 capacity additions were based solely on the PEP list of committed projects. that these reserve margins do not take into account the ancillary diesel engines. Inc. The additional requirement will be supplemented by imports from the neighboring Asian countries and other natural gas producers until new local resources are developed.208 GWh) natural gas power plants for the next twenty years. the percentage installed reserve margin for the years 2008 onwards is kept as close as possible to the corresponding PEP reserve margins for comparison. Note. Total installed capacity of wind power plants is allowed to reach a maximum of 5% of the peak demand.800MW43 (equivalent to 23. UPSL capacity additions start in 2008 assuming a five-year lead-time for the planning and commissioning of the additional power plants. The projected generation for each fuel type for 2003 to 2007 is. considered in the investment cost of the plants. wind and hydro power) and natural gas plants are given priority over that of non-renewable plants for power generation. likewise.

By 2012.1.945.450 MW in 2003 to 8.9 BCF of natural gas would have to be imported.502. Inc. natural gas capacity would continue to increase until the end of the planning period. Also. For Mindanao. Details of this scenario is given in Appendix D. Reserve Margin The 2008 to 2012 installed capacity reserve margins for the LEGS-MCPD option for Luzon and Visayas fall within the LEGS-PEP range of 22% to 29%. 73.4 BCF of natural gas for the whole planning period. UPEEE Foundation page 64 .4.554. which were used in the PEP scenarios.8 million barrels of oil.060 million. Energy Mix The share of renewable energy for the LEGS-MCPD option would increase by 10% from the period 2003 to 2012.8 million barrels of oil. Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements.685 MW in 2012. The energy mix and share of clean energy for the option are shown in Figure 5. which cannot be addressed with the low dependable capacity of its existing plants. which were used in this option to address the additional power and energy demand.279 tonnes of coal and 1. renewable energy plant installed capacity is increased by 95% from 4. this scenario would require 58. natural gas and renewable energy plant capacities would amount to 69% of the total installed capacity.228 tonnes of coal and 154. The share of coal and oil in the mix would reduce by about 28% at the end of the period. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. 64. 58. This is because more power plants are required to meet Mindanao’s energy demand. the reserve margin is quite higher at 42% to 48%. Of these amounts. This is shown in Figure 5. the Moderate Clean Power Development option is applied to the Low Economic Growth Scenario.1 LEGS-MCPD Scenario In this scenario. however. The total share of clean energy in the energy mix increases by 18% due the 148% boost in energy generation from natural gas power plants. respectively. Note also that wind power plants.3. have lower capacity factors compared to coal power plants.2 and 5. Installed Capacity As shown in Figure 5.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 5. Total cost of fuel that need to be imported for this scenario is $ 3.

815 $ 0.592.000 MW 10. Figure 5.0568 or PhP 3. Generation Cost For this LEGS-MCPD.113. The LEGS-PEP abatement cost is $6.969. Inc.507.254 $ 2. achieving net reduction of 44.479.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25.000 5.000 20. Total CO2 emissions for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario is 264.955.000 15.202 million. UPEEE Foundation page 65 .1: Installed Generating Capacity for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario Environmental Emissions and Abatement Cost As would be expected.053 $ 23.5 illustrates the CO2 emissions calculated from this option. computed cost values for the planning period are as follows: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: Average generation cost: $ 12. Total cost of abatement of other emissions for this option is $23.7 million tonnes. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.508 $ 8.166 million higher than that of the LEGS-MCPD.755. GHG emissions from the LEGS-MCPD are much lower than that from the LEGS-PEP.1235 The LEGS-MCPD will achieve a net savings of $ 236 million as compared with the LEGS-PEP.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Oil-based Hydro Coal Biomass Natural Gas Wind Geothermal Demand (MW) Figure 5.6 million tonnes of CO2 as compared to the LEGS-PEP.723.

POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 5. Inc. Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.3: Coal and Oil-Based vs.2: Energy Mix for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Coal and Oil-Based Renewable and Natural Gas Figure 5. UPEEE Foundation page 66 .

000.000.000.000 20.000 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 5.000 60.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 80.000 15.000.000 20.000.4: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario 40.000.000.000 25.000 10.000 30.000.000.000.000 5.000.000.000.5: CO2 Emissions for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 70.000.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Coal 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 5.000 (tonnes) 40.000 35. Inc. UPEEE Foundation page 67 .000 50.000 30.000.000.000 10.

the Aggressive Clean Power Development Option is applied to the Low Economic Growth Scenario. brings the clean energy generation from 33. while importation of oil and natural gas stand at 57.633. respectively. the average reserve margins are 33% and 26%.4 million tonnes.270 GWh in 2012.794 GWh in 2003 to 84. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.175 tonnes of coal. Inc. Mindanao’s average reserve margin.2 million barrels of oil.2 LEGS-ACPD Scenario In this scenario.8 shows the increase in clean energy share in the mix. This 159% increase in renewable capacity is largely attributable to the increase in wind capacity from zero in 2003 to 3. is 53%.860 million.523.520 MW in 2012.731 tonnes.7 BCF of natural gas and 57. Installed Capacity In this option. The average for the country is 34%. Coal importation for this option reaches 58. brings the CO2 emission level at 321. Figure 5.7 illustrates the energy mix resulting from the LEGS-ACPD option. Fuel Consumption Total fuel requirement for the LEGS-ACPD is 66. The total CO2 emissions for the period is 248.9. in this option. Energy Mix Figure 5. respectively.6 shows the installed capacities for the LEGS-ACPD option. renewable energy capacity is increased from 4.9 million tonnes less than the LEGS-PEP. UPEEE Foundation page 68 .074.4 BCF.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 5. Total cost of fuel that is needed to be imported for this scenario is $ 2.34 tonnes/GWh.10. Total cost of abatement for this option is $ 21.480 MW in 2012 and the further increase in the utilization of geothermal and biomass resources.715.2 million barrels and 139. Reserve Margin For Luzon and Visayas. wind power plants take 20. In this option.294. The 30% increase in renewable energy share from 37% to 48% over the planning period. Environmental Emissions and Abatement Cost The increased utilization of renewable energy resources. The mix of imported and indigenous fuel is shown in Figure 5.450 MW in 2003 to 11. 1471. The total CO2 emissions for each year are shown in Figure 5. for 2008 to 2012.40% of the peak demand. Figure 5. which is 60.

000 MW 10.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Oil-based Hydro Coal Biomass Natural Gas Wind Geothermal Demand (MW) Figure 5.7: Energy Mix for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 15.6: Installed Generating Capacity for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 5. Inc.000 5. UPEEE Foundation page 69 .000 20.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25.

000.000. Inc.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Coal and Oil-Based Renewable and Natural Gas Figure 5.000.9: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000.000 80.000 70.000 20.000.000 40.000 60.000 0 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 5.000 30. UPEEE Foundation page 70 .000.000 10.000.8: Coal and Oil-Based vs.000.000 (tonnes) 50. Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario 90.000.

414.3 HEGS-MCPD Scenario In this scenario. the Moderate Clean Power Development option is applied to the High Economic Growth Scenario.403.671 $ 0. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.564 $ 2.10: CO2 Emissions for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario Generation Cost For this LEGS-ACPD. 5.000. Natural gas capacities are increased throughout the period and would account for the biggest share in installed capacity by 2012.816.057.000 10.000 0 2003 2004 Oil-based 2005 Coal 2006 2007 2008 Geothermal 2009 Hydro 2010 Biomass 2011 Wind 2012 Natural Gas Figure 5.000 35.000 30. Renewable energy capacity accounts for 30% in 2003 and 39% in 2012.000.603.880. UPEEE Foundation page 71 .000. Installed Capacity The installed capacity for this option is given in Figure 5.661. Inc.000.132.000.012 $ 23.11.000 15.094 $ 8.000.000.0576 or PhP 3.000 25.000 5. computed cost values for the planning period are as follows: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: Average generation cost: $ 12.000 20.000.1698 This scenario would cost $52 million more than the LEGS-PEP.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 40.

15 shows the CO2 emissions resulting from the HEGS-MCPD option. This difference is attributable to the inevitable higher reserve margin for Mindanao. while Figure 5.781.390. computed cost values for the planning period are as follows: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: Average generation cost: $ 12.7 million barrels of oil. Of this mix. 73. UPEEE Foundation page 72 .030 $ 2. The total CO2 emissions is at 283.456 $ 0. Total abatement cost for this option is $ 24.7 million barrels of oil.4 million tonnes lower than the HEGS-PEP.940.9 BCF of natural gas for the whole planning period. Total cost of fuel imports is $ 3.8 million tonnes. this scenario would require 70.076.8 BCF tonnes of natural gas would have to be imported.347. Generation Cost For this HEGS-MCPD.0565 or PhP 3.124 $ 9. Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements.271 tonnes of coal and 1.778. which is 63.12 shows the corresponding energy mix for the HEGS-MCPD option.807. which falls within 35% to 48%.349. Of these amounts. renewable energy and natural gas contribution to the energy mix increases from 61% to 74% for 2003 to 2012.580. 2% is contributed by wind power plants. Environmental Emissions Figure 5.549. Energy Mix With its installed capacities dominating.686.718.857 tonnes of coal and 342.665. 64. 70.322 million. Inc. Figure 5.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Reserve Margin The effective reserve margin of 27% to 31% for the whole country of the HEGSMCPD option is close to the HEGS-PEP range of 25% to 30% for 2003 to 2012.1065 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.13 illustrates the clean energy mix.302 $ 24.769.

000 20. UPEEE Foundation page 73 .000 5.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25. Inc.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Oil-based Hydro Coal Biomass Natural Gas Wind Geothermal Demand (MW) Figure 5.000 15.12: Energy Mix for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.11: Installed Generating Capacity for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 5.000 MW 10.

000 50.13: Coal and Oil-Based vs.000.000 (tonnes) 40. Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario 80.000.000.000 70.000 60.000.000 30.000 10.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Coal and Oil-Based Renewable and Natural Gas Figure 5.000.000 20.000.000.000 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 5. UPEEE Foundation page 74 . Inc.000.14: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.

000.4 HEGS-ACPD Scenario In this option. clean energy share increased by 24% over the planning period.000 20.000. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Installed Capacity The more aggressive use of renewable energy resources for this option results to a 50% contribution of renewable energy to the total installed capacity in 2012. Energy Mix While oil-based and coal share in the energy mix decreased by 38%. the country’s effective reserve margin ranges from 28% to 32%.000.000.000.000 15.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Coal 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 5. Reserve Margin With the inevitably high reserve margin of 45% to 51% for Mindanao.000 30. Figure 5.000 10. UPEEE Foundation page 75 .000 25. the Aggressive Clean Power Development option strategy is applied to the High Economic Growth Scenario.15: CO2 Emissions for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario 5.16 illustrates this. Inc.000. Figure 5.000 5.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 40.000.000 35.18 illustrate these changes in the energy mix.17 and Figure 5.000.

402.199.288. Figure 5.560.638.1 million tonnes.791.182.682 tonnes of coal and 1. Total CO2 emissions is at 275. Generation Cost For this HEGS-ACPD.730 $ 2. 72.271 $ 25. 67. Cost of fuel imports is $ 3. Inc.1647 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.0575 or PhP 3. along with 59. UPEEE Foundation page 76 .568 $ 0.532.583.7 BCF of natural gas. this scenario would require 90.567 $ 9.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements.723. All of the oil would have to be imported.5 BCF of natural gas for the whole planning period. Environmental Emissions and Abatement Cost Carbon dioxide generation for the HEGS-ACPD option is shown in Figure 5.139 tonnes of coal and 276. NOx and particulates for this option is 23.20.0 million barrels of oil. computed cost values for the planning period are as follows: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: Average generation cost: $ 12.513 million.824.842. The cost of abatement for SOx .19 shows the sharing of the imported and indigenous fossil fuels.1 million tonnes lower than that for the HEGS-PEP.458.584.

000 20.000 5.000 MW 10.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Oil-based Hydro Coal Biomass Natural Gas Wind Geothermal Peak Demand Figure 5.16: Installed Generating Capacity for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 5. UPEEE Foundation page 77 .17: Energy Mix for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25. Inc.000 15.

000.000 (tonnes) 40.19: Fuel Consumption for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000.000 0 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 5.000 20.000 10.000. Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario 80.000 50.000 70.000.18: Coal and Oil-Based vs. UPEEE Foundation page 78 .000. Inc.000 30.000.000.000 60.000.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Coal and Oil-Based Renewable and Natural Gas Figure 5.

000.000 35.000 10.000.000 20.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Coal 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 5.000.000.000.000 15.000. UPEEE Foundation page 79 .POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 40.000 30. Inc.000.000 25.000 5.20: CO2 Emissions for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000.

study must be made to determine how much wind power capacity the local power system grids could absorb. There are even opportunities that can create additional dollar income from carbon trading and local employment. the country has to resort to biomass. To support power switching. Switching to cleaner energy. The contribution from renewable energy is expected to decline in the next 10 years. it fails to consider the implications of the activities in this sector to the environment that could even be more important if only the externalities will be considered in the economics of energy supply. To avoid significant amounts of GHG emissions in the future. the local natural gas industry is anchored on the natural gas find in Malampaya. Another issue is the intermittent nature of wind power. In the following paragraphs. Historically. the business-as-usual Philippine Energy Plan 2003 – 2012 does not offer a different scenario.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 6 Conclusions and Recommendations The Philippine power sector from 1991 to 2001 has not performed very well in terms of reliability and cost to end-users. which will worsen the situation from the point of view of clean and sustainable development. wind and natural gas technologies. While the PEP has tried to address these problems. the installed capacity and hence the energy mix has been dominated by non-renewable energy. Biomass power is also an attractive option for grid-connected generation. storage and therefore requires that more research and development activities to address these issues. The country has nearly exhausted its geothermal and large hydro resources. To aid planning and operation of the power system. But it is still associated with problems such as fuel collection. At the moment. which could adversely affect the power system’s stability at high levels of penetration. therefore. In the medium term. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. is attractive as the price of carbon is expected to increase in the future. This study has assessed the technologies and resources in the Philippines that could be tapped for clean power development. Inc. natural gas importation may be pursued. UPEEE Foundation page 80 . Pursuing the Clean Power Development plans requires the development of a “clean energy” market in the country through effective policy instruments and mechanisms that will secure the investment climate while protecting public interest. small hydro. the Moderate Clean Power Development Plans are viable greenhouse gas mitigation option for the Philippines offering so many opportunities both for the developers and the country. This study also offers two alternative paths or strategies (moderate and aggressive) through the alternative clean power development plans. new natural gas sites must be identified and developed. as was done in this study. These alternative plans are comparable to the PEP in terms of costs. At the current CO2 prices ($5 per tonne) in the market. we have outlined a set of measures that should be made to attract more investments in renewable generation technologies in the future. In addition.

Consider the economics of smaller capacity. Since power developers will only respond to the government call. following load growth to deal with the overcapacity issue (in contrast to large capacity power plants currently used in energy planning). Inc. Increase the number of candidate Renewable Energy-based Power Plants in the selection process. This decentralized planning scheme will result in a more realistic demand forecast and will address local issues on energy. This could be achieved through the following: • Improve the power development planning models Include environmental externalities in planning models to reflect the true cost to society of energy decisions.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 6. - • Institutionalize a participative planning process. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.1 Energy Planning The first step in developing the market for clean energy is to introduce reforms in the process of energy planning itself. UPEEE Foundation page 81 . While this planning process allows for a greater degree of public participation.1. more rigorous and site-specific resource assessment must be conducted.and overcapacity. it is important that the Philippine Energy Plan reflect the call for clean power development. A schematic of the proposed planning process is shown in Figure 6. Use coal-fired fluidized combustion technology as benchmark fossil-based plant instead of pulverized coal. as well as issues on under. To increase the number of candidate renewable energy plants in planning. Resource assessment and local supply and demand balance can be done at the provincial level. Electrification planning can be done in the municipality/city levels. it will also entail capacity building for local government units in the areas of planning and resource assessment. A decentralized planning process down to the level of the local government and participated by the stakeholders in the locality should complement the top-down planning process at the national level. Include energy efficiency as a demand side option in energy planning models.

2 Transmission and Distribution Development Transmission and distribution infrastructure should be developed to increase access to renewable energy sites. most of which are site specific. The cost of such an expansion should be borne by the transmission or distribution utility. particularly on the required technical analysis and compensating equipment. operation and control of nonconventional. The System Operator should be allowed to procure ancillary services needed by the Grid to accommodate intermittent wind power and pass on the cost to all users of the Grid. Private Sector Proposals Provincial Energy Plan Provincial Level Resource Assessment and Local Supply and Demand Balance City/Municipality Level City/Municipality Energy Plan Electrification Planning • • University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Inc. These plants must “feed-in” the Grid at minimum prices that will guarantee the returns of power developers. 6. Transmission facilities should deliberately be expanded toward locations of promising renewable energy sources. UPEEE Foundation page 82 .3 • Rules and Regulation The Wholesale Electricity Spot Market (WESM) Rules must provide that intermittent and small-scale grid-connected renewable energy generation systems (such as wind.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines National Energy Plan National Level Centralized System Planning and Integration of Provincial Plans Figure 6.1: Recommended Bottom-Up Approach to Energy Planning 6. run-of-river small hydro and biomass) should be given priority in the dispatch of generating units. This cost mechanism will ensure that all electricity consumers will share the cost of such a development. renewable energy-based power plants. The Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) should allow such an expansion even if it does not initially show recovery of investment. The Philippine Grid and Distribution Code (PGDC) must be clear on its requirements and procedures on the connection.

. Dedicated Financing Windows that allow longer repayment periods for renewable energy-based development. • • University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.4 • Incentive Programs The Department of Energy must ensure that renewable energy development should always be included in the Philippine Investment Priorities of the Board of Investment to ensure that the fiscal (e.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 6.g. This may include subsidy for resource assessment and feasibility studies for serious developers of renewable energy.. UPEEE Foundation page 83 . income tax holidays and tax credits) and non-fiscal (e. simplification of custom procedures and importation of consigned equipment) will be available for renewable energy developers. Inc. An assistance program should be created for renewable energy development. tax exemptions.g.

Choices for a Brighter Future (United States of America Department of Energy. (March 1998) Renewable Energy. Estiva. Environmental Manual (EM) for Power Development.N. Wan. Parsons..” Doctorate Thesis.” CRC Handbook on Energy Efficiency. Richard L. Philippines Department of Energy Philippine Energy Plan 2002-2011. M. Germany (1999) Natural Gas Plan. UPEEE Foundation page 84 . September 1999). Florentin. OKÖ Institute. Biomass-Fired Power Generation... 1997. Leverage International (Consultants) Inc.. Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the Philippines. (February 1998). “Power Generation Choice in the Presence of Environmental Externalities. Jonathan and Krause... and B. Leverage International (Consultants) Inc. J. Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012.. and Guzman. Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future Strengthening the Non-Conventional and Rural Energy Development Program in the Philippines: A Policy Framework and Action Plan. Luleá University of Technology. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (1993). (August 2001). Philippine New Commercial Building Market Characterization. Godfrey Boyle. Elliot. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (February 2001). “Grid-Connected Wind Energy Technology: Progress and Prospects”. New Mexico (October 1998). Y. paper presented at the North American Conference of the International Association of Energy Economists. Inc. Philippines Department of Energy.. T. B. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. “Introduction to Environmental Externality Costs. Renewable Energy Prospects for Supplying Electricity in the Deregulated Market in the Philippines. Parsons. Philippine Motor Market Characterization. Boca Raton. ed. The Open University. Koomey. Sundqvist. et al. 2002. “Factors Relevant to Utility Integration of Intermittent Renewable Technologies”. IEA Bioenergy Implementing Agreement. October 1996. Inc. Milton Keynes (1996). joint UNDP/World Bank Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP).G.. Philippines Department of Energy. D.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 7 REFERENCES Bain. Albuquerque. FL: CRC Press.

updated March 1999). UPEEE Foundation page 85 . 25 July 2003. Makati.eere.energy. Philippines.gov/state_energy Ledesma. Alexis.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines The EM Generic Database. Deutsche Gessellschaft für technische (Zusammenarbeit GmbH. The Philippines’ Initial National Communication on Climate Change www. Bronzeoak Philippines. Inc. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Interview.

Appendix A Practical Wind and Hydro Resource Potential in the Philippines .

UPEEE Foundation page 1 of 4 .1: Locations of Practical Wind Resources in Luzon Province Abra Albay Aurora Bataan Batangas Benguet Bulacan Cagayan Camarines Norte Camarines Sur Cavite Ifugao Ilocos Norte Ilocos Sur Isabela Kalinga Laguna Mountain Province Nueva Ecija Nueva Vizcaya Pampanga Pangasinan Quezon Quirino Rizal Sorsogon Tarlac Zambales LUZON TOTAL Estimated Estimated Number of Sites Aggregate Capacity Aggregate Annual (MWe) Generation (GWh) 26 183 567 26 183 576 46 320 1.Appendix A POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table A. Inc.280 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.922 21 158 484 5 40 125 5 33 100 20 151 478 43 315 971 7 46 143 17 125 382 11 86 263 21 165 509 15 98 307 24 163 509 4 40 123 117 796 2.486 686 4906 15.011 26 169 530 16 104 328 20 137 421 2 41 126 8 80 246 18 117 372 36 234 742 8 87 267 15 98 299 31 265 832 8 52 161 90 620 1.

3: Locations of Practical Wind Resources in Mindanao Province Agusan del Norte Agusan del Sur Camiguin Surigao del Norte Surigao del Sur MINDANAO TOTAL No.065 75 229 259 795 2.738 Table A.031 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Inc.Appendix A POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table A.2: Locations of Practical Wind Resources in Visayas Province Aklan Antique Biliran Bohol Capiz Cebu Eastern Samar Iloilo Leyte Negros Occidental Negros Oriental Samar Southern Leyte VISAYAS TOTAL Number of Sites 24 41 20 6 1 30 2 12 52 26 48 10 33 305 Estimated Capacity Estimated Annual (MWe) Generation (GWh) 163 517 309 965 144 466 39 120 7 20 202 620 14 43 85 266 357 1.170 6.113 169 519 347 1. UPEEE Foundation page 2 of 4 . of Sites 19 6 4 14 4 47 Estimated Capacity Estimated Annual (MWe) Generation (GWh) 133 408 42 129 28 86 105 322 28 86 336 1.

Inc.671 6 35 184 3 34 179 15 181 110 4 26 951 3 28 147 19 179 941 1 6 32 129 1. Locations of Practical Small Hydro Potential Resources in Visayas Province Aklan Eastern Samar Negros Occidental Negros Oriental VISAYAS TOTAL Number of Sites Estimated Capacity Estimated Annual (MWe) Generation (GWh) 1 5 2 1 9 5 33 13 7 58 26 173 68 37 304 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. UPEEE Foundation page 3 of 4 .Appendix A POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table A. Locations of Practical Small Hydro Potential Resources in Luzon Province Abra Aurora Benguet Ifugao Ilocos No rte Ilocos Sur Isabela Kalinga La Union Mountain Province Nueva Vizcaya Pangasinan Quezon Quirino Tarlac LUZON TOTAL Number of Sites Estimated Capacity Estimated Annual (MWe) Generation (GWhr) 20 196 1.585 Table A.4.030 1 10 53 9 79 415 3 32 168 3 22 116 4 40 210 8 72 378 30 318 1.258 6.5.

692 7 7 18 18 53 279 26 137 58 305 69 363 230 1.209 7 37 11 58 7 37 826 4. Inc.Appendix A POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table A. Locations of Practical Small Hydro Potential Resources in Mindanao Province Agusan del Norte Bukidnon Davao Davao Oriental Lanao del Norte Lanao del Sur Maguindanao Misamis Oriental North Cotabato Sultan Kudarat Surigao del Sur Zamboanga del Norte MINDANAO TOTAL Number of Sites 3 21 7 18 7 4 6 10 18 1 2 1 98 Estimated Capacity Estimated Annual (MWe) Generation (GWh) 18 95 322 1.6. UPEEE Foundation page 4 of 4 .237 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.

Appendix B Historical Performance of the Philippine Power Sector 1991-2001 .

730 11.339 952 1.626 10.368 4.109 4.840 7.875 8. Inc.914 10.963 3.030 5.949 7.804 13.162 11.320 6.132 4.069 5.078 18.894 9.554 1996 9.348 2.073 1.417 1.928 12.390 6.196 5.859 823 1. UPEEE Foundation page 1 of 2 .185 13.440 5.053 4.425 5.353 10.725 9.959 9.176 25.150 7.249 4.301 2.154 1.013 12.167 1.901 12.600 2.116 18.402 Source: DOE Table B.267 1.735 33.531 1.Appendix B POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table B.388 11.200 3.223 6.191 957 2.341 3.493 3.066 7.290 2001 13.3: Energy Consumption by Sector.132 4.2: Power Generation by Source (1991-2001) (GWh) Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wind 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 25.399 4.212 9.758 5.254 2.071 25.518 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wind 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 6.030 6.459 33.867 1.512 13.856 1.936 8.543 934 1.594 11.870 26.855 7.345 45.340 6.707 39.301 2.963 Natural Gas 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 1.754 41.432 45.432 2000 12.536 5.663 18.649 25.290 47.155 2.649 1992 6.288 19.708 1997 10.789 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 20 16 17 848 5.939 13.534 7.568 4.067 1.547 10.471 6.185 9.847 9.282 5. 1991-2001 (GWh) Year Year 1991 Residential Commercial Industrial Others Utilities Own Use Power Losses Total 6.799 7.579 1994 7.578 1999 11.931 Hydro 2.942 1.950 1.042 2.667 6.395 721 1.335 5.700 5.301 2.015 1.684 762 1.296 5.799 9.135 6.145 4.590 5.579 30.734 30.927 Coal 405 405 441 550 850 1.819 1.1: Installed Generating Capacity.713 47.931 1.086 3.072 11.865 10.867 16.301 2.452 1.567 13.257 2.459 1995 8.183 16.037 39.098 14.049 Source: DOE University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.128 36.232 7.839 4.442 5.063 Geothermal 888 888 963 1.237 8.444 921 1.477 8.600 1. 1991-2001 (MW) Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Fuel Type Oil-based 3.259 2.987 3.238 26.301 2.849 41.797 41.931 1.725 12.851 1.973 5.870 1993 6.862 6.363 9.797 1998 11.226 5.050 12.789 6.910 8.154 4.301 2.104 Source: DOE Table B.696 11.578 41.554 36.791 2.844 5.929 19.190 11.

036 4.541 10.403 1.920 591 780 5.090 16.396 18.848 164.231.069 84.175.794 13.703 47.616 28.705.903 21.870.309 146.702 7.671 16.232.283 15.414 162.747 25.678 117.547.882 149.459 1995 25. tonne CO2 Year Oil-based 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 9.552 135.5: Generation by Grid.762 Table B.082.6: Environmental Emissions.991 5.687 1994 3.585.Appendix B POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table B.530 15.649 812 939 7.962 751.967 2.159 13.413 258.075 N 2O 415 436 421 469 541 610 711 742 644 734 842 Particulates 10.291 1.553.797 1998 31.343 41.448 16. Inc.633 130.083 18.261 9.928 278.029 36.796 CH4 587 643 685 835 963 974 1.566 3.448 16.521 18.580.733 24.671 16.729 NOX 58.582 11.530 15.554 1996 27.687.666 1999 5.352 1998 5.067 Hydro 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wind 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 10.184 5.250 473 573 4.679 5.131.695 33.896 136.687.762 SOX 115.432 2000 34.347 5.675 10.902 2.708 1997 30.131.521.644 328.808 Fuel Type Geothermal 261. 1991-2001 (MW) Year Luzon Visayas Mindanao Philippines Source: DOE 1991 3.311 20.727 29.164 19.511 2.076 2.990 99.704 18.133 30.582 11.932 154.116 20.038 973 1.864 26. 1991-2001 (GWh) 1991 Luzon Visayas Mindanao Philippines Source: DOE 1992 19.084 4.306 682 828 5.464 45.781 24.338.279 998.4: Peak Demand.351.820 474.360 14.555 30.204 160.081 1992 3.122.745 4.547.236.763 25.359 1.836 18.561 551 696 4.133 1.185.789 3.245 41.585.290 3.679 8.712.351.704 18.473 523 691 4.486 20.780 257. tonne Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Environmental Emissions CO 2 10.242 1.273 1.233 11.813 3.519.915 12.553.674 480.376 3. UPEEE Foundation page 2 of 2 .062 1.119.109 23.908 2000 5.773 727 852 6.049 19.004 906 1.159 13.831 189.870 1993 19.163 5.286.698 4.682 Table B.807 CO 16.755 4.411.586 126.688 3.481 5.989 12.175 5.282 286.411.296 1993 3.131.725 117.206 3.396 18.045 410 626 4.028 770 868 6.816 1997 4.348 2.283 15.708 23.441 5.808 1995 3.566.580 27.400 2001 5.649 Table B.127 1.365 39.611 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.471.222 Natural Gas 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.337 25.566.311 10.835 893 954 7.665 Coal 1.563 127.521.291 1996 4.362 14.428.872 6.103.579 1994 23.226 789 893 6.556 404.428.509.639 16.580.094.124 17.726 67.854 6.492 144.076 792 805 904 NMVOC 975 1.290 2001 36.233 11.164 19.964 114.970 527.345 2.238 106.644 13.491.652 4.578 1999 31.004 101.147 5.529 296.6: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Source.

Appendix C Economic Scenarios and DOE Plans for the Power Sector 2003-2012 .

789 1.159 1.91% 7.007 1.139 11.276 1.58% VISAYAS 1.1b: System Peak Demand Forecasts for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (MW) YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual Ave.997 12.563 1.869 13.041 7.829 1.95% 7.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.673 1.889 17.958 8.519 10.149 13.084 1.830 10.275 7.477 1.2007) (2008 .033 7.360 1.2012) (2003 .39% NATIONAL Non-Coincident Peak 8.814 15.2012) LUZON 6.26% 7. G.67% MINDANAO 1.1a: DOE Plan for Power Generation for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (GWh) Type Oil-Based Fuel Oil Diesel Coal Local Imported Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal Wind Others Baseload Midrange Peaking 2003 2720 2377 343 18629 2820 15809 13349 6324 14121 0 0 0 0 0 2004 3247 2747 500 18087 1101 16986 16017 6893 14975 153 0 0 0 0 2005 3127 2740 388 19953 1289 18664 17141 7928 15054 153 825 0 825 0 2006 2777 2701 75 24659 2216 22443 18210 7943 15092 153 746 0 746 0 69580 Year 2007 4318 4166 151 26446 2586 23860 19415 7968 15098 153 1551 1104 446 0 74948 2008 5117 4998 119 27561 2862 24698 20074 8001 15099 153 4433 2960 1473 0 80437 2009 5673 5499 174 29218 3200 26018 20260 8042 15095 153 7920 4028 3852 39 86360 2010 4577 4365 212 28828 3108 25720 20192 8069 15104 153 15713 10338 4881 495 92636 2011 3710 3580 130 27420 2789 24630 19965 8029 15103 153 24910 19206 5339 365 99290 2012 4015 3859 157 27606 2842 24764 20068 8038 15103 152 31448 25371 5545 531 106430 TOTAL 55142 59372 64182 Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 Table C. Inc.833 9.377 1.319 12.707 1.95% 6.93% 7.503 9.277 11. (2003 .459 1.034 7.31% 7. UPEEE Foundation page 1 of 16 .074 1.30% 7.57% Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.161 9.592 1.13% 7.R.168 1.912 2.548 11.254 1.855 8.752 7.813 14.

260 76.2012) LUZON 39.342 8.743 10.258 6.154 59.506 74.2007) (2008 .26% 7.103 9.R.31% 7.58% VISAYAS 5. G.39% TOTAL 51.016 9.452 7.754 7.497 9.539 69. UPEEE Foundation page 2 of 16 .420 11.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.660 61.391 71.548 64.411 9.686 7.604 42.91% 7.57% Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.675 46.827 92.072 49.30% 7.320 5.735 57.892 7.024 85.95% 7.870 66.2012) (2003 .057 98.13% 7.95% 6.135 11.1c: Electricity Sales Forecasts for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (GWh) YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual Ave.67% MINDANAO 6.182 55. (2003 .93% 7.726 6.306 7.740 7.875 53.801 8.170 6.274 7.661 10. Inc.924 8.564 80.

Inc.441 13.308 2010 1583 3758 450 3.817 2.517 2.657 616 - 1.308 2005 2443 3758 450 3.141 12.607 616 - 1.308 Luzon Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 2763 1510 907 - 2763 1860 907 65 - 2763 2205 907 65 - 2763 2205 907 65 - 2763 2205 907 65 - 2763 2205 907 65 - 2763 2205 907 65 2763 2205 907 65 2763 2205 907 65 2763 2205 907 65 Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking LUZON TOTAL Oil-based Coal Local Imported 600 1500 2100 900 1200 1500 1500 300 750 750 900 11.796 12.217 2.617 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.207 616 200 200 - 2.717 1.208 616 200 200 - 2.131 13.107 616 200 200 - 2.141 12.017 2.308 2009 2233 3758 450 3.308 2011 1583 3758 450 3.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.308 2004 2443 3758 450 3.647 1.367 2.308 616 200 200 - Natural Gas Mindanao Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 997 104 - 997 104 - 997 104 100 - 997 104 100 - 997 104 50 100 - 997 104 200 100 - 997 104 250 100 - 997 104 350 100 - 997 104 500 100 - 997 104 600 100 - Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking MINDANAO TOTAL 1.308 2008 2443 3758 450 3. UPEEE Foundation page 3 of 16 .707 616 200 200 - 1.907 616 200 200 - 2.067 2.781 468 431 281 281 281 281 281 281 182 182 300 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - Visayas Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 12 919 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking VISAYAS TOTAL Oil-based Coal Local Imported 200 - 250 - 100 250 - 200 250 - 300 350 - 400 350 - 500 350 - 600 350 - 1.831 15.031 15.308 2007 2443 3758 450 3.308 2006 2443 3758 450 3.1d: DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (MW) Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Local Imported Year 2003 2443 3758 450 3.141 12.267 2.308 2012 1583 3758 450 3.604 546 - 1.807 616 200 200 - 1.381 11.

563 2011 2.340 3.565 17.340 4.214 1.163 600 3.214 1.563 Philippines Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 2.500 1.763 3.350 300 2.763 3.563 2012 2.869 1.970 65 300 - 2.120 15.363 2004 3.163 600 3.214 1.130 4.381 4.163 600 3.970 65 2.563 2007 3.214 1.563 2010 2.214 1.756 20.763 3.163 600 3.970 65 400 650 - 2.763 3.970 65 150 350 - 2.763 3.970 65 1.950 900 Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking PHILIPPINES TOTAL 14.650 750 2.214 1.963 600 3.970 65 550 1.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Local Imported Year 2003 3.214 1.706 Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.340 4.865 16.480 4.350 1.970 65 3.505 18.363 2006 3.490 3.519 1. Inc.970 65 - 2.970 65 350 - 2.963 600 3.763 3.214 1.163 600 3.563 2008 3.163 600 3.163 600 3.563 2009 3.632 15.405 19.930 - 2.763 2.300 1.615 15.015 16.763 3. UPEEE Foundation page 4 of 16 .363 2005 3.963 600 3.457 3.763 3.340 4.950 750 2.763 2.381 4.

190 Cebu Baseload Panay Baseload 990 Baseload Plant 100 970 7.150 Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Inc.050 San Roque Hydro 2005 345 690 240 Diesel Plant from Luzon Midrange Plant 70 100 170 1.500 2.200 5.440 Cebu Baseload Negros Baseload 50 50 50 50 890 Baseload Plant 150 870 6.750 690 Baseload Plant 50 620 3.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.240 Cebu Baseload 4. UPEEE Foundation page 5 of 16 .1e: DOE Plan for Power Plant Line-Up for the Low Economic Growth Scenario LUZON YEAR PLANT ADDITION VISAYAS MINDANAO PHILIPPINES MW installed MW installed MW installed PLANT ADDITION PLANT ADDITION cumulative total capacity MW capacity MW capacity MW Uprating of LeyteBohol Interconnection from 35 MW to 100 MW Mambucal Geo 40 Kalayaan 3&4 350 2004 PNOC_EDC Wind Transfer of a Diesel Plant to Mindanao (70 MW) Northwind 40 345 40 385 -70 25 Uprating of LeyteCebu Interconnection from 200 MW to 400 MW Panay Midrange Negros Midrange 150 50 50 100 50 50 50 50 100 100 790 Baseload Plant 100 720 4.200 290 390 490 Mindanao Coal Baseload Plant Baseload Plant 200 50 150 370 420 570 1.890 Cebu Baseload Panay Baseload Bohol Midrange Baseload Plant 2010 Midrange Peaking Baseload Plant 2011 Midrange Baseload Plant 2012 Peaking 600 300 450 900 300 600 150 3.350 1.100 2006 2007 Midrange 2008 Midrange 2009 Peaking 300 690 690 990 Panay Midrange Panay Baseload Cebu Baseload Negros Baseload 600 300 1.

251 128.532 39.866.599 168.669.928 31.114.284 24.519 TOTAL 18.402.937 148.611 309.887.776 3.833.792 8.388.808 40.797 3.577.827.030 2.982.477 203.722 685.782 13.829 222.988 213.273 7.997 Table C.100 8.1g: Total SOx Emissions by Fuel Type for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total for period Geothermal Coal 137.803 103.445 Oil-based 21.785 39.981 303.816.985 42.770 25.821 2.158.635 582.936.203 265.201 30.939 26.820.450 295.939 Natural gas 21.760.534 8.091 57.495 685.317 211.435 81.242 75.061 35.849 7.927 8.177 92.113 283.855 246.503 1.573.896 9.536.568 115.600.609 10.965 83.521 36.536 Oil-based 12.051.464 Natural gas 104 125 134 143 152 157 159 158 156 157 1.624 7.941 384.963 15.528 31.876.865 683.497 195.303 265.289 159.163 437.676 6.188 139.991 33.531 14.289 28.493 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.1h: Total NOx Emissions by Fuel Type for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total for period Geothermal Coal 78.275.850 20.297 33.307.011 2.820.802.710 128.491 97.680 489.652 182.803.171 29.032 392.151 243.676 685.249.177 685.837 18.870 225.918 Coal 10.975 14.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.076.340 238. UPEEE Foundation page 6 of 16 .422 335.265.460 34.045.093 679.324 28.317. Inc.019 TOTAL 112.491.185 32.279 28.462 27.220 8.712 117.095 Oil-based 2.138 38.060.086 8.113.1f: Total CO2 Emissions by Fuel Type for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total for period Geothermal 641.922 Natural gas 5.660 169.313 685.764.962 16.894 22.229 8.788 1.633 164.416 21.088 TOTAL 159.897.316.125.086.453 Table C.631.908 32.809.330 25.449 685.828 345.644 7.188.304.103 21.687 16.429 181.812 32.778.452 685.993 46.897 189.855 133.352.921.465 5.821 2.410 40.844 147.264 8.762 94.927 8.840 51.571.958.020 289.410 89.951.869.

045 1.078 165.554 12.341 1.337 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.193 121.319 13.157 2.571 14.655 TOTAL 1.454 Oil-based 163 195 267 238 302 449 713 770 755 802 4.121 54.397 3.414 Oil-based 2.362 23.571 1.925 4.355 26.758 42.134 3.196 13.207 TOTAL 21.519 1.776 10.432 25.620 20.586 10.656 12. UPEEE Foundation page 7 of 16 .1k: Total NMVOC Emissions by Fuel Type for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total for period Geothermal Coal 373 362 399 493 551 610 665 783 933 1.586 1.712 28.586 50. Inc.254 1.385 11.1i: Total CO Emissions by Fuel Type for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total for period Geothermal Coal 9.580 1.966 32.971 12.060 6.595 46.285 13.176 17.810 2.049 Natural gas 8.241 28.240 4.125 13.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.763 13.730 Natural gas 145 174 186 198 211 218 220 219 217 218 2.602 16.008 Oil-based 33 40 49 44 59 82 121 129 122 131 810 TOTAL 282 314 346 379 423 470 526 566 598 644 4.575 13.758 24.069 14.548 Table C.323 362.630 2.999 7.671 Table C.363 36.250 3.1j: Total CH4 Emissions by Fuel Type for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total for period Geothermal Coal 103 100 111 137 153 170 185 218 259 294 1.228 Natural gas 1.008 2.873 9.963 3.053 76.373 2.425 1.714 3.529 11.274 13.581 1.562 1.268 11.

02 0.89 4.927 20.84 3.78 CO 0.03 0.01 0.02 Particulates 0.072 7.03 0.979 29.160 25.175 1.589 1.389 15.952 38.37 0.47 0.394 15.39 410.995 Table C.69 2.52 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.03 0.37 438.424 1.97 2.04 1.52 3.342 Natural gas 313 376 402 428 456 471 476 474 469 471 4.073 1.89 2.02 0.24 3.03 0.778 1.34 0.836 7.257 1.02 0.43 0.50 SOX 2.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.620 274.02 0.698 3.01 0.03 0.466 41.923 7.36 390.02 0.01 0.122 1.969 2.50 0.264 1.02 0.02 0.39 0.41 0.140 22.653 49.50 0.387 TOTAL 19.256 11.973 33.15 4.250 1.563 Oil-based 2.78 346.42 0.008 TOTAL 952 1.01 0.244 26.353 55.01 0.256 34.858 29.647 338.399 1.41 4.35 2.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0. UPEEE Foundation page 8 of 16 .14 2.1l: Total N 2O Emissions by Fuel Type for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total for period Geothermal Coal 559 543 599 740 827 916 997 1.686 Table C.67 2.03 0.39 373.275 1.40 0.589 9.003 1.57 2.35 0.1m: Total Particulate Emissions by Fuel Type for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total for period Geothermal Coal 16.39 0.336 Oil-based 79 95 121 108 142 202 305 320 308 328 2.25 2.50 0.42 0.044 Natural gas 836 1.01 NMVOC 0.684 7.60 NOX 2.013 1.51 CH4 0.528 3.771 53.03 0.1n: Environmental Emissions per Unit Generation (tonne/kWh) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Environmental Emissions CO2 340.55 338.03 N2O 0.66 358.01 0. Inc.139 4.140 1.01 0.221 3.216 1.176 2.06 3.209 43.44 0.01 2.49 0.514 5.700 24.97 421.36 0.66 429.02 0.031 46.46 0.45 2.03 0.559 21.268 1.917 17.

Inc.194 1.512 1.186 10.313 1.176 1.09% 8.2012) (2003 .711 9.862 12.13% 8.73% 7. (2003 .994 8.809 1.790 18.92% 8.106 MINDANAO 1.94% 8.562 16.65% 7.438 10.R.469 11. UPEEE Foundation page 9 of 16 .23% Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.992 11.106 8.2a: DOE Plan for Power Generation for the High Economic Growth Scenario (GWh) Type Oil-Based Fuel Oil Diesel Coal Local Imported Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal Wind Others Baseload Midrange Peaking 2003 2865 2465 400 18893 3082 15811 13349 6324 14126 0 0 0 0 0 2004 3614 3018 596 18850 1363 17487 16084 6893 15000 153 0 0 0 0 2005 3484 2956 528 21243 2323 18920 17439 7932 15076 153 937 0 937 0 2006 3899 3725 175 26016 2507 23509 18578 7952 15101 153 952 0 952 0 72650 Year 2007 6367 6021 345 27836 2923 24912 19791 8020 15104 153 1883 1142 741 0 79153 2008 6225 6074 151 29335 3158 26177 20221 8027 15104 153 6743 3435 3308 0 85807 2009 5758 5555 203 30518 3372 27146 20260 8073 15101 153 13254 5158 8062 33 93115 2010 3494 3339 155 29734 3242 26492 20192 8069 15104 153 24128 13769 10345 14 100874 2011 3009 2944 64 28946 3042 25904 19965 8043 15105 153 34095 22932 11154 10 109316 2012 4246 4088 157 30604 3338 27267 20122 8093 15106 152 40147 24783 15028 336 118470 TOTAL 55556 60595 66263 Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 Table C.633 10.883 9.2b: System Peak Demand Forecasts for the High Economic Growth Scenario (MW) YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual Ave.630 1. G.757 1.22% 8.60% 8.815 VISAYAS 1.675 1.953 2.281 1.804 13.59% 7.788 7.543 1.46% 8.014 1.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.428 1.186 NATIONAL Non-Coincident Peak 8.424 12.099 1.423 15.2012) LUZON 6.400 1.378 13.90% 8.357 7.034 2.2007) (2008 .359 14.891 2.081 1.

305 6. UPEEE Foundation page 10 of 16 .847 12. (2003 .73% 7.469 55.90% 8.555 10.578 75.266 104.124 8.46% 6. G.13% 51.938 7.300 6.542 8.814 60.807 6.363 59.392 83.314 11.60% 8.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.149 8.233 11.94% 8.104 81.888 8.851 7.2c: Electricity Sales Forecasts for the High Economic Growth Scenario (GWh) YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual Ave.465 8.92% 8.658 66.814 43.033 8.497 10.64% 7.015 11.156 46.474 69.805 9.555 90.148 97.23% Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.2012) (2003 .848 9.746 64. Inc.187 71.R.09% 8.2012) 39.355 5.155 8.22% 5.59% 7.2007) (2008 .711 77.888 51.732 8.094 55.

205 907 65 2.857 616 200 200 - 2. UPEEE Foundation page 11 of 16 .763 2.800 3.007 616 200 200 - 2.205 907 65 2.141 12.308 2008 2.500 900 2.381 17.308 2007 2.647 1.131 468 205 150 55 - 431 205 150 55 - 281 205 150 55 - 281 205 150 55 - 281 205 150 55 - 281 205 150 55 - 281 205 150 55 - 281 205 150 55 - 182 205 150 55 - 182 205 150 55 - Natural Gas Visayas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 12 919 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking VISAYAS TOTAL Oil-based Coal Local Imported 200 - 250 - 100 300 - 200 350 - 400 500 - 550 550 - 650 650 - 750 650 - 1.763 2.758 450 3.2d: DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the High Economic Growth Scenario (MW) Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Local Imported Year 2003 2.583 3.867 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.308 2004 2.443 3.800 3.758 450 3.763 2.317 2.308 2006 2.443 3.767 2.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.308 2012 1.443 3.763 2.763 1.017 2.583 3.205 907 65 2.300 750 LUZON TOTAL Oil-based Coal Local Imported 11.604 546 - 1.758 450 3.758 450 3.758 450 3.205 907 65 2.205 907 65 2.308 2011 1.763 1.557 616 200 200 - 2.763 2.763 2.817 2. Inc.758 450 3.607 616 - 1.658 616 200 200 - 2.758 616 200 200 - Natural Gas Mindanao Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 997 104 - 997 104 - 997 104 100 - 997 104 100 - 997 104 50 100 - 997 104 250 150 - 997 104 300 150 - 997 104 400 250 - 997 104 550 300 - 997 104 650 300 - Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking MINDANAO TOTAL 1.763 2.233 3.758 450 3.308 2005 2.141 12.443 3.308 2009 2.657 616 - 1.583 3.860 907 65 2.510 907 - 2.443 3.205 907 65 2.300 1.796 12.205 907 65 Luzon Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking 300 1.443 3.308 Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 2.881 16.381 11.367 2.308 2010 1.431 14.763 2.707 616 200 200 - 1.717 1.357 616 200 200 - 2.758 450 3.758 450 3.067 2.700 1.758 450 3.205 907 65 2.567 2.441 13.141 12.

763 3.519 1.563 2010 2.756 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.214 1.970 65 2.500 0 3.563 2009 3.930 - 2.763 3.763 3.480 4.490 3.970 65 2.963 600 3.763 2.120 15.381 4.970 65 2.765 18.963 600 3.850 3.763 3.155 20.869 1.970 65 2.130 4.200 4.763 3.763 3.000 4. Inc.150 0 1.214 1.363 2005 3.970 65 Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking 300 350 150 400 450 800 700 2.763 3.163 600 3.763 2.970 65 2.865 16.615 15.970 65 2.340 4.563 Philippines Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 2.250 0 3.214 1.340 3.970 65 2.214 1.340 4.250 750 PHILIPPINES TOTAL 14.970 65 2.163 600 3.806 22.340 4.563 2008 3.163 600 3.563 2012 2.005 21. UPEEE Foundation page 12 of 16 .Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Local Imported Year 2003 3.363 2006 3.163 600 3.963 600 3.214 1.163 600 3.163 600 3.632 15.563 2011 2.763 3.163 600 3.457 3.381 4.214 1.214 1.563 2007 3.214 1.363 2004 3.065 16.

290 Cebu Baseload Bohol Midrange Baseload Plant Midrange Plant 100 50 870 6.200 4.250 Midrange 1.100 2005 150 50 50 100 50 50 50 50 100 50 50 50 100 150 50 1.790 Cebu Baseload Negros Baseload Cebu Midrange 50 50 100 50 50 1.350 1.540 Cebu Baseload Panay Baseload 1.170 9.300 2010 Midrange Baseload Plant 2011 Midrange 900 600 5.2e: DOE Plan for Power Plant Line-Up for the High Economic Growth Scenario LUZON YEAR PLANT ADDITION Kalayaan 3&4 VISAYAS MINDANAO PHILIPPINES MW installed MW installed MW installed PLANT ADDITION PLANT ADDITION cumulative total capacity MW capacity MW capacity MW 350 345 Uprating of LeyteBohol Interconnection from 35 MW to 100 MW from 35 MW to 100 MW Mambucal Geo 40 0 385 PNOC_EDC Wind 2004 Transfer of Hopewell GT to Mindanao (70 MW) Northwind San Roque Hydro 40 -70 40 25 345 690 Uprating of LeyteCebu Interconnection from 200 MW to 400 MW Panay Midrange Negros Midrange 240 Hopewell GT from Luzon 70 170 1.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.150 Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.850 2009 Negros Baseload Cebu Midrange Bohol Midrange Baseload Plant 900 1.190 Cebu Baseload Panay Baseload Baseload Plant 50 720 3.070 8. Inc.200 2.440 Baseload Plant 100 1.140 940 590 290 440 Midrange Plant 100 2006 2007 Midrange 2008 300 690 690 Panay Midrange Panay Baseload Panay Midrange Mindanao Coal Baseload Plant 200 50 370 420 1.200 Peaking 2012 750 6.550 990 Cebu Baseload Cebu Midrange Negros Baseload Baseload Plant Midrange Plant 200 50 670 2. UPEEE Foundation page 13 of 16 .340 Baseload Plant Midrange Plant 150 50 1.

677 174.708 137.620.891 11.945 479.125.806.250 284.706 153.722 685. UPEEE Foundation page 14 of 16 .862 11.779 15.774 12.701 Natural gas 5.927 8.415 Natural gas 21.572.891 8.456 Oil-based 27.582 40.890.220 8.207 14.888 232.2h: Total NOx Emissions by Fuel Type for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total for period Geothermal Coal 79.625 1.645.2f: Total CO2 Emissions by Fuel Type for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total for period Geothermal 641.124 8.921.609 28.450 685.636 Natural gas 104 126 136 145 155 158 159 158 156 157 1.792.877.537 16.808 139.198.897 409.630 162.435 2.664.793 3.863.198 192.713 217.895 12.293 82.686 Coal 10.820.912.808 243.722 685.634 149.437 242.322 12.185 32.897.518 214.2g: Total SOx Emissions by Fuel Type for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total for period Geothermal Coal 139.180 42.254 191.829 347.897.922 383.565.052 418.734.297 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.267 121.300.043 41.221 109.951.070 305.518 77.843 20.686 347.094 104.073.689 Oil-based 9.866 288.258.812 6.970.533 32.035 TOTAL 19.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.828.989.296 1.050.498 264.864 2.211 173.945 1.735.042 17.226 7.787.106.785.934.033 8.585 685.743.194 TOTAL 111.370.526 33.909 224.490 157.170 89.297 33.887 197.173 56.434 28.000 684.473 51. Inc.299 33.710 546.704.239 10.017 30.060.465.208.824 13.639 34.253.534.912 293.839 182.234.396 154.051 8.172 22.529 5.673 35.688 221.862.264 8.965 19.014 42.767 685.849 7.812 33.399.055 2.341 26.124 11.840.498 130.198.879 Oil-based 2.021.796 44.167.873 49.351 79.822 23.590 Table C.877 20.202 74.383 326.859 7.744.300 Table C.317 3.683 61.294.064 118.488.941 30.233 33.178.206 180.722 685.585 685.653 27.002 321.316 257.939 26.741 631.499 TOTAL 167.320 681.784 157.661 30.

Appendix C

POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines

Table C.2i: Total CO Emissions by Fuel Type for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario (tonne)
Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total for period Geothermal Coal 10,013 9,991 11,259 13,788 15,358 17,368 18,908 23,057 27,495 29,355 176,593 Natural gas 8,776 10,573 11,464 12,213 13,010 13,293 13,319 13,274 13,125 13,228 122,275 Oil-based 2,962 3,719 4,122 5,529 7,831 11,691 18,574 19,701 20,452 28,027 122,608 TOTAL 21,751 24,283 26,845 31,530 36,199 42,352 50,801 56,032 61,072 70,610 421,476

Table C.2j: Total CH4 Emissions by Fuel Type for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario (tonne)
Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total for period Geothermal Coal 105 105 118 145 161 182 198 242 288 308 1,851 Natural gas 145 175 190 202 215 220 220 219 217 219 2,022 Oil-based 33 42 43 55 80 112 171 176 182 252 1,145 TOTAL 283 321 351 402 456 514 589 638 687 778 5,018

Table C.2k: Total NMVOC Emissions by Fuel Type for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario (tonne)
Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total for period Geothermal Coal 378 377 425 520 580 655 714 870 1,038 1,108 6,664 Natural gas 1,045 1,259 1,365 1,454 1,549 1,583 1,586 1,580 1,562 1,575 14,557 Oil-based 177 222 250 332 468 707 1,136 1,212 1,260 1,726 7,489 TOTAL 1,599 1,858 2,039 2,306 2,596 2,945 3,435 3,662 3,860 4,409 28,710

University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas, Inc. UPEEE Foundation

page 15 of 16

Appendix C

POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines

Table C.2l: Total N 2O Emissions by Fuel Type for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario (tonne)
Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total for period Geothermal Coal 567 566 637 780 869 983 1,070 1,305 1,556 1,662 9,996 Natural gas 313 378 409 436 465 475 476 474 469 472 4,367 Oil-based 90 112 114 159 232 322 478 486 500 686 3,176 TOTAL 970 1,055 1,160 1,376 1,566 1,779 2,024 2,265 2,525 2,820 17,539

Table C.2m: Total Particulate Emissions by Fuel Type for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario (tonne)
Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total for period Geothermal Coal 16,626 16,588 18,694 22,894 25,501 28,838 31,395 38,283 45,653 48,741 293,211 Natural gas 836 1,007 1,092 1,163 1,239 1,266 1,268 1,264 1,250 1,260 11,645 Oil-based 2,215 2,898 2,688 3,074 4,691 5,709 7,991 7,688 7,697 11,131 55,783 TOTAL 19,677 20,493 22,474 27,131 31,430 35,813 40,655 47,235 54,599 61,132 360,639

Table C.1n: Environmental Emissions per Unit Generation (tonne/kWh)
Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Environmental Emissions CO2 370.14 373.78 375.67 406.38 429.91 454.81 485.58 498.86 511.34 536.71 SOX 3.25 3.10 3.16 3.68 4.03 4.48 5.01 5.32 5.62 6.02 NOX 2.16 2.12 2.15 2.32 2.44 2.56 2.68 2.86 3.02 3.12 CO 0.42 0.44 0.44 0.48 0.50 0.55 0.61 0.62 0.63 0.67 CH4 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 NMVOC 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 N2O 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 Particulates 0.38 0.37 0.37 0.41 0.44 0.46 0.49 0.52 0.56 0.58

University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas, Inc. UPEEE Foundation

page 16 of 16

Appendix D
Clean Power Development Options 2003-2012

Appendix D

POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines

APPENDIX D.1 LOW ECONOMIC GROWTH SCENARIOMODERATE CLEAN POWER DEVELOPMENT OPTION (LEGS-MCPD)

University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas, Inc. UPEEE Foundation

page 1 of 16

758 3.983 1.491 2.404 235 13.146 647 250 188 1.149 559 205 956 12 1.558 12 80 2.101 629 205 1.011 1.831 92 315 17.697 3.213 2.971 2.205 25 12.383 977 2.283 1.415 12 40 2.216 63 100 80 2.860 25 11.267 2.467 12 60 2.871 1.531 3.422 400 14.941 605 205 1.011 3.895 2. UPEEE Foundation Visayas page 2 of 16 .214 80 65 16.763 1.747 4.971 3.624 2.214 25 15.678 547 108 997 1.213 5.012 647 250 148 1.711 4.671 92 170 16.983 2.758 3.942 112 850 21.923 2.205 65 12.116 37 100 60 2.763 907 1.189 609 205 956 12 80 1.781 4.491 2.205 65 12.758 3.138 2.163 2.758 2.925 112 520 18.287 4.419 609 205 1.759 2.917 4.763 1.797 525 14.061 3.227 2.782 647 200 108 997 1.658 12 100 2.694 609 205 986 12 80 20 1.652 3.398 647 250 228 1.1a: Installed Capacity (MW) Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Luzon Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind LUZON TOTAL Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind VISAYAS TOTAL Oil-based Coal Mindanao Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind MINDANAO TOTAL Oil-based Coal Philippines Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind PHILIPPINES TOTAL Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.127 4.429 545 205 916 12 1.775 2.732 647 108 997 1.213 5.862 647 250 108 997 2. Inc.763 907 2.652 3.758 3.758 3.283 2.763 907 1.763 1.191 3.194 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.871 5.491 2.519 14.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.312 3.053 3.066 12 80 40 2.491 2.985 5.269 647 250 228 1.510 11.931 2.752 3.633 2.971 3.583 2.287 3.002 3.383 2.763 907 2.313 4.211 650 15.213 3.214 50 65 15.547 3.942 5.758 3.963 2.963 2.763 907 2.418 112 685 19.682 547 108 997 1.763 1.404 130 12.213 5.661 1.697 4.869 25 15.512 2.763 1.901 655 205 1.263 4.758 3.583 3.583 1.917 4.491 1.189 559 205 956 12 50 1.758 3.912 647 250 128 1.963 2.804 509 205 956 12 1.971 3.583 2.266 73 100 100 2.011 1.758 3.583 947 2.213 4.255 12 20 2.952 3.

782 13.430 Table D.820.209 Total Addition Table D.641 6.271 21.141 18.465 5.484 1.181 69.045.114.1d: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.349 16.060 33.579 1.1b: Annual Capacity Additions (MW) Year Oil-based Current Installed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3.936.583 0 0 300 0 50 0 0 20 75 50 Coal 3.383 Natural Gas 5.272 Total 55.784 15.948 80.275.580 74.760.896 9.087 19.121 14.943 27.776 3.915 Coal 18.869.174.783 15.689 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.360 92.849 7.099 14.215.590 1.374 30.821 2.813 19.757 846.931 0 40 0 0 0 90 130 340 180 70 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 2.415 20.297 Hydro Biomass Wind Total 18.720 3.623.151.093 679.576 14.402.951 31.449 685.577.893 7.534 8.477 12.857 27.094.652 1.916.324 6.850 20.284 24.148 1.571.624 7.596 1.372 64. Inc.281.125.687 16.125.968 8.778.085 16.158.706 1.152.061 27.979.495 639.333.143 59.975 15.054 15.097 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 14.757 30.865 683.659 27.1c: Power Generation (GWh) Year Oil-based 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.943 7.837 15.835 Natural Gas 13.313 1.908 Coal 10.816.113.391 1.343 16.020.263 14.521 27.609 10.644 1.289 106.519 0 350 345 0 0 457 160 94 493 524 Biomass 0 0 0 0 50 30 12 0 20 0 0 Wind 0 0 25 0 40 0 105 145 205 165 165 0 415 645 290 130 1.438 86.213 1.953 24.629 18.764 6.654 29.098 15.927 8.589 27.536.235 1.177 685.797 3.523 4.452 685.247 3.456 758.975 14.017 17.550 30.011 2.101 Fuel Type Geothermal 641.763 0 0 0 0 0 820 800 900 300 400 1.963 0 0 0 200 50 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 2.388.462 27.636 99.573.894 22.133.229 8.710 18.901.076.216 13.653 821.937 1.982.833.113.528 31.210 19.906 27.249.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.092 15.100 18.958.928 7. UPEEE Foundation page 3 of 16 .089.897.952 3.884 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 0 645 785 785 785 Wind 0 153 153 153 153 153 843 1.831 2.086 11.074 24.001 16.

43 0.954 180.650 218.355 26.687 38.013 1.01 0.029 NOX 112.442 34.373 2.251 128.936.25 2.02 0.152.275 Environmental Emissions CO 21.589 775.238 N 2O 952 1.451 943.06 3.981 3.40 0.113 283.38 0.97 2.03 0.839 27.66 358.584 2.810 2.380 169.01 0.04 3.424 1.28 0.32 0.1g: Generation Cost Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Generation Cost US$/kWh 0.147 943.542 Table D.061 27.927 20.09 314.42 0.39 323.03 0.01 0.1f: Environmental Emission per Unit Generation (tonne/GWh) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 340.01 0.03 N2O 0.535 Particulates 19.137 171.06 0.284 24.952 27.04 1.36 0.27 Table D.03 0.06 0.46 0.363 36.88 SO X 2.35 1.151 243.241 28.52 2.39 0.966 32.35 0.37 0.122 1.30 0. Inc.17 2.37 0.55 338.422 217.69 Environmental Emissions CO CH 4 0.689 SOX 159.536 27.916.275 1.05 3.05 3.215.84 3.901.03 0.70 304.840 217.89 2.34 0.12 3.03 0.06 0.87 Particulates 0. UPEEE Foundation page 4 of 16 .02 0.726 215.36 0.044 CH 4 282 314 346 379 423 470 443 470 497 536 NMVOC 1.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.24 3.39 373.50 8.712 117.31 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.317 164.35 2.140 22.03 0.937 148.14 2.988 213.157 2.289 159.03 0.98 10.01 0.78 346.20 3.758 32.18 9.581 1.73 1.06 3.677 28.06 0.83 1.36 0.52 2.10 3.42 0.979 29.462 27.973 33.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.850 20.362 23.69 2.757 30.10 3.36 390.778.01 NMVOC 0.01 2.06 PhP/kWh 3.599 168.249.06 0.397 943.894 22.06 0.39 0.02 8.1e: Environmental Emissions (tonne) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 18.630 2.160 25.41 0.05 NOX 2.02 0.19 3.982.01 0.02 0.06 0.897 189.06 0.779 2.528 31.32 299.113.654 29.06 0.402.90 1.008 2.951 31.03 0.429 181.03 0.110 35.

UPEEE Foundation page 5 of 16 . Inc.2 LOW ECONOMIC GROWTH SCENARIOAGGRESSIVE CLEAN POWER DEVELOPMENT OPTION (LEGS-ACPD) University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines APPENDIX D.

763 2.214 80 65 16.071 3.763 2.922 647 250 128 1.063 3.763 1.825 510 205 1.168 4.971 3.227 2.971 3.968 2.138 907 2.325 3.418 117 2.189 559 205 956 12 50 1.697 4.213 4.952 3.963 2.413 647 250 228 1.136 647 250 188 1.957 2.214 25 15.011 1.221 3.758 3.758 3.807 21.758 3.127 4.763 1.011 1.042 647 250 148 1.255 12 33 2.465 16.2a: Installed Capacity (MW) Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Luzon Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind LUZON TOTAL Oil-based Coal Visayas Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind VISAYAS TOTAL Oil-based Coal Mindanao Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind MINDANAO TOTAL Oil-based Philippines Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind PHILIPPINES TOTAL Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.991 4.146 37 80 60 2.831 117 1.267 4.917 4.096 12 80 40 2.932 117 3.869 25 15.267 2.488 1.682 547 108 997 1.467 12 179 2.963 2.283 647 250 228 1.491 2.968 5.168 4.923 907 2.763 2.558 12 262 2.865 14.747 4.476 63 80 80 2.661 1.658 12 335 3.265 13.778 2. Inc.415 12 106 2.491 2.429 545 205 916 12 1.422 25 1.213 2.758 3.291 510 205 1.214 50 65 15.752 3.578 2.758 3.205 65 12.871 1.763 3.510 11.053 947 2.491 2.468 907 1.868 609 205 1.213 5.213 3.925 117 2. UPEEE Foundation page 6 of 16 .763 1.548 2.411 18.548 4.732 647 108 997 1.491 1.860 25 11.763 2.971 3.205 65 12.931 2.213 4.104 19.758 3.758 2.797 25 2.561 3.480 23.002 3.862 647 250 108 997 2.404 25 1.718 609 205 996 12 80 20 1.964 977 2.759 907 1.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.671 102 718 16.841 4.678 547 108 997 1.633 907 2.189 609 205 956 12 80 1.065 17.063 2.758 3.011 3.758 3.652 3.743 2.782 647 200 108 997 1.531 1.213 3.163 2.547 3.735 1.804 509 205 956 12 1.856 609 205 1.519 14.468 2.971 2.287 3.763 1.778 4.404 10 665 12.763 1.652 3.583 3.346 63 80 80 2.369 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.211 25 3.491 2.697 3.130 2.205 25 12.963 2.758 3.149 559 205 956 12 1.

076.181 69.263 6.098 13.436.177 685.141 18.573.778.092 15.528 26.452 685.178.361 10.709 1.017 17.816.943 7.732 12.136 2.545 16.534 8.125.449 597.317 16.782 13.247 3.763 0 0 0 0 0 300 715 770 420 500 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 1.045.629 18.550 26.708 27.622 7.117 10.365 *includes capacities of diesel engines used as ancillary to wind power plants Table D.536.093 679.529 26.210 19.654 1.360 92.770 5.919 Hydro Biomass Wind Total 18.850 20.158.284 24.692 27.345 16.891 26.694 Fuel Type Geothermal 641.138 26.415 18.894 22.2d: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type (tonne) Year Oil-based 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.229 8.332 919.372 64.931 0 40 0 0 0 100 150 340 280 150 2.791.114.249.821 2.975 15.583 0 0 300 0 50 548 548 488 538 528 Coal 3.958.609 10.158 14.032.087 19.557.462 27.856 14.534 21.281 2.778.602 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.2c: Power Generation (GWh) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.893 7.797 3.865 683.908 Coal 10.170 867.849 7.636 99.776 3.897.477 12.919 3.287 9.973 769.647 13.580 74.016.388.982.465 3.704 1.157.385 3.320.975 14.387 1.198 29.349 16.820.385 2.760.203.659 27.172.809 13.433 2.953 24.132.927 8.082 Natural Gas 5.948 80.369 11.922 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 14.737.341 22.2b: Annual Capacity Additions (MW) Year Oil-based* Currently Installed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.720 3.885 32.545.324 6.942 19.758.764 4.121 14.968 15.245 Natural Gas 13.103.936.952 3.928 7.270 21.963 0 0 0 200 50 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 2.011 2.790 1. Inc.289 106.333.054 15.113.915 Coal 18.104 20.437 86.430 Table D.741 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 715 820 820 436 259 Wind 0 153 153 153 153 1.833.961.687 14.375 24.651 1. UPEEE Foundation page 7 of 16 .655 20.992.519 0 350 345 0 0 457 160 94 492 514 Biomass 0 0 0 0 50 30 22 15 0 0 0 Wind 0 0 25 0 40 0 653 693 693 703 673 Total Addition 0 415 645 290 130 2.577.624 7.896 9.523 4.815 19.079 2.143 59.746 23.386 649.085 Total 55.676.

30 0.48 2.37 0.927 20.311 525.06 0.791.33 0.12 3. Inc.355 26.36 325.362 23.43 0.01 0.66 358.23 0.03 0.02 10.06 0.03 0.275 1.45 308.39 0.906 CH 4 282 314 346 379 423 389 418 444 462 492 NMVOC 1.00 0.01 0.97 2.03 0.05 0.06 0.55 338.140 22.897 155.988 213.01 2.692 27.41 10.737 148.122 1.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.34 0.38 3.426 33.89 2.41 0.37 0.24 2.599 168.03 0.301 985.937 148.679 2.178.289 159.52 NOX 2.086 24.376 30.40 0.39 373.739 161.013 1.36 0.75 1.2g: Generation Cost Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Generation Cost US$/kWh 0.48 1.03 0.442 21.00 0.966 32.90 288.25 1.35 0.2f: Environmental Emission per Unit Generation (tonne/GWh) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 340.982.602 SOX 159.676.223 151.94 Particulates 0.23 3.06 0.06 0.138 26.42 0.03 0.373 2.32 0.154 2.475 31.01 0.39 Environmental Emissions CO CH 4 0.113.39 0.107 Environmental Emissions CO 21.63 1.73 1.01 3.84 3.54 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.06 PhP/kWh 3.00 NMVOC 0.14 2.675 146.073 N 2O 952 1.810 2.26 0.00 0.2e: Environmental Emissions (tonne) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 18.03 0.528 26.712 117.539 185.93 1.06 3.008 2.34 0.363 29.151 243.35 0.03 N2O 0.02 0.06 0.15 3.010 26.581 1.891 26.21 Table D.894 22.89 2.69 2.546 150.04 1.01 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.68 11.424 859.06 0.02 0.973 28.849 3.583 Particulates 19.020 22.00 0.065 214.04 3.850 20.936.13 SO X 2.462 27.63 271.02 0.157 2.00 1.113 232.251 128.05 3.64 5.03 0.125 985. UPEEE Foundation page 8 of 16 .731 171.150 312.778.852 Table D.05 3.35 0.241 28.29 2.10 3.78 346.979 29.407 2.249.529 26.160 25.429 181.859 NOX 112.54 261.284 24.961.702 32.03 0.737.

3 HIGH ECONOMIC GROWTH SCENARIOMODERATE CLEAN POWER DEVELOPMENT OPTION (HEGS-MCPD) University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines APPENDIX D. Inc. UPEEE Foundation page 9 of 16 .

404 130 12.758 3.276 37 100 65 2.163 4.583 4.205 25 12.518 100 739 22.581 2.797 565 16.022 3.007 1.043 907 2.804 509 205 956 12 1.971 2.429 545 205 916 12 1.027 977 2.758 3.267 2.763 2.763 3.287 3.301 3.583 2.205 65 12.963 2.412 3.071 3.211 690 17.189 609 205 956 12 50 1.963 2.197 4. Inc.291 629 205 1.163 6.422 440 15.703 907 2.011 1.163 2.691 4.333 4.678 547 108 997 1.519 14.883 80 364 18.971 3.763 1.987 4.510 11.767 3.758 2.383 907 1.658 89 2.011 1.758 3.971 100 904 22.763 1.758 3.763 1.116 100 574 20.758 3.945 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.491 2.041 4.661 1.892 2.763 2.138 907 2.971 3.433 7.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.922 717 200 128 1.581 605 205 1.073 947 2.383 3.862 717 200 108 997 2.511 1.758 3.214 25 15.652 3.869 25 15.658 69 2.652 3.214 50 65 16.526 73 100 105 2.341 655 205 1.404 275 13.491 2.931 2.783 80 150 17.817 4.733 2.583 3.971 4.183 2.832 717 200 108 997 2.963 2.163 7.476 63 100 85 2.763 1.687 109 2.163 2.367 2.663 717 200 228 1.763 1.871 1.758 3.022 3.189 609 205 956 12 80 1.971 3.149 559 205 956 12 1.758 3.682 547 108 997 1.759 907 1.163 3.491 2.491 2.183 7.433 2.383 4.122 717 200 148 1.311 717 200 188 1.763 2.434 1.547 3.732 717 108 997 1.534 717 200 228 1. UPEEE Foundation page 10 of 16 .163 7.176 12 80 40 2.733 6.011 3.694 609 205 996 12 80 20 1.3a: Installed Capacity (MW) Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Natura Gas l Luzon Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind LUZON TOTAL Oil-based Coal Visayas Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind VISAYAS TOTAL Oil-based Coal Mindanao Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind MINDANAO TOTAL Oil-based Philippines Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind PHILIPPINES TOTAL Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.758 3.763 2.941 2.809 609 205 1.467 49 2.822 3.357 4.214 80 65 16.205 65 12.491 1.860 25 11.832 2.817 4.227 2.

785.269 36.234.252.585.768 3.859 3.534.458 Natural Gas 5.928.862.769 22.101 15.672.859.535 1.650 79.448 Hydro Biomass Wind Total 19.573 1.864 3.537 18.885 23.602 17.978 27.465 37.103 16.258.916.016 28.907 937.897.574 1.850 7.569.130 20.463 2.324 6.188.263 72.128.243 26.671 14.893 18.773.749 2.964 Natural Gas 13.891 8.407.879 3.840.984 30.503 42.050.000 15.3c: Power Generation (GWh) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.458 14.791 23.158 14.3d: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type (tonne) Year Oil-based 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.226 7.807 93.874 109.315 118.404 13.964 26.734.646 2.991 Coal 10.963 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 2.169 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.496 5.578 19.107 4.106.555.745 912.065 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 14.893 7. UPEEE Foundation page 11 of 16 .694 2.209 26.739 26.934 17.583 0 0 370 50 0 0 0 20 75 50 Coal 3.519 0 350 345 0 0 569 100 233 402 453 Biomass 0 0 0 0 50 30 0 0 20 0 0 Wind 0 0 25 0 40 0 85 214 210 165 165 Total Addition 14.849 7.640.126 15.349 16.496 14.124 8.386 678.600 16. Inc.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.484.640.190 3.226.672 938 Table D.952 8.946 20.722 597.919 33.779 15.649 6.033.664.150 1.585 685.858 1.931 0 40 0 0 0 100 230 390 280 70 2.104 13.272 Fuel Type Geothermal 641.3b: Annual Capacity Additions (MW) Year Oil-based Currently Installed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3.252 2.146 29.042 15.317 Total 55.777 34.471 Table D.747 Coal 18.850 21.973 27.020 16.744.125.766 19.932 7.208 14.076 15.759 0 415 715 340 30 1.695.108 20.479 27.595 66.141.163 30.439 18.320 681.450 685.153 85.084 17.855.828.615 4.367 2.207 14.019 814.704.051 10.891 11.700 750 200 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 1.897.673 29.722 2.028 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 561 561 701 343 701 Wind 0 153 153 153 153 402 974 1.321 14.756 31.877 1.763 0 0 0 0 0 820 1.218.556 60.110 2.239 10.000 684.420 4.208.920.156.115 100.

202 173.9923 2.266 191.02 0.546 36.0549 0.199 33.858 2.0622 3.984 30.79 385.18 351.01 1.04 0.4193 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.101 CH 4 283 321 358 402 456 453 509 540 592 655 NMVOC 1.42 0.733 174.264 200.02 0.98 Environmental Emissions CO CH 4 0.44 2.845 Particulates 19.620 4.01 0.673 29.672.062 118.01 0.04 0.01 0.06 NOX 2.0561 0. Inc.156.151 31.0536 2.07 9.065 2.636 217.186 1.71 8.69 4.48 0.13 373.21 2.38 0.04 N2O 0.41 SO X 3.099 214.04 0.03 0.304 36.04 Particulates 0.284 27.428 38.03 0.01 0.734 179.01 0.03 0.3f: Environmental Emission per Unit Generation (tonne/GWh) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 370.859.56 0.739 26.37 0.559 3.430 43.01 NMVOC 0.0544 0.294 244.1790 3.274 3.44 0.03 3.90 406.68 429.45 0.0175 3.359 842.500 132.750 24.447 153.35 4.777 34.3g: Generation Cost Generation Cost US$/kWh PhP/kWh 0.343 31.10 2.916.44 0.43 0.873 215.39 2.141.97 1.599 1.163 30.42 0. UPEEE Foundation page 12 of 16 .169 S OX 167.272 41.91 376.024 N 2O 970 1.755 181.02 8.828.506 45.617 413.677 42.02 0.54 367.096 27.10 3.61 2.0555 0.494 23.38 0.344 45.024 3.50 0.44 0.01 0.166 37.591 216.307 2.377 1.25 8.050.43 0.711 48.0554 0.01 0.18 2.43 0.389 NOX 111.055 1.03 0.0603 0.0868 3.372 842.686 239.46 Table D.3e: Environmental Emissions (tonne) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 19.30 3.756 31.596 2.887 173.16 2.03 0.684 207.928.9744 3.15 2.17 351.32 2.421 Environmental Emissions CO 21.0495 3.130 20.3138 3.269 36.139 288.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.12 2.39 0.676 20.0542 0.51 0.099 Table D.01 0.04 0.10 354.0541 0.41 0.01 0.566 674.24 2.50 0.02 0.268 674.25 3.0578 0.862.407.885 23.9785 2.

UPEEE Foundation page 13 of 16 .4 HIGH ECONOMIC GROWTH SCENARIOAGGRESSIVE CLEAN POWER DEVELOPMENT OPTION (HEGS-ACPD) University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines APPENDIX D. Inc.

966 95 Visayas 771 1.476 73 100 314 2.336 717 200 188 1.404 15 3.758 3.871 1.817 4.460 3.163 5.071 3.678 717 200 228 1.163 2.862 717 200 108 997 2.832 717 200 108 997 2.491 1.4a: Installed Capacity (MW) Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Luzon Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind LUZON TOTAL Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind VISAYAS TOTAL Oil-based Coal Mindanao Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind MINDANAO TOTAL Oil-based Coal Philippines Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind PHILIPPINES TOTAL Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.783 977 2.189 609 205 956 12 50 1.163 5.267 2.527 17.822 3.687 262 3.767 3.333 2.605 5.759 2.548 665 1.333 1.763 1.491 2.723 13.065 17.011 1.214 80 65 16.124 18.281 20.841 4.163 3.041 22.583 3.732 717 108 997 1.963 2.758 3.763 1.205 65 12.987 4.221 3.978 2.763 907 2.869 25 15.741 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.758 3.971 3.011 1.043 2.163 2.238 4.189 609 205 956 12 80 1.758 3.346 73 100 314 2.804 509 205 956 12 1.404 15 4.180 2.491 2.491 2.715 23.971 2.758 3.163 4.971 137 3.163 3.687 12 336 3.265 12.817 4.765 95 609 205 1.963 2.547 3.690 510 205 1.214 50 65 16. Inc.991 4.860 25 11.963 2.763 907 1.758 3.063 2.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.783 2.942 717 200 128 1.429 545 205 916 12 1.094 2.146 47 100 230 2.763 1.763 1.022 3.138 2.763 1.757 2.971 3.797 25 2.227 2.661 1.931 2.557 125 3.682 547 108 997 1.333 2.652 3.656 510 205 1.073 3.063 947 2.337 4.096 22 80 110 2.865 15.561 4.297 5.011 3.763 907 2.652 3.149 559 205 956 12 1.758 2.703 2.122 717 200 148 1.758 3.510 11.983 2.465 16.333 1.022 3.155 125 2.197 4.758 3.758 3.971 3.519 14.205 25 12.678 547 108 997 1.422 25 1. UPEEE Foundation page 14 of 16 .205 65 12.339 76 2.863 609 205 996 22 80 30 1.287 3.763 907 2.238 4.214 25 15.763 907 1.687 186 2.540 152 2.491 2.211 25 3.291 609 205 1.548 717 200 228 1.983 1.

704. Inc. UPEEE Foundation page 15 of 16 .101 15.193 6.511.708.534.849 7.600 Coal 18.258.153 85.973 769.538 2.118 31.193 16.170 867.216 11.051 9.014 17.768 3.439 18.931 0 40 0 0 0 100 150 340 280 150 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 2.036.190 3.418 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.850 7.084 17.644 34.942 19.639 16.226 7.016 28.208.828.420 4.722 597.016 17.722 2.508 29.290 36.664.263 Fuel Type Hydro 6.538 4.779 Total Addition *includes capacities of diesel engines used as ancillary to wind power plants Table D.993 Natural Gas 5.107 6.850 21.734.578 19.744.4c: Power Generation (GWh) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.450 685.324 6.103 11.595 66.407.791 21.484.091 33.956.125.042 14.891 11.978 26.234.893 7.735 12.315 118.320 681.252.076 15.963 22.243 26.386 649.807 93.045 26.932 7.496 5.963 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 2.239 10.326.104 20.673 28.653 Total 55.106.471 Table D.239 21.556 60.615 4.893 18.4d: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.349 16.953 36.650.050.126 15.479 10.109 8.874 109.115 100.585 685.207 14.158 14.315 24.186 2.382 1.142 29.814.746.209.883 9.060 4.840.130 20.763 0 0 0 0 0 300 720 1.200 350 0 1.115 13.426 20.104 13.953 Geothermal 14.864 3.080 6.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.865.387 1.288.519 0 350 345 0 0 551 201 189 402 414 Biomass 0 0 0 0 50 30 15 0 30 0 12 Wind 0 0 25 0 40 0 706 756 754 760 674 0 415 715 340 30 2.739 26.095 7.984 30.633.779 15.960 19.919 Hydro Biomass Wind Total 19.317 16.062 2.443.618.030 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 666 666 876 876 960 Wind 0 153 153 153 153 2.916.897.012 Natural Gas 13.263 72.885 23.4b: Annual Capacity Additions (MW) Year Oil-based* Currently Installed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3.000 15.639 Fuel Type Geothermal 641.583 0 0 370 50 0 621 582 549 595 529 Coal 3.000 684.952 8.867 Coal 10.398.298.124 8.862.549 6.527.650 79.760 23.292 2.332 919.630.891 8.335.471 3.020 16.409 3.859 4.897.326.419 14.

44 0.407.500 132.32 2.25 3.18 2.130 20.01 NMVOC 0.0542 0.16 2.153.0228 3.750 N 2O 970 1.599 1.10 3.79 385.09 329.258 34.679 188.885 23.00 Particulates 0.785 1.9785 3.956.53 0.82 11.186 1.79 1.425 2.0593 0.03 3.45 0.90 406.479 3.106 170.03 0.6854 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.625 166.739 26.212 174.0536 2.01 0.82 1.676 20.02 0.4g: Generation Cost Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Generation Cost US$/kWh 0.41 0.47 0.139 288.151 31.294 38.00 1.0495 3.0670 PhP/kWh 3.644 34.02 0.485 45.052.673 28.862.03 0.51 0.515 212.01 0.984 30.19 2.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.12 2.75 2.284 27.263 44.52 329.91 372.355 Table D.740 1.97 319.81 2.294 244.44 0.04 0.4234 3.01 0.596 2.39 0.40 0.050.248 42.0554 0.31 358.065 2.1607 3.887 168.01 0.44 2.997 56.418 SOX 167.67 NOX 2.508 29.0549 0.494 23.4e: Environmental Emissions (tonne) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 19.771 3.13 373.036.343 31.9923 2.48 0.465 36.38 0.58 11.68 10.264 200.50 0.118 31.199 32.720 234.42 0.40 0.03 0.374 800.142 29.37 0.30 3.546 36.09 1.916.02 10.01 0.03 0.0575 0. UPEEE Foundation page 16 of 16 .01 0.055 1.02 0.03 SO X 3.34 9.01 0.291 CH 4 283 321 358 402 456 439 479 517 559 634 NMVOC 1.738 45.858 2.196 3.0544 0.307 2.4f: Environmental Emission per Unit Generation (tonne/GWh) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 370.777 Particulates 19.01 0.746.68 429.377 1.828.202 173.438 1.38 0.0555 0.052.686 246.03 0.447 153.42 0.882 164.511.2638 3.654 Environmental Emissions CO 21.814.60 0.430 46.0550 0.750 24.54 Table D.18 2.073 174.69 4.03 0.41 0.0622 0.096 27.566 800.01 0.04 0.03 Environmental Emissions CO CH 4 0.04 N2O 0. Inc.04 0.062 118.754 NOX 111.733 174.0175 3.02 0.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful