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

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

....................................................................... Gross Domestic Product and Population......................................................................... 19912001................................................40 System Peak by Grid.........................6 Figure 4.9 Figure 4...........................................................................................59 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas................4 Figure 4.............................1 Figure 2............................................................ UPEEE Foundation page iii .10 Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario.......57 DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the High Economic Growth Scenario ....8 Figure 3..........................6 Figure 3........................... 1999-2001 ............ 19992001..................53 Coal and Oil-Based vs..............................................55 Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario..........56 Generation under the High Economic Growth Scenario.....................53 Fossil Fuel Consumption for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario.....................1 Figure 3.7 Figure 3................9 Figure 4..44 Share of Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy in the Energy Mix..................................27 Electricity Consumption by Sector.......... 1991-2001 ....................................49 Generation under the Low Economic Growth Scenario........................................................2 Figure 3............. Inc....................40 Total Installed Generating Capacity by Source.....................41 Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type.....................................................................................58 Figure 4...... Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario...................23 Practical Small Hydro Resources in the Philippines...............39 Electricity Consumption............45 Energy Mix and Carbon Dioxide Emissions....5 Figure 3.......................... 1999-2001 ..4 Figure 3..... 2001...........................................................................................50 DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the Low Economic Growth Scenario............5 Practical Wind Resources in the Philippines .................3 Figure 3......................................................................................... 1991-2001.7 Figure 4......................................2 Figure 4...43 Energy Mix............3 Figure 4...................... 1999-2001...........................51 Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario..1 Figure 4...... 1991-2001 ...............39 Electricity Generation by Grid.....POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2....8 Figure 4...............2 Figure 3...........45 National Energy Planning Process ....................

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

...............................................5 Cost Comparison of Power Plants............10 Table 2...............30 Available Geothermal Resources for Power Generation..............................1 Table 2...9 Table 2......POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines LIST OF TABLES Table 1.......47 page v University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.........................................15 Table 2.......................... Inc.................................31 Philippine Natural Gas Resources.................26 Projected Supply of Biomass Resources ......2 Table 2.................14 Table 2................ 2 1994 Philippine Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector .................. 1991-2001 ................28 Philippine Bagasse Electric Potential.......................42 NPC Average Electricity Rates............2 Table 3...........................................................17 Table 3........1 Table 3........................................1 Table 1................................................................................2 Table 2................................... 2 Typical Capacity Factors of Power Plants and Levelized Generation Costs.....................................................................46 NPC and IPP Production Cost at 1990 Constant Prices........33 Typical Capacity Factors of Power Plants and Levelized Generation Costs. 1991-2001 ............................................3 Table 2.....13 1994 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Philippine Energy Sector ........4 Table 3..............13 Philippine Wind Electric Potential .....................6 Table 2............11 Table 2.16 Table 2...........................25 Philippine Small Hydro Electric Potential .....32 Cost Comparison of Power Plants......................12 Table 2...... UPEEE Foundation ..................5 Table 2....................................26 Small Hydro Power Sites Verified by the DOE ...........26 Practical Small Hydro Resources in the Philippines.............. 1991-2001 ............3 Table 3........7 Table 2......................................................................42 Historical Environmental Emissions for the Philippine Power Sector .........................38 Reserve Margin..13 Table 2..................8 Table 2................................................36 Carbon Dioxide Emissions of Different Power Plant Types ...............................4 Table 2...36 Energy Consumption by Sector...34 Value of Air Emissions Reductions in California ....22 Available Large Hydro Resources .....................36 Emission Factors for Various Power Plants ..........22 Practical Wind Resources in the Philippines .............

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

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.

Inc.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. UPEEE Foundation .

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. Inc.

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

Screening curves (costs per kWh vs.7153 5.2282 2. (b) operation and maintenance cost.8174 3.68 Table 1. $/kWa 850 – 1. and (d) the level of generation (also called capacity factor).250 2.3644 6.1 below shows the costs used in this study.000 – 3.0494 0. $/MWh 41.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. Table 1.12 0 0 3.500 1.0405 0.800 1.550 700 – 900 550 – 650 1. (c) fuel cost.000 – 1.400 1. Actual industry discount rates may be higher depending on the following factors: required equity return.53 0 36.2277 1. capacity factor) were developed based on the life cycle of each power generation technology and the four economic factors mentioned above.000 450 . $/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.0625 0.1101 0.1059 0. Inc. including: (a) investment cost.4376 12.1: 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. years 30 20 20 20 30 30 20 50 30 50 20 Investment Cost.5219 1 A discount rate of 12% was used to derive levelized generation costs.150 – 1.800 1. country risks and availability of financing.200 – 1. UPEEE Foundation page 2 .750 – 1.0405 0.2: 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 0.10 11. regulatory risks.0557 2.500 700 – 900 Annual Fixed O & M Cost.750 – 1.2282 2. Table 1.0512 0.8236 4. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.56 73.04 49.40 9.0193 0.93 32. market risks.0602 2.0794 0.

transformer costs and taxes. these costs do not include site development costs. including site specificity (e. Thus. In this study. The abatement cost approach uses the cost of pollution control as a proxy to the true externality cost. dollar discount rates. Studies vary in their estimation of externality costs because of a number of factors. 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. biomass. if required in the Philippines’ power generation sector. abatement technologies. the damage cost approach puts a value on the damages that may be directly attributable to a particular pollutant.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. However. which has the lowest abatement costs among the districts of California. These figures were used in the absence of actual abatement cost assessment for the Philippines. among other things. hydro.2 It can be noted that on life-cycle basis. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has estimated that there are 76.600 MW of installed wind power capacity in the Philippines that can generate about 2 True costs will vary for a number of reasons. UPEEE Foundation page 3 .A or Europe. the need for policy instruments and mechanisms that will create a more secured investment climate for renewable energy developers cannot be overemphasized. population density. abatement cost values for the North Coast of California. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Further. Resource assessment and mapping conducted in the past for the Philippine archipelago have shown that the country has a big wind power potential. including variability of fuel costs. renewable energy technologies can be competitive with conventional fossil fuel-based technologies. most power developers are biased to fossil-based power plants because of its comparative advantage in terms of investment cost and shorter recovery period. The figures used are only intended for relative comparison. emissions reduction policy. These costs were derived using only the cost of the power plant technology. On the other hand. Assessment was made for wind.S. geographical and climatological conditions). scope of analysis. operations and maintenance cost and fuel costs. Moreover.. It can be concluded that if environmental externalities will be considered. 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”. were used to compute for the cost of externalities of the different power development plans. among others. geothermal and natural gas resources for power development. 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.g. Inc. will be imported from developed countries such as U. connection to the transmission system.

(i. UPSL considered only bagasse from sugarcane processing as practical resource for grid connection. a re-analysis of the NREL wind mapping data was conducted.3 Historical Performance of the Philippine Power Sector The performance (in terms of reliability. which generated a total of 10.323 MW. In 2001.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 195. This first criterion reduced the number of wind sites to 2. limiting the transmission investment cost to 25% of total investment cost) resulted to the elimination of three sites from the small hydro resource pool. cost and environmental emissions.442 GWh. respectively in the country. The Philippine government is considering plans to develop a local natural gas industry. local natural gas production would be supplemented by imported natural gas.308 MW. UPEEE Foundation page 4 . the most significant of which is that found in Malampaya and San Martin in Palawan. an estimated capacity of 1.200 GWh of electricity per year.e.200 MW that could generate about 8. Other biomass resources are still facing problems or issues like collection. A few natural gas finds in the Philippines have been made. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. A second criterion that relates to grid connection costs was also used.771 to 4..731 billion cubic feet (BCF). Selecting only the sites with capacities of 5 MW or more as criterion. 1. storage. with a combined estimated reserves of 2.. In addition to existing geothermal power facilities. A re-analysis of the NREL small hydro resource assessment was also conducted. If this pushes through. UPSL estimates the electric power potential of bagasse at 235. This accounts for 14% and 22% of the total installed capacity and total generation. The application of the second criterion further reduced the number of sites to 1. and competing uses to be viable for large-scale power generation.7 MW.935 GWh annually can be obtained from additional verified geothermal sites in the Philippines.092 with an aggregate potential of 14. Of all the biomass resources in the country.e. Inc.931 MW.) of the Philippine power sector from the period beginning 1991 to 2001 was also assessed in this study. This potential is spread all over the country where sugar centrals are situated. the UPSL identified 236 small hydro sites in the country with an aggregated capacity of about 2. 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. construction of transmission lines) will cost up to 25% of the total life-cycle cost were considered. This include considering only sites with power density of at least 500 W/m2. The Philippines power sector largely depends on geothermal energy to meet the demand and energy requirements of the country. For the purposes of this study. Using the second screening criterion similar to that use in the wind resource assessment.038 with 7. Additional screening criteria were imposed to determine practical and viable wind power sites. Only those sites whose connection (i. total geothermal installed capacity amounted to 1.404 MW potential.

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. For purposes of this study. However. Historical Cost Performance This study also assessed the power development in the Philippines by analyzing the cost of electricity. therefore. Historical Reliability Performance To analyze the reliability performance of the power system in the Philippines. the Luzon Grid has a share of 36. The interruptions that the country has been experiencing can be attributed to the unreliable transmission and distribution systems and their operations. from mid 1990’s onward. generating capacity compared to the system peak) from 1991 to 2001 was determined from historical data. The industrial and residential sectors. Bulk of the energy demand and consequently the generation comes from the main island of Luzon. The commercial sector accounts for 21% of the total consumption for 2001.5% while that of the residential sector grew by 11. are the biggest users of electricity.049 GWh energy generation which represents 77% of the requirements of the country. It was noted that the rates of NPC is for its bundled generation and transmission services. the Philippines power sector performance went to the other extreme of having excessive capacity compared to the demand.e. accounting for 31% and 29% energy share for the year 2001. 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. Inc. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. the energy demand in the country was distributed among the three (3) main islands of Luzon. respectively. Visayas and Mindanao. The rest are attributed to own use.A.. that the generating capacity of the power system in the Philippines can be considered highly reliable. UPEEE Foundation page 5 . that the industrial sector demand grew only by 5.3% annually from 1991 to 2001.184 GWh of the total 47. The rates of NPC appear to be increasing annually except for the year 2001 when R.789 MW in 1991 to 13. the reserve margin (i. 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. It should be noted however. Geographically.7% annually for the 11-year period. respectively. The analysis has shown that the generating facilities in the early 1990’s were performing very badly from the point of view of reliability.402 MW in 2001. In order to meet the growing demand for electricity. In 2001 for example. It can be concluded. the installed generating capacity in the country doubled in 11 years with 6. losses and miscellaneous uses. these rates were unbundled into 76% and 24% for generation and transmission. Visayas and Mindanao share the remaining balance almost equally. 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).

082.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. 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.49% in 1991 to 62. Its contribution increased almost ten times from 1. Inc. the net increase in CO2 for the 11-year period is 73%.00 per kWh. The share of non-renewable sources in the energy mix even increased from 57.00 to PhP 3.222 tons in 2001.471. renewable hydro share decreased from 20% to 5% over the same period.338. which emits more greenhouse gases. decreased by 21 percent from its level of 9. Clearly. However.9% in 2001. Over the period considered. UPEEE Foundation page 6 . particularly those owned by electricity distributors like Manila Electric Company (MERALCO). particularly the NPC.9% in 1991 to 21. 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. many power plants were installed even though there were already excess generation capacity in the system. In addition. on the other hand. 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. it can be concluded that that non-renewable energy have remained greatly dominant over renewable energy as source of fuel for power generation. coal contribution increased more than fivefold. coal power plants are the major contributors. and not towards the utilization of renewable resources. It is also worthwhile to note that with the existence of the Non-NPC IPPs (permitted to operate through Executive Order 215). Comparing the average rate of NPC with that paid by the consumers.541 tons in 1991 to 7.279 tons in 1991 to 10. For the CO2 emissions. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.665 tons in 2001. there is difference of PhP 1.236. from 8% in 1991 to 40% in 2001. 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. Accounting the changes in oil and coal. generation share from oil-based power plants declined from 49.71% in 2001.00 to PhP 6. CO2 emissions from oil-based power plants. This scenario allowed the continued dominance of non-renewable fuels. 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. the shift is only towards the use of coal. which range from PhP 4. This explains why the emissions of the power sector almost doubled in only 11 years. Looking into the energy mix to link the environmental performance of the power sector.00 per kWh.

Oil-based and natural gas plants will contribute 17% and 26% to the CO2 emissions.500 MW) and oilbased plants (1. UPEEE Foundation page 7 . While the generation cost for this scenario is estimated at PhP 3. In terms of reliability.3 million tonnes. To meet the energy requirements.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.263 billion cubic feet (BCF) of natural gas. These emissions will be the direct result of the share of coal.16/kWh.632 GW for 2003 will increase to 20. respectively for year 2003. natural gas and oil-based sources in the energy mix which is 34%. Capacity additions. No additional capacity addition for natural gas is expected in the period. Total CO2 emissions for the DOE plan for the low economic growth scenario is 309. 65 MW wind and a 40 MW geothermal capacity additions.775 MW).706 MW by 2012. The environmental emissions resulting from DOE’s generation plan for the low economic growth scenario would result in an increase in CO2. respectively. Inc.368 million in abatement cost. Of these amounts. 124. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. with the continued dominance of coal plants. on the other hand will increase by 24%. SOx and other emissions.430 GWh in 2012) over the entire period at an average rate of 7.5 million barrels fuel oil equivalent (MMBFOE) of oil. The increase in the share of renewable energy generating capacity will come from a 795 MW large hydro. environmental emissions and costs were calculated similar to that of the historical performance assessment. From a share of 37% in 2003. renewable energy’s share will decrease to only 22% in 2012. 24% and 4%. this scenario would require 124. The contribution of non-renewable energy sources to the energy mix.9 million tonnes of coal and 1.142 GWh in 2003 to 106. 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. The increase in demand will be met mostly by increases in coal power plants (3.828 million (UPSL estimate at 2002 present value).5 MMBFOE of oil and 80. Geothermal plants will contribute only 2%. based on the low economic growth projections of NEDA. Reliability. PDP for the Low Economic Growth Scenario The PEP. the reserve in 2003 will be 66%. shows that energy generation will increase by 93% (55.2 million tonnes of coal would have to be imported.4 Scenarios under the Philippine Energy Plan 2003 .POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 1.57% annually. it is still unrealistic to expect that cost of electricity in the Philippines in the near term will decrease under this scenario. Total installed capacity of 14. The increase in the use of coal will account to contributing 55% of the total CO2 emissions for the period. This scenario will require $ 29. operations and maintenance and fuel would require a total cost $ 23. 91. the planned capacity additions will result in high reserve margins. For example. Although this is expected to decline to 22% by 2012.

and will require $ 32. 1. wind and hydro power) and natural gas plants are given priority over that of non-renewable plants for power generation. UPEEE Foundation page 8 . nor the scenario for the low economic growth. These strategies are the following: • Moderate Clean Power Development (CCPD) Plan In this plan. 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. Total installed capacity of wind power plants is allowed to reach a maximum of 5% of the peak demand. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.632 MW in 2003 to 22. The following performance indicators can be expected if this scenario push through: a) Installed capacity: 14. 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. greenhouse emissions is expected to further soar.E. biomass.556 GWh in 2003 to 118.995 million in abatement cost. capacity addition and utilization of renewable energy (geothermal. increasing by 195% from 2003 to 2012.5% in 2003 increase to 16% in 2012 . within the planning period. Notably.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. Inc.24% in 2003 decrease to 17% in 2012 With the continuous decline in the share of renewable energy. PDP for the High Economic Growth Scenario The DOE also prepared a power development plan based on high economic growth projections of NEDA.37% in 2003 decrease to 20% in 2012 Natural gas .5 Clean Power Development Options for the Philippines Using the clean energy technologies and resources.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.16% in 2003 increase to 47% in 2012 . .756 MW in 2012 (56% increase for the 10-year period) b) Energy generation: 55. 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.

as compared with the PEP. O&M and fuel costs. Assuming a five-year lead-time for the planning to commissioning of the additional power plants. The natural gas contribution will also increase from 24% to 31%. Moderate Clean Power Development (MCPD) Plan To meet the demand of the Low Economic Growth Scenario. Inc. Cost penalties for intermittent power plant capacity beyond 5% (based on peak demand) was also imposed to account for the additional ancillary services.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines • Aggressive Clean Power Development (ACDP) Plan For this plan.000 GWh annually) for the next twenty years.12/kWh. This average generation cost is even cheaper than that of the PEP Low GDP scenario. 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 total cost calculated for this plan is $23.16/kWh. from the period 2003 to 2012. It was assumed in these plans that the local natural gas industry will be able to supply fuel for up to 3. This will translate to a 72% total share of clean energy in the energy mix by 2012. that these reserve margins do not take into account the ancillary diesel engines. Note. In this summary. this plan will save $235 million in the planning period. The share of coal and oil in the mix will be reduced by about 11% at the end of the period. respectively.685 MW in 2012) and the natural gas plant capacity by 117% (from 2. The plans that correspond to the High Economic Growth Scenario are detailed in Chapter 5. the capacity additions starts only in 2008. the strategy is to utilize all the practical renewable energy resources where possible without caps. the 2003 to 2007 capacity additions were based solely on the PEP list of committed projects. 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.592 million and the average generation cost is PhP 3. Considering the investment. this plan will increase the renewable energy plant installed capacity by 95% (from 4.763 MW in 2003 to 5. Total CO2 reduction as compared with the PEP is 44. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. which is PhP 3. This translates to a 69% total installed capacity for the combined natural gas and renewable energy plants. For all the plans.450 MW in 2003 to 8. which serve as frequency regulating plants for the wind power plants. only the power development plan to meet the Low Economic Growth Scenario of the PEP 2003 – 2012 is presented.800MW natural gas power plants (maximum generation of 23.983 MW in 2012).6 million tonnes. The share of renewable energy in the energy mix will increase from 37% to 41%. This plan will reduce the GHG emissions and abatement costs for the Low GDP Scenario by 14% and 21%. however. UPEEE Foundation page 9 .

this plan will create an opportunity for the country in the carbon market. The share of renewables in the energy mix will increase from 37% to 48%. The share of coal and oil in the mix will be reduced by about 20% at the end of the period. which is PhP 3.$10 per tonne. This translates to a 79% total installed capacity for the combined natural gas and renewable energy plants. from the period 2003 to 2012.67/tonne of CO2. To support power switching.05) per kWh more expensive than the Moderate Clean Power Development Plan due to the additional ancillary services for the intermittent wind power supply.520 MW in 2012) and the natural gas plant capacity by 95% (from 2.763 MW in 2003 to 5. This study has assessed the technologies and resources in the Philippines that could be tapped for clean power development. respectively. The natural gas contribution will also increase from 24% to 31%. 1. Inc.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. 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. The total cost calculated for this plan is $23.881 million and the average generation cost is PhP 3.383 MW in 2012). This will translate to a 79% total share of clean energy in the energy mix by 2012. this plan will cost an additional $41M in the planning period compared to the PEP low GDP plan. This is comparable to the PEP Low GDP scenario. While the PEP has tried to address these problems.450 MW in 2003 to 11. There are even opportunities that can create additional dollar income from carbon trading and local employment. small hydro. These alternative plans are comparable to the PEP in terms of costs. This plan will reduce the GHG emissions and abatement costs under the PEP Low GDP Scenario by 18% and 27%. UPEEE Foundation page 10 .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. To avoid significant amounts of GHG emissions in the future. O&M and fuel costs. new natural gas sites must be identified and developed.16/kWh but five centavos (PhP 0. In addition. the country has to resort to biomass. wind and natural gas technologies. 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. At the current CO2 prices ($5 per tonne) in the market. as was done in this study. Considering the investment. With the current price of CO2 at $2 . natural gas importation may be pursued. the ACPD plan will increase the renewable energy plant installed capacity by 159% (from 4. This study also offers two alternative paths (moderate and aggressive) through the alternative clean power development plans.17/kWh. This translates to a mitigation cost of $0.

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

This may include subsidy for resource assessment and feasibility studies for serious developers of renewable energy.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. 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. simplification of custom procedures and importation of consigned equipment) will be available for renewable energy developers.. tax exemptions. The Philippine Grid and Distribution Code (PGDC) must be clear on its requirements and procedures on the connection.g. Inc. renewable energy-based power plants. Dedicated Financing Windows that allow longer repayment periods for renewable energy-based development. 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.. 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. • • University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. An assistance program should be created for renewable energy development. particularly on the required technical analysis and compensating equipment. • • 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. operation and control of nonconventional.g. The Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) should allow such an expansion even if it does not initially show recovery of investment. income tax holidays and tax credits) and non-fiscal (e. UPEEE Foundation page 12 . These plants must “feed-in” the Grid at minimum prices that will guarantee the returns of power developers.

Residential 6.1. the power sub-sector represents a large opportunity for carbon emissions reduction and sequestration.359 1. the energy industries.038 ktonnes of the 100. Inc.1: 1994 Philippine Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector (equivalent ktonne CO2) SECTOR Energy Industry Agriculture Waste Land Use & Forestry TOTAL EQUIVALENT CO2 EMISSIONS CO2 47.59 216. Agriculture B. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.529 2 N2O 717 40 347 43 0 285 3 Total 49. Fugitive Emissions from Fuels 1.038 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. the energy sector accounted for 50.548 ktonnes of CO2 for the Energy Industries for the year 1994.190 226.335 N2O 717 0 12. Fuel Combustion Activities 1.72 9. Transport 4. Table 2.87 227 217 10 50.2: 1994 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Philippine Energy Sector* (equivalent ktonne CO2) SECTOR A.157 CH4 1. accounts for more than thirty (30) percent as a result of the burning of fossil fuels.335 10.890 3.738 Source: The Philippines’ Initial National Communication on Climate Change Table 2.603 33. as shown from Table 2. or roughly 47 percent. Energy Industries 2. The UPSL came up with 13.544 1. of total net GHG emissions in the country. Commercial/Institutional 5. given that clean energy technologies and resources are available.980 15.497 15.2.774 55. mainly the power industry.738 ktonnes. Manufacturing Industries 3.811 15. Coal Mining 2.800 6.246 Total 50. In 1994.038 10.368 2.801 3.094 100. as shown in Table 2.130 7.759 11 170 45 1 1.509 9.185 3 CH4 1.330 954 245 14.458 8.369 4. Oil TOTAL EQUIVALENT CO2 EMISSIONS * does not include emissions from biomass Source: The Philippines’ Initial National Communication on Climate Change CO2 47.985 7 20.335 15.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.094 7.596 0 -2. Of the energy sector GHG emissions. UPEEE Foundation page 13 .140 2.403 31. Although it ranks only second to the transport in terms of GHG emissions.

In particular.g. Levine and Walter D. Brown. turbines and generators. energy conservation. and measures that integrate carbon sequestration into the energy production and delivery system. In the sections that follow. These technologies will then be evaluated to determine their viability for the Philippine power sector. it looks into scenarios that would entail switching to clean energy technologies from conventional fossil fuel-based technologies for grid-connected power generation. Short. 1. Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future. Measures that Reduce Energy Intensity One way of reducing the energy intensity of the economy is by minimizing energy losses in the system. p. improvement of power plant heat rates). they must compete with the same technologies in terms of other criteria such as cost.: Interlaboratory Working Group on Energy-Efficient and Clean Energy Technologies). renewable energy technologies).e.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. Inc. 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. The Philippines Department of Energy (DOE) has already started a Heat Rate Improvement Program. These technologies may be classified as4: • • • measures that reduce the energy intensity of the economy (e.. This is done by looking at ways to improve the performance of existing power plant components like boilers. 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. Mark D. the heat energy in Btu required by the power plants to produce a kilowatt-hour of electric energy. measures that reduce the carbon intensity of energy (e. i. 2. resource availability and technology maturity before application on a significant scale could be expected. which is expected to achieve a substantial amount of energy savings.S. improvements could be made to improve the efficiency of existing power plants by decreasing their heat rates. These technologies may be an attractive alternative to conventional fossil fuel-based generation technologies in terms of its environmental benefits.. However. 4 Marilyn A.2 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.g. cost and environmental performance (particularly on GHG emissions) of the power sector. In power generation. a number of clean energy technologies shall be discussed.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines This study focuses on the reliability. (U.. UPEEE Foundation page 14 . In the following sections.

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

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

Technologies that can be used to generate power from biomass include gasification-electric generation systems and burner technologies similar to that used for coal. Landscape destruction b. Various hydro projects in the Philippines have dislocated thousands. Rearrangement of water resources d. 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. long life and high levels of reliability. associated with a number of negative impacts. but it emits far less greenhouse gases as compared to fossil fuel-based counterparts. Among them are: Ecological Effects a. UPEEE Foundation page 17 . In the Philippines.000 dams all over the world.however. They are – large hydro in particular . Increase in water pollution e. which can subsequently be used for power generation. Speculation also arise that dams cause earthquakes in its surrounding areas. which served as livelihood of the Ibaloys. Biomass Energy. this energy may be harnessed in the form of steam or hot water. 4. With about 15. Geothermal energy refers to the heat stored in the rocks within the earth. Silting Social Impacts A major negative social impact of large hydro projects is the dislocation of population. Geothermal Energy. Destruction of fish habitat and fisheries c.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Hydro power facilities offer other benefits such as low generation costs. Like hydro and geothermal power. 3. 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. the Agno River Basin Development Program resulted in the loss of hectares of Ibaloy ancestral lands and the subsequent dissolution of several Ibaloy communities. The alteration of the local ecosystem also resulted in the loss of resource base. Inc. the frequency of disasters involving dams is 1 disaster for every 120.000 dam years. high efficiencies. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Geothermal energy is not entirely GHG emissions-free. little maintenance.

less GHG and air pollutant emissions. Photovoltaics. which. distributed energy technologies are small and modular. Costs are prohibitive.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 5. concentrates the power of the sun. Greater local control of the system and waste heat utilization lead to higher energy efficiencies. • Gas turbines Current gas turbine plants have efficiencies of around thirty percent. For most fuel cells. • Fuel cells Fuel cells are devices that convert fuel and oxygen to electricity and heat by means of an electrochemical reaction. ranging from $2. on the other hand. But since this type of plant is normally used for peak load applications. convert solar energy directly to electricity in a solid-state device called the solar cell. 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. to generate high enough temperatures to heat and boil water to drive steam engines. Solar thermal engines make use of solar concentration systems.000 per kilowatt of installed capacity. and thus. however. as the name implies. UPEEE Foundation page 18 . Many such technologies have been demonstrated in various countries but still remain not widely used because its high investment costs are quite prohibitive. Newer plants are actually achieving efficiencies greater than forty percent. Inc. hydrocarbon fuels need to undergo a process of reforming to produce hydrogen. which is the form of fuel required for the electrochemical reaction to take place. Solar radiation may be converted to electricity by using solar thermal engines or photovoltaic cells. sometimes requiring around $3. Clean coal technologies are costly. 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. • Distributed energy technologies Unlike centralized generating units. 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. • 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. These include fluidized bed systems such as pressurized fluidized bed combustion (PFBC) and circulating fluidized bed combustion (CFBC). coal is still widely used around the world for power generation because it is abundant and cheap. Despite its unfavorable environmental reputation. this would have a relatively low impact on emissions reduction.000 per installed kilowatt.000 to $4. with sizes ranging from a few kilowatts to a few megawatts. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. integrated gasification combustion cycle (IGCC) systems and coal-fueled diesel engines.

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

the higher interior terrain of Luzon. turbine spacing = 10D by 5D.2 Resource Assessment The technologies described above would be rendered useless without the energy resource required to run them. with good to excellent resource levels .000 installed capacity. the northwest tip of Luzon (Ilocos Norte). 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. Cebu.600 MW bringing the total estimated power generation from wind to 361. Financial and Economic Implications of Wind Energy Applications for Power Generation. capacity/km = 6. occupying a total area of 11. 3. Panay. well-exposed east-facing coastal locations from northern Luzon southward to Samar. Mindoro. would more than double total installed capacity to 173.200 GWh/yr.4 m/s or greater). (1994). 13 Assumptions used by NREL to come up with estimates are: 500 kW turbine size. 12 In one of the NREL scenarios. eastern Mindanao. The study. rotor diameter = 38 m. Negros. UPEEE Foundation page 20 2 . Samar. between Mindoro and Panay (including the Semirara Islands and extending to the Cuyo Islands). Including sites with moderate wind resource levels. Assessment of Technical.34% of total Philippine land area. the wind corridors between Luzon and Mindoro (including Lubang Island).000 sites in the country. In contrast to the optimistic estimate of the NREL. Inc. 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.equivalent to an annual average wind power of 300 W/m2 or greater12 (wind speeds of 6. amounting to 97.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 2. these sites could support at least 76. 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. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. and adjacent islands. 6. The NREL study identified around 10. 2. however. the Batanes and Babuyan islands of north Luzon. 14 UNIDO. The following sections will quantify the amount of clean energy resources in the Philippines.055 km2 or roughly 3. 4. Leyte. which will then be subsequently used for the generation of power switching scenarios. was not able to include factors such as transmission and grid accessibility constraints in the assessment. According to the study13. 5.9 MW.000 GWh/yr.600 MW of installed capacity and generate 195. hub height = 40 2 m. These are: 1. The NREL study identified six regions in the country where the best wind resource in the country are located. Palawan.

4. Project proponents claim that they will be able to sell electricity at prices below that of the grid. Batangas in Luzon. A 10-kW system in Pagudpod. respectively.95 percent for goods. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. which are scheduled for commissioning in 2006 and 2004.75 percent for consulting services) and a 40-year repayment period (inclusive of a 10-year grace period).POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Despite the vastness of wind resources in the country. current utilization are mostly to run wind pumps and a few small-scale turbine generators. Further. Transmission facilities are quite far from the wind sites. First is the absence of site-specific wind assessment data. 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. 0. Two committed wind projects are expected to contribute a significant amount of electricity to grid. 3. This is a pilot project of the National Power Corporation to electrify a number of households. Second is the connection of the wind farms to the transmission grid. All wind turbine installations are of the stand-alone type. A 25-kW stand-alone system in Picnic Grove. These wind facilities will both be located in Ilocos Norte. UPEEE Foundation page 21 . that for the NLWPP. Proponents of these projects were able to secure power purchase agreements with the local distribution utility. Inc. It was commissioned in 1996. project proponents were able to obtain very lenient and attractive financing schemes. 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. 2. At present. It is in operation since 1994. which they used to obtain financing. 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. Tagaytay. Ilocos Sur in Luzon. A 25-kW system in General Santos in Mindanao. A 3-kW system in Bantay. which required the developers to collect at least two-years of wind speed measurements. Ilocos Norte in Luzon. It is significant to note two issues that developers of these two wind power projects had to address. this system is used to power up a relay station of the Philippine Telegraph and Telecommunications Company (PT & T). there are more than 500 wind pump and 9 wind turbine installations in the country. In tandem with a diesel generator. among which are the following: 1.

4 summarize the results of the re-analysis.865 Mindanao 64 66 455 1. UPEEE Foundation page 22 . Tables 2.900 15.092. MWe Estimated Annual Generation. the UPSL computed for the linear distance between the wind site and the nearest existing substation.404 23. as well as its corresponding estimated electric capacity and annual generation.168 6. MWe Estimated Annual Generation. Locations of these sites are shown in Figure 2.3 and 2.132 7.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines For the purposes of the present study. km 2 Potential installed capacity. 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.092 2.277 Visayas 305 330 2.400 MW potential.1.206 14. Inc. 2.3: Philippine Wind Electric Potential (with wind power density ≥ 500 W/m2) Number of sites Total area.699 Table 2.755 11.668 1.437 Visayas 360 385 2. GWh/yr Luzon 1.363 MW. Appendix A identifies the provinces where these wind resources are located.047 Number of sites Total area. This distance was multiplied by a factor of 1.032 Philippines 1. with an aggregate potential of 14. The application of the second criteria further reduced the number of sites to 1.381 35. Power density of at least 500 W/m2.363 44.397 Philippines 2.527 7. GWh/yr University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Table 2.738 Mindanao 47 49 336 1. To compute for transmission cost. a re-analysis of the NREL data was conducted by the UPSL using the following criteria to screen for viable wind power sites: 1.038 with 7.038 1. km 2 Potential installed capacity. The first criteria reduced the number of wind sites to 2.4: Practical Wind Resources in the Philippines (with wind power density ≥ 500 W/m2 and transmission cost constraint) Luzon 686 753 4.5 to adjust for topography and other factors that may affect the routing of the transmission system.

032 GWh Figure 2.738 GWh Mindanao Number of sites: 47 Potential Installed Capacity: 336 MWe Estimated Annual Generation: 1.277 GWh Visayas Number of sites: 305 Potential Installed Capacity: 2. Inc.900 MWe Estimated Annual Generation: 15.1: 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.168 MWe Estimated Annual Generation: 6.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Luzon Number of sites: 686 Potential Installed Capacity: 4. UPEEE Foundation page 23 .

the UPSL identified 239 small hydro sites in the country with an aggregated capacity of about 2. Using this criterion. Run-of-river systems. Tables 2. are committed projects.518 MW of hydro power is installed in the Philippines.2 shows the location of the sites selected. on the other hand.8. while Figure 2. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Kalayaan and San Roque. 15 Impoundment dams involve the impounding of a large volume of water in or upstream of power plants by use of reservoirs or dams. Table 2.6 and 2. selecting sites with capacities of 5 MW or more. i. The DOE has verified a number of these small hydro sites. In addition to the existing hydro power generation facilities. This water may then be used to augment supply during low flow periods and thus ensure a relatively constant supply of power. An additional screening criterion was used. By the end of 2001. 16 Two of these sites.5 lists down identified sites for large hydro16.104 GWh.7 shows the results of the application of the criteria mentioned above. 17 As per WEC definition. a total of 2. as listed in Table 2.327 MW. These hydro power facilities range in size from 1 to 360 MW and includes reservoir type (dams) and run-of-river systems15.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.. The UPSL made a re-analysis of the small17 hydro resource assessment made by the NREL. 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. UPEEE Foundation page 24 . These resulted to the elimination of three sites from the small hydro resource pool. with an annual production of 7. Inc. make use of the natural flow of a rivers as head. a number of large hydro sites in country to be used as candidate power plants for energy planning.

6 to 2.3 Negros Oriental Negros Oriental Aklan Antique 33 17.9 3.338.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2.3 to 3.8 Province Estimated Capacity (MW) 60 46 360 13.189.6 93 45 175 24 332 350 113 12 52 to 250 45 42 34 345 27 21 2.140.9 44 300 68 841.6 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.387.5: 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. Inc.8 29 29 108. UPEEE Foundation page 25 .

8 7. MWe Estimated Annual Generation.140 Philippines 239 2.0 4. MWe Estimated Annual Generation.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.686 Visayas 9 58 305 Mindanao 96 978 5.308 12.4 14.0 4.786 Visayas 9 58 305 Mindanao 96 978 5.4 3.8 44.0 5.6 28.327 12.131 Number of sites Potential installed capacity.272 6.8: 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) 1.6: Philippine Small Hydro Electric Potential (sites with power capacity ≥ 5 MW) Luzon 134 1.4 10.140 Philippines 236 2. Inc. UPEEE Foundation page 26 .0 4.7: Practical Small Hydro Resources in the Philippines (sites with power capacity ≥ 5 MW and transmission cost constraint) Luzon 131 1.0 3.291 6.0 1. GWh/yr Table 2.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2.231 Number of sites Potential installed capacity.0 1. GWh/yr Table 2.

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

an estimated capacity of 1.8 32. particularly to fuel boilers in sugar mills. UPEEE Foundation page 30 .931 MW and geothermal generation was 10. 700 MW. respectively. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.2 3.9 5.8 235. which are like associated with the use of biomass fuels for large scale power generation. In 2001.200 MW and energy of 8. and 120 MW come from Luzon. this study only looks on the potential of bagasse for grid-connected electricity generation.1 14.11. Inc. total geothermal installed capacity amounted to 1. Table 2. Of the total estimated capacity.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) 0.935 GWh can be obtained from the verified geothermal source candidates in the Philippines. storage and competing uses. which the mills have to dispose.442 GWh. accounting for 14% and 22% of the total installed capacity and total generation.7 TOTAL PHILIPPINES Geothermal Power The Philippines power sector largely depends on geothermal energy to meet the demand and energy requirements of the country. Visayas and Mindanao respectively.0 22. Unlike other biomass fuels. 380 MW. there usually remains a considerable amount of this waste material. Very small.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Because of problems with such issues like collection.7 7. In addition to existing geothermal power facilities. bagasse has traditionally been used in large quantities. additional geothermal resources could be expected in the future as the Philippines has nearly used most of its geothermal resource sites. if any.6 127.0 4. Despite sugar mills’ own use of bagasse for fuel. as listed in Table 2.6 17.

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. Source: PEP 2002-2011.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2. Inc. UPEEE Foundation . the most significant of which is that found in Malampaya and San Martin in Palawan26.771 to 4. 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.12 lists down identified natural gas fields in the country and their corresponding resource sizes. page 31 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. with a combined estimated reserves of 2.731 billion cubic feet (BCF). local natural gas production would be supplemented by imported natural gas that would come from the Trans ASEAN Gas Pipeline to meet demand. If this pushes through.11: Available Geothermal Resources for Power Generation Name LUZON Bacman I Rangas Tanawon Manito Montelago Daklan Mt. Cabalian Leyte Optimization Biliran Mt. Table 2. Natib Mabini Batong Buhay Buguias-Tinoc Total Luzon VISAYAS Northern Negros* Dauin Mt. 26 These are proven fields. The Philippine government is considering plans to develop a local natural gas industry.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.

158 322 637 Maximum 4.. Furthermore.538 243 Resource Size (BCF) Prospective 3. 29 Capacity Factor (CF) refers to the percentage of the rated capacity of the power plant used for 8. and (d) the level of generation (also called capacity factor29). Inc.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. Using these curves.760 hours University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. the total investment costs vary with site preparation and the required transmission lines to enable the plants to deliver power to the grid. The fuel costs in Table 2. Clearly.277 454 2.060 1. renewable energy-based power plants have to address these issues that will ultimately determine the viability of the power projects. O & M27 and fuel costs28 comparison of the different types of power plants are shown in Table 2. 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.13 include only the costs of the technologies but not the associated site-specific costs that could be more expensive than the plant itself. (c) fuel cost. Mathematically.720 60 176 78 11. For example.13 lists for different fuels used for power generation are based on typical power plant efficiencies. energy production (kWh) CF = × 100 plant capacity(k W) × 8. the economics of power generation technologies depends on several factors.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2. Screening curves can be developed to determine the optimum power generation plan considering these four factors. In general.760 hours (i. renewable energy-based plants have high investment costs. UPEEE Foundation page 32 .13.594 2. it is notable that the technologies that require low investment normally require fuel with high cost. (b) operation and maintenance (O&M) cost. For fossil-fuel-based power plants. the prices of fuel are likely to differ at the time this study is released. 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. in general entail high investment costs. Wind and hydro plants do not require fuel but do not run at full capacity due to availability of resources.210 1.e. 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. The fuel costs used in this study do no include import duties. namely: (a) investment cost.3 Cost Comparison of Power Generation Technologies The investment.340 359 4 7. In addition. Renewable energy technologies. one year). Being site-specific. The costs shown in Table 2.760 518 2.

500 1. Table 2.750 – 1. on a life-cycle basis.12 0 0 3. depending on the site/environment. the prices of fuel are likely to differ by the time this study is released. $/MWh 41.40 9.93 32.550 700 – 900 550 – 650 1. Geothermal steam and biomass fuel costs also vary. Table 2. O&M and fuel costs31 of the different power plant technologies.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.53 0 36.150 – 1.200 – 1.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines operate as “baseload”. Table 2.400 1.10 11.e.000 – 1. 31 Fuel costs for oil.68 From “ The Environmental Manual for Power Development”.14 also shows the corresponding levelized cost of generation for each power plant type using the typical capacity factors.500 700 – 900 Annual Fixed O & M Cost. UPEEE Foundation page 33 . which will operate at high. These values show that electricity generation from renewable sources. These figures are intended only for relative comparison of the different power plant technologies. Furthermore.14 shows the typical capacity factors based on the investment30. 30 Investment costs used in this study do not include site preparation.14 to satisfy the minimum offtake character of the IPP contracts.800 1. transmission line and transformer costs. is competitive in comparison with conventional fossil fuel-based generation.000 450 . Inc.800 1.000 – 3. 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. $/kWa 850 – 1. “intermediate” or “peaking” plants (i. coal and natural gas do not include import duties.250 2. Deutsche Gessellschaft für technishe.750 – 1. years 30 20 20 20 30 30 20 50 30 50 20 Investment Cost. except for Clean Coal Technologies Considering the availability of the resource and reliability of the technologies.. 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. They are however useful in evaluating and developing energy plans. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. $/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. medium or low capacity factor) could be determined/selected.04 49.56 73.

0625 0. Inc.8236 4.4376 12.1101 0.0794 0.0557 2.5219 32 A discount rate of 12% was used to derive levelized generation costs. meaning it will be used for load following and/or peaking applications.2282 2.0494 0.7153 5.2277 1. UPEEE Foundation page 34 .0405 0. regulatory risks.8174 3. Actual industry discount rates may be higher depending on the following factors: required equity return.0602 2.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2.2282 2. market risks. 33 The low capacity factor computed for diesel plant is 9%.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 0.0512 0.3644 6.0405 0.1059 0. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. country risks and availability of financing.0193 0.

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

99 1.10 0.43 Ventura County DC 0.73 Environmental Emissions CO CH4 NMVOC N2O 0.75 16.00 2.03 0.40 7.00 3.52 1.04 0.71 San Diego DC 1.01 0.01 0.01 3.72 AC 5.76 3. NOx – Nitrogen Oxide.75 11. Inc.40 726.85 0. UPEEE Foundation page 36 . Luleá University of Technology.98 2.12 12.71 5.71 9.84 1.03 0.96 I 2.03 0.31 PM 31.55 0.74 2.04 0.64 2.66 2.72 0.4 6.45 AC 11.55 AC 13.34 1.26 0.28 4.44 1.31 AC 1.99 0.00 2. I – internalized.07 AC 2.18 AC 4.16: 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 45.00 0.06 0.98 3.85 6.72 11. 10.39 6.37 12.87 0.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2. “Power Generation Choice in the Presence of Environmental Externalities.83 0.03 NOx 4.85 I 13. one of the six selfcontained papers included in Sundqvist’s Doctoral Thesis.05 0. except for geothermal which was computed from DOE data Table 2.02 0.88 0. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.08 10.00 0. SOx – Sulfur Oxide.08 0.05 Particulates 0. AC – abatement cost.65 0.30 6.88 9.06 0.02 Source: The Environmental Manual for Power Development.03 0. p.10 8.01 North Coast DC 0. Deutsche Gessellschaft für technishe 36 Lifted from “What Causes the Disparity of Electricity Externality Estimates?”.66 0.05 0.04 Source: Computed from data give in “The GHG Indicator: UNEP Guidelines for Calculating Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Business and Non-Commercial Organizations.88 Bay Area DC 2.53 0.32 3.61 763.52 0.47 3.10 5.02 0.00 0.98 Sacramento Valley DC 0.99 565.07 AC 5. Sundqvist cites the 1992 Electricity Report by the California Energy Commission as the source of these data.02 0.83 441.00 0.18 15.03 0.08 0.75 0. 2002).03 0. CO – Carbon Monoxide. and PM – particulate matter Table 2.66 0.99 4.82 713.45 6.42 1.53 0.57 1.05 1.10 867.51 San Joaquin Valley DC 0.02 17.20 2.00 4.02 0.37 0.59 DC – damage cost.99 4.78 1. ROG – Reactive organic gases.35 0.15: Value of Air Emissions Reductions in California 36 ($/pound of pollutant) District Pollutant South Coast DC SOx NOx CO ROG 4.01 9.02 1.17: 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.

POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 2. UPEEE Foundation page 37 . collection. Inc. only bagasse was considered as option.5 Mitigation Options As a result of the technology and resource analyses made by the UPSL. storage and competing uses. 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. wood wastes. it was assumed that infrastructure would be built to support an expanding natural gas industry. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. 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. The UPSL did not consider other forms (rice hull. On the use of natural gas.

849 41.1. Visayas and Mindanao share the balance energy almost equally.554 1996 9.282 5.735 33.512 13.184 GWh of the total 47.432 2000 12.6%.444 921 1.547 10.167 1.154 4.067 1.682 MW in 2001.797 1998 11.471 6.345 45.249 4.734 30.754 41. Performance is assessed in terms of reliability.013 12.859 823 1.865 10.536 5. or at an average annual growth rate of 7.725 9. environmental emissions.910 8.3. with 31% and 29% share respectively. whose demand grew by 108% from 1991 to 2001.071 25.901 12.870 1993 6.053 4. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.290 2001 13.128 36.223 6.098 14.7% annually for the 11-year period. respectively. Significant also was the growth in the consumption of the commercial sector.132 4.339 952 1. Visayas and Mindanao grids. As shown in Figure 3. With most of the industrial and commercial activities centered in Luzon. Data for the historical performance of the Philippine Power Sector is given in Appendix B.950 1.875 8.238 26. Inc. Figure 3.226 5.049 GWh energy generation which represents 77% of the requirements of the country. Visayas and Mindanao as shown in Figure 3.649 1992 6.196 5.081 MW peak demand in 1991.835 MW in 2001).936 8. it also had the highest peak demand (5. the energy demand in the country was distributed among the three (3) main islands of Luzon. and cost. the gross domestic product and the population growth from 1991 to 2001 demonstrate a strong correlation with the consumption of electricity. This is almost twice of the 4.684 762 1.851 1.037 39.1 Historical Energy Demand and Installed Generating Capacity The Philippines electricity consumption posted a moderate growth rate of 8. that the industrial sector demand grew only by 5. are the biggest users of electricity (Figure 3.267 1.725 12. Visayas and Mindanao lag far behind with only 893 and 954 MW peak demand.4 shows system peak demand of the power supply system from 1991 to 2001 for the Luzon. 1991-2001 (GWh) SECTOR Residential Commercial Industrial Others Own Use Losses Total 1991 6. and the whole of the Philippines. UPEEE Foundation page 38 . In 2001 for example.894 9.353 10.150 7.579 1994 7.395 721 1.1: Energy Consumption by Sector.340 6. The industrial and residential sectors. It should be noted however.086 3.072 11.5% while that of the residential sector grew by 11. the Luzon Grid consumed 36.590 5.3% annually from 1991 to 2001 as shown in Table 3.132 4.713 47.042 2.452 1.459 1995 8.543 934 1.1).191 957 2.531 1.708 1997 10.368 4.578 1999 11. The system peak for the whole Philippines reached 7. Both the economic performance and population growth remain as the main factors driving the consumption pattern of energy of the country.390 6.477 8. Table 3.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 2001.176 25.847 9.049 Geographically. Bulk of the energy demand and consequently the generation comes from the main island of Luzon. 3.2.

5) This corresponds to the growth in demand that also doubled in the same period. 1991-2001 In order to meet the growing demand for electricity.1: Electricity Consumption by Sector.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. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.789 MW in 1991 to 13. 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 3.402 MW in 2001 (Figure 3.2: Electricity Consumption. Inc. Gross Domestic Product and Population. the installed generating capacity in the country doubled from 6. UPEEE Foundation page 39 .

000 35.000 15.000 45.000 30.000 40.000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 Luzon 1995 Visayas 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Mindanao Philippines Figure 3. 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 3.4: System Peak by Grid. 1991-2001 (MW) University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 GWH 25.000 20.000 5. Inc.000 10. UPEEE Foundation page 40 .3: Electricity Generation by Grid.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 50.

Table 3. 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.000 MW 8. people complain of high cost of electricity allegedly due to over supply as there is “too much” installed generating capacity.000 14. Today.000 2.2 presents the reserve margin of the power system from 1991 to 2001.A.000 6.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 16. the National Power Corporation since the power crisis has adopted 1day/year LOLP. 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. There was not enough generating capacity.000 4..000 12. 1991-2001 (MW) 3.000 0 1991 1992 1993 Oil-Based 1994 Coal 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Hydro 2000 2001 Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 3. In the Philippines. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. 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.000 10. Hence. In developing countries. UPEEE Foundation page 41 . the reliability criterion is very much lower compared to that in developed countries.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. This criterion is considered high but is needed to support their industries. To analyze further the generating capacity vis-à-vis the system peak. the National Power Corporation has to resort to rotating “brownouts”. In other countries such as the U.S. The reserve margin based on dependable capacity shows that there is indeed a large excess generating capacity in the Philippines. Inc.5: Total Installed Generating Capacity by Source.

497 11.816 11.450 9.014 1994 4.96 78.400 13.762 189. 1991-2001 (%) 1991 Peak (MW) Installed Capacity (MW) Percentage Reserve Margin (installed) Dependable Capacity (MW) Percentage Reserve Margin (dependable) 4.185 2001 7.908 12.2: Reserve Margin. UPEEE Foundation page 42 .3.687 8.682 13.76 70.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines It can be concluded.796 904 1.808 9.72 11. A complete list of emissions for each year from 1991 to 2001 is provided in Appendix B.55 45. Table 3.726 16.3.363 11. Table 3.949 1993 4.99 79. that the generating capacity of the power system in the Philippines can be considered highly reliable.402 66.666 11.611 % Increase 74 64 150 29 54 10 103 169 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.989 2001 Level 18. Historical Environmental Emissions for the Philippine Power Sector (tonne) Environmental Emissions CO2 SO2 NOx CO CH4 NMVOC N2O Particulates 1991 Level 10.081 6.3 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.98 91.17 78.60 83.36 61. therefore. This part of the study has quantified the environmental emissions of the power plants in the country. Inc.91 3.789 1992 4.352 11. The CO2 emissions increased by 74 percent while the rest of the air emissions increased by 10 to 169 percent.124 587 975 415 10.725 58. The interruptions that the country has been experiencing can be attributed to the unreliable transmission and distribution systems.621 7.807 20.93 92.45 85.233 115.291 9.075 842 29.762 1998 6.46 8.431 2000 7.732 1996 5.931 1999 6.48 53.193 1997 6.212 1995 5.729 146.296 6.18 74.76 37. The environmental performance of the Philippine power sector from 1991 to 2001 is summarized in Table 3.580.209 35.411.

000.000.541 tons in 1991 to 7. Figures 3. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Inc. the percentage share of oil-based power generation declined by 58%. However.000. it is necessary to look at the power development as measured by the energy mix.7 and 3.000.29% during the same period. The CO2 emissions however from oil-based power plants decreased by 21 percent from its level of 9.49% in 1991 to 62.6: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type.279 tons in 1991 to 10.000.71% in 2001.000. Figure 3. the share of coal-based generation increased by 427%.000 10. Note from this figure how much the CO2 emissions decreased and increased with the generation from oil-based and coal power plants.000 tonne CO2 12.000 4.471.51% to 37. In order to analyze the factors that brought about the environmental performance of the power sector. Over the period considered. The net increase in CO2 due to the changes in oil and coal is 74%.000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Figure 3. This scenario allowed the continued dominance of non-renewable fuels.8 show that nonrenewable energy have remained greatly dominant over renewable energy as source of fuel for power generation.000. 1991-2001 (tonne) The share of non-renewable sources in the energy mix even increased from 57.000 14.000 6.000 16.222 tons in 2001.000 2.000 18. The energy mix indicates the intensity of contribution of renewable energy resources as fuel for power generation.000 8. Figure 3.082. decreased from 42. on the other hand. UPEEE Foundation page 43 .236.000.338.6 shows that the coal power plants are the major contributors in greenhouse gases.665 tons in 2001.9 shows how carbon dioxide emissions varied with the energy mix within the 1991 to 2001 period.000.000. 20. The share of renewable sources. Its contribution increased almost ten times from 1.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines For the CO2 emissions.

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

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 15.000.000 18. Inc.8: Share of Coal and Oil-Based vs.000 14. 1999-2001 (%) 50.000.000.000 35.000 45.9: Energy Mix and Carbon Dioxide Emissions. UPEEE Foundation page 45 .000 8.000.000.000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro CO2 20.000 5.000 30.000.000 tonne CO2 12.000 4.000 10.000.000.000 GWh 25.000 40. 1991-2001 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 10.000 16.000 20.000 2.000 0 Figure 3. Renewable Energy and Natural Gas in the Energy Mix.000.000 6.000.

35 0.01 3.67 2.29 2. It was noted that the average rates of NPC is for its bundled generation and transmission services.68 2.34 3.00 per kWh.65 2.90 2.43 1996 2. the law has mandates to reduce the rates of electricity in the Philippines.28 1. This considerable difference can be attributed to the cost of distribution and to the IPP’s that sell electricity directly to the distributors.64 2000 3.20 0.70 Luzon Visayas Mindanao Philippines Generation Transmission Note: Generation and Transmission Rates assumed 76% and 24% of the average rate.14 1.96 1. In addition.77 1.4 Cost of Electricity This study also assessed the power development in the Philippines by analyzing the cost of electricity. which range from PhP 4.52 1. there is difference of PhP 1. IPP costs were always higher than NPC rates.4: NPC Average Electricity Rates.23 1. Inc.44 1. for the years 1995 to 2001 by fuel type. Comparing the average rate of NPC with that paid by the consumers. respectively.93 1.15 1.75 2001 3.49 0.02 2. It is worthwhile to note that with the existence of the Non-NPC IPP’s (permitted to operate through Executive Order 215). many power plants were installed without the benefit of proper coordination through the centralized planning of the NPC or the government.84 2. For purposes of this study.37 0. particularly that of the electricity distributors like MERALCO.52 Year 1998 2. 1991-2001 (PhP/kWh) 1995 1. the rates of NPC were unbundled into 76% and 24% for generation and transmission.96 0.62 1999 2. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Table 2. The average rates and the estimated unbundled generation and transmission rates of NPC from 1995 to 2001 are shown in Table 3. many power plants were installed in excess of what was actually needed.47 1997 2.00 to PhP 3. Table 3.92 3. 9136 (Electric Power Industry Reform Act) was enacted. the average rates consist of the actual operating expenses and the financing charges of NPC.02 1.08 2.25 2.A. except for the year 2001 when R.58 1.4. UPEEE Foundation page 46 . and the cost of which has to be paid off through the Purchased Power Adjustment (PPA).00 per kWh.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 3.63 0. Interestingly.08 2. respectively. As a result.5 show the production cost of NPC and IPPs.02 0. 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).00 to PhP 6.25 1.77 2. respectively The average rates of NPC increased annually from 1991 to 2001.12 2.85 1.

0431 0.0462 Hydro NPC IPP 0.0683 Geothermal NPC IPP 0.0203 * Lifted from “Renewable Energy Prospects for Supplying Electricity in the Deregulated Market in the Philippines” by J.0450 0.0236 0.0150 0.0047 0.0067 0.0195 0.0662 0.0198 0.0358 0.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 3.0349 0.0092 0. Inc.0369 0.0360 0.0394 0.0212 0.0303 0. Estiva and M.0110 0.0276 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 0.0177 0.0267 0.0428 0.0125 0.0294 --0.0386 0.0038 0.0254 0.0276 0. G.0109 0.0265 0.0167 0.0137 0.0284 0.0284 0.0302 0.0326 0.0366 0.0230 0.0367 0. UPEEE Foundation page 47 .0281 0.0100 IPP --0. N.0233 Coal NPC 0.0329 0.0538 0.0244 0.0252 0.0232 0. Guzman University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.0331 0.0281 0.0111 0.0270 0.

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

51 6.82 1.343.138. UPEEE Foundation page 49 .80 5.80 5.04 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).091.62 1.44 5.48 1.85 4.1.156.23 5.23 5.413.01 1.079.564.737.552.311.14 1.387.29 6.2 Gross Domestic Product Projections In the Philippine Energy Plan for the period 2003-2012.838. the DOE uses two economic scenarios from which to forecast future energy requirement of the country.80 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2010 Note: GDP values for 2003 to 2006 are actual NEDA forecasts.1: Low and High GDP Forecasts for 2003 to 2012 Year Low GDP GDP Growth Rate (billion PhP) (%) 1.69 1.732.23 5. the DOE estimated GDP values based on the average growth rates forecasted by NEDA. 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. etc.23 5. Coal.27 1.467.1: National Energy Planning Process 4.09 1. Philippine Energy Plan Top-Down Approach Figure 4.51 1.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.642.11 1.60 1.70 6.91 1.24 1.80 5.80 5.229.10 1. Table 4. as well as the its corresponding growth rates are shown in Table 4. Oil.23 High GDP GDP Growth Rate (billion PhP) (%) 1. In this report.96 5. For 2007 to 2012.64 5.80 5. The GDP projections for the two scenarios.203.70 1.276.95 1.74 1.23 5.487.01 6.646. Inc.59 1. Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.57 5.

generation would almost double to 106.430 GWh in 2012. 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. the DOE formulates generation plans for the two economic scenarios.2 shows the energy generation projected by the DOE that would meet the future energy requirements in 2003 to 201239.57% annually and 93% over the entire period. UPEEE Foundation page 50 . From 55. Costs calculated do not include ancillary. Inc. These plans will be discussed in the following sections. energy generation is projected to increase at an average rate of 7.3 DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario Energy Generation Figure 4.2: Generation under the Low Economic Growth Scenario 38 Generation costs were calculated using generic data for investment. 39 Details of the calculations made for this section are provided in Appendix C. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. 4. For this period. 120000 100000 80000 60000 GWh 40000 20000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines In the PEP. transmission and distribution costs.142 GWh in 2003. O & M and fuel costs. In addition.

committed and indicative capacity additions for each year in the planning period are given.706 MW by 2012.2 summarizes the results of the UPSL’s calculation for the DOE’s plan for the LEGS. respectively40. The table also computes the capacity that would be required if the percentage reserve margin was kept at 20%.000 5. the UPSL assumed that indicative base load capacity will be coal plants while intermediate and peaking plants corresponds to oil-based plants. Notably. Inc. These figures just show the continued preference on the use coal over natural gas.500 MW.000 20.3: DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the Low Economic Growth Scenario 40 In the PEP.775 MW and 3. the increase in demand requirement will be met mostly by increases in oil-based and coal plant capacities of 1.000 MW 10. 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. UPEEE Foundation page 51 . which is a more expensive fuel. For indicative plant additions.632 GW and will increase to 20. this scenario is very similar to how the Philippine power sector performed historically. 25. No additional capacity addition for natural gas is expected in the period. Reserve Margin and Reliability Table 4. and renewable energy plants.000 15. 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. which are more capital intensive.3. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. These high reserve margins would translate to higher electricity prices during the period. The increase in the share of renewable energy generating capacity. 65 MW wind capacity and a 40 MW geothermal capacity additions. Notable are the considerably high reserve margins for 2003 to 2009. amounting to 800 MW.

756 20.813 14.066 tonnes of coal and 1.632 15. 24% and 5%.615 15. • share of imported coal is 87.576 17.443 16.5 million barrels of oil.208 GWh energy production annually.5) for the planning period indicates minimal thrust towards more use of renewable energy sources and cleaner fuels. and. Of these amounts. • University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.833 9.396 15. Imported fuel would cost $4.440 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Energy Mix For the LEGS. Renewable energy sources. Inc.2: Percentage Reserve Margin for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario.143 GWh generation.800 MW capacity of 23.3% of total consumption.895. Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements. will supply 26% and 11%.324 million.367 14. natural gas and oilbased sources will supply 34%. Clean fuels’ (renewable energy and natural gas) share in the energy mix decreases from 61% to 41% by 2012.015 16.393 tonnes of coal would have to be imported41.405 19.865 16. the PEP expects that for the year 2003.5 tonnes of oil and 80.263 billion cubic feed (BCF) of natural gas for the whole planning period. of the total generation.997 12.120 15.033 Installed Capacity (MW) 14.889 17. on the other hand will increase to 59% in 2012 to from a value of 38% in 2003. The combined contribution of coal and oil to the energy mix. this scenario would require 124.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 4. The breakdown of the fossil fuel that would be consumed in the LEGS-PEP scenario is shown in Figure 4.332 13. 124. A look at the energy mix (Figures 4. 91. UPEEE Foundation page 52 . From a share of 37% in 2003.139 11.814 15. 41 This assumes that: local natural gas production can support 3.519 10. respectively. Contribution from wind sources stays insignificant for the whole period.505 18. particularly geothermal and hydro.869 13.777 20.224.600 11.277 11.565 17. as it was in 2001.706 Percentage Reserve Margin (%) 66 59 52 42 33 29 27 24 24 22 Capacity Required for 20% Reserve Margin 10.423 12. respectively. coal. 2003-2012 Peak Demand (MW) 8. of the total 55. renewable energy’s share decreases to 22% in 2012.576 16.6.4 and 4.

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. Inc.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. UPEEE Foundation page 53 .5: Coal and Oil-Based vs.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.

Average generation cost for the period is PhP 3.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. fuel. and operations and maintenance costs involved in the operation of the different plants to meet demand and energy requirements for the scenario.7 shows the contribution of each type to the CO2 emissions.368. These do not take into account the effect on the generation cost by deals made with independent power producers. Geothermal plants contribute only 2%. along with the assumptions used.292 $ 23.376. as given in Chapter 1. Table 3. Table 4. SOx and other emissions.744. the increase in the use of coal would result in an increase in CO2.3 million tonnes.4 lists down the generation costs calculated for each year of the planning period.828. Coal contributes 55% of the CO2 emissions for the period. As would be expected. UPEEE Foundation page 54 .391. These generation costs were computed from the values for investment. respectively.707.434 $ 9. Appendix C shows the amount of emissions for the whole planning period. Total CO2 emissions for the period amounts to 309.189 $ 2.137.1592 per kWh. Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: $ 11. NOx and particulates for the North Coast of California. Generation Cost The present value of the costs calculated for the PEP-LEGS is given below. Total cost of abatement for this scenario is $ 29. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.71642.3 shows the values for the years 2003 and 2012 and Figure 4.324. Oil-based and natural gas plants contribute 17% and 26% to the CO2 emissions. Inc.916 42 Abatement costs values in this chapter and the chapters that follow were computed using abatement costs for SOx .454.479.

000.000 60.3: 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 18.000. UPEEE Foundation page 55 .581 952 19.000.289 112.000.821 295.000 0 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 4.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100.647 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.362 282 1.000.000 20.000 30.669.432 2.000 (tonnes) 50.000. Inc.000.323 644 3.000 70.000.000.788 54.000 40.000 90.927 Year 2012 46.712 21.000.6: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario Table 4.778.389 55.000 80.000 10.850 159.611 489.

2123 3.000.000 35.000 tonne CO2 30.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4. UPEEE Foundation page 56 .000 20.0574 12% 3% 2% PhP/kWh* 3.0553 0.0568 0.000 40.000.0601 0.3072 3.0592 0.000.000 45.000 5.000.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 50.000.3636 3.1592 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.7: Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario Table 4.000.000.000.0584 0. 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 0.0429 3.000.0564 0.0409 3.000 15.0564 0.1026 3.4: Generation Costs for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario.0612 0.1229 3. Inc.0997 3.000 25.0447 3.000.0553 0.0554 0.2548 3.000 10.

756 MW in 2012. UPEEE Foundation page 57 .556 GWh in 2003 to 118. with a minimum value of 26% and a maximum of 65%. A large part of this increase is due to the addition of coal plants. corresponding to a 56% increase within the ten-year planning period. Inc. Table 4.5 lists down the percentage reserve margins for the PEP Plan for the HEGS. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.9 shows how the installed generating capacity would change from 2003 to 2012. 140000 120000 100000 80000 GWh 60000 40000 20000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4. Reserve Margin and Reliability Similar to LEGS.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 4. Figure 4. the percentage reserve margin in the HEGS is considerably high.632 MW in 2003 to 22.4 DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario Energy Generation In the high economic growth scenario.8 shows the expected generation under the HEGS. generation is expected to increase from 55. Figure 4. increasing more than 200 percent within the ten-year planning period.470 GWh in 2012.8: Generation under the High Economic Growth Scenario Installed Generating Capacity Installed generating capacity would increase from 14.

423 15.854 16.9: DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the High Economic Growth Scenario Table 4.120 15.5: Percentage Reserve Margin for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario.765 18.155 20.031 17.148 21.469 11.615 15.000 MW 10.000 20. Inc.560 12.000 15.865 16.660 11.709 14.359 14.424 12.005 21.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25.065 16.632 15.790 18.727 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.756 Percentage Reserve Margin (%) 65 57 49 39 30 25 26 29 30 26 Capacity Required for 20% Reserve Margin 10.308 18.674 20.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Wind Demand (MW) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4.883 9.378 13.563 13. UPEEE Foundation page 58 . 2003-2012 Peak Demand (MW) 8.633 10.000 5.106 Installed Capacity (MW) 14.806 22.562 16.

835.272 BCF of natural gas for the whole planning period.12. While the share of renewable energy declines to 20% by 2012 from 37% in 2003.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Energy Mix From Figures 4.322.10: Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements.5 million barrels of oil 85. and natural gas whose contribution ranges from 24% to 17% for the period considered. Inc. this scenario would require 184. Coal share remains very significant at 47% in 2012. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Of these amounts.127 million. Much of the increase in the share of non-renewable energy may be attributed to oil whose shares increase from 5% to 17%.211 tonnes of coal would have to be imported. 184.11. The breakdown of fossil fuels that will be used in the HEGS-PEP scenario is shown in Figure 4. UPEEE Foundation page 59 .5 million barrels of oil. it is quite evident that dependence on non-renewable energy for power generation remains strong.120 tonnes of coal and 1. the share of non-renewable energy increases to 80%. 98.10 and 4. Total cost of imported fuel is $5. 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.

000.000.000.000.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 4.000 30.000. UPEEE Foundation page 60 .000 70.000.000.000 (tonnes) 50.000. Inc.000 10.000 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 4.000 80.000 20.000 60.12: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 40.000 90.000.11: Share of Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy in the Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario 100.000.

236.610 778 4.2 million tonnes. the UPSL obtained the following shown in Table 4.751 283 1.758 $ 25.165.064 21.050.829 631.568.677 Year 2012 565.13 illustrates the contribution of each energy source to CO2 emissions resulting from the DOE plan for the HEGS.211 111.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. Total abatement cost for the HEG-PEP Scenario is $32.409 2.945 70.896 Based on the installed capacities and energy generation indicated in the PEP for the HEGS.059. Table 4.317 326.7 for energy generation cost for 2003 to 2012.764.913 $ 2.6.6: 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 19.076.599 970 19. Figure 4.843 167. Total CO2 emissions for the period is 347. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.995. UPEEE Foundation page 61 .022. Inc.680.294.132 Generation Cost The PEP-HEGS Scenario will require the following costs: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: $ 12.059.779.225 $ 10. An estimate of the environmental emissions is provided in Table 4.820 61. greenhouse has emissions is to further soar.

2889 3.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 4.0542 0.9810 2.7: Generation Costs for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario.000.0549 0. 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 0.0635 0.0640 2.000.0175 3.4908 3. Inc.0582 0.13: Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario Table 4. UPEEE Foundation page 62 .000.000 tonne CO2 30.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 60.0555 0.0598 0.000 40.000 10.3646 3.0392 3.0553 0.9853 3.0612 0.0557 0.0545 3.000.000.0543 0.1488 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.2021 3.0573 12% 3% 2% PhP/kWh* 3.000 20.000 50.000.

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

The energy mix and share of clean energy for the option are shown in Figure 5.060 million. Details of this scenario is given in Appendix D.279 tonnes of coal and 1.945. Installed Capacity As shown in Figure 5.1. which were used in the PEP scenarios. this scenario would require 58.9 BCF of natural gas would have to be imported.4. Total cost of fuel that need to be imported for this scenario is $ 3. The share of coal and oil in the mix would reduce by about 28% at the end of the period.554. 73. natural gas capacity would continue to increase until the end of the planning period. Also. natural gas and renewable energy plant capacities would amount to 69% of the total installed capacity.8 million barrels of oil. 64. the reserve margin is quite higher at 42% to 48%. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. For Mindanao. Inc. renewable energy plant installed capacity is increased by 95% from 4.3. 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.685 MW in 2012. This is shown in Figure 5. Note also that wind power plants. however.2 and 5. 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. the Moderate Clean Power Development option is applied to the Low Economic Growth Scenario. Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 5.4 BCF of natural gas for the whole planning period. which were used in this option to address the additional power and energy demand. 58. By 2012. respectively.502. which cannot be addressed with the low dependable capacity of its existing plants. Of these amounts.228 tonnes of coal and 154.450 MW in 2003 to 8. have lower capacity factors compared to coal power plants. 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%. UPEEE Foundation page 64 . This is because more power plants are required to meet Mindanao’s energy demand.1 LEGS-MCPD Scenario In this scenario.

UPEEE Foundation page 65 .592.254 $ 2. computed cost values for the planning period are as follows: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: Average generation cost: $ 12.1: Installed Generating Capacity for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario Environmental Emissions and Abatement Cost As would be expected.5 illustrates the CO2 emissions calculated from this option.0568 or PhP 3. Inc.6 million tonnes of CO2 as compared to the LEGS-PEP.053 $ 23. Total cost of abatement of other emissions for this option is $23. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. GHG emissions from the LEGS-MCPD are much lower than that from 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. Total CO2 emissions for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario is 264.000 MW 10.508 $ 8. The LEGS-PEP abatement cost is $6.955.202 million.000 5.723.507. Generation Cost For this LEGS-MCPD.000 15.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25.000 20.815 $ 0.113.969.755. achieving net reduction of 44. Figure 5.166 million higher than that of the LEGS-MCPD.479.1235 The LEGS-MCPD will achieve a net savings of $ 236 million as compared with the LEGS-PEP.7 million tonnes.

UPEEE Foundation page 66 .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.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. 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.

000.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 80.000.000.000.000. Inc.000.000 25.000 20.000 60.000.000.000 10.000.000.000 10.000.4: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario 40. UPEEE Foundation page 67 .000 20.000 30.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Coal 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 5.000 30.000 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 5.5: CO2 Emissions for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 15.000.000 70.000 35.000 (tonnes) 40.000 50.000.000.000.000 5.000.

2 million barrels and 139. Environmental Emissions and Abatement Cost The increased utilization of renewable energy resources. is 53%.34 tonnes/GWh. in this option.523. Mindanao’s average reserve margin.9. Figure 5.4 BCF. The mix of imported and indigenous fuel is shown in Figure 5.8 shows the increase in clean energy share in the mix.270 GWh in 2012. Installed Capacity In this option.480 MW in 2012 and the further increase in the utilization of geothermal and biomass resources. wind power plants take 20.2 LEGS-ACPD Scenario In this scenario.074.450 MW in 2003 to 11. Inc. The total CO2 emissions for the period is 248. 1471. The total CO2 emissions for each year are shown in Figure 5.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 5.794 GWh in 2003 to 84.633.860 million. Reserve Margin For Luzon and Visayas. UPEEE Foundation page 68 . The 30% increase in renewable energy share from 37% to 48% over the planning period. which is 60.731 tonnes.10. brings the CO2 emission level at 321. brings the clean energy generation from 33. while importation of oil and natural gas stand at 57.7 BCF of natural gas and 57.715. This 159% increase in renewable capacity is largely attributable to the increase in wind capacity from zero in 2003 to 3.2 million barrels of oil. Figure 5. renewable energy capacity is increased from 4. respectively. Energy Mix Figure 5. for 2008 to 2012. Coal importation for this option reaches 58. Total cost of fuel that is needed to be imported for this scenario is $ 2. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. The average for the country is 34%.40% of the peak demand.9 million tonnes less than the LEGS-PEP. Total cost of abatement for this option is $ 21.175 tonnes of coal. respectively. the average reserve margins are 33% and 26%.7 illustrates the energy mix resulting from the LEGS-ACPD option.520 MW in 2012.294. Fuel Consumption Total fuel requirement for the LEGS-ACPD is 66.6 shows the installed capacities for the LEGS-ACPD option. the Aggressive Clean Power Development Option is applied to the Low Economic Growth Scenario. In this option.4 million tonnes.

POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25.7: Energy Mix for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. 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 20.000 15.000 5.6: 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 5.000 MW 10. UPEEE Foundation page 69 .

9: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 30. UPEEE Foundation page 70 .000.000.8: Coal and Oil-Based vs.000 70.000 20.000.000.000.000 40. Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario 90.000.000 (tonnes) 50.000 0 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 5.000 60.000 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 80. Inc.000.000.000.

POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 40.000.000. Renewable energy capacity accounts for 30% in 2003 and 39% in 2012.057. the Moderate Clean Power Development option is applied to the High Economic Growth Scenario.000 15. Natural gas capacities are increased throughout the period and would account for the biggest share in installed capacity by 2012.10: CO2 Emissions for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario Generation Cost For this LEGS-ACPD. 5.880.000 20.1698 This scenario would cost $52 million more than the LEGS-PEP.132.000. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.816.564 $ 2.000 35.000 25.000.414. UPEEE Foundation page 71 . computed cost values for the planning period are as follows: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: Average generation cost: $ 12.000 30.000.000 0 2003 2004 Oil-based 2005 Coal 2006 2007 2008 Geothermal 2009 Hydro 2010 Biomass 2011 Wind 2012 Natural Gas Figure 5.000.0576 or PhP 3. Inc.661.000 5.671 $ 0.3 HEGS-MCPD Scenario In this scenario.000 10.603.094 $ 8.403. Installed Capacity The installed capacity for this option is given in Figure 5.11.000.000.012 $ 23.

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. Figure 5.8 million tonnes.549. Total cost of fuel imports is $ 3.124 $ 9. while Figure 5.4 million tonnes lower than the HEGS-PEP.456 $ 0.7 million barrels of oil.686. this scenario would require 70. Environmental Emissions Figure 5. 2% is contributed by wind power plants.665.12 shows the corresponding energy mix for the HEGS-MCPD option.322 million.8 BCF tonnes of natural gas would have to be imported. 70. Inc. Generation Cost For this HEGS-MCPD.7 million barrels of oil. renewable energy and natural gas contribution to the energy mix increases from 61% to 74% for 2003 to 2012.15 shows the CO2 emissions resulting from the HEGS-MCPD option. UPEEE Foundation page 72 .781. Of these amounts.302 $ 24.13 illustrates the clean energy mix. computed cost values for the planning period are as follows: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: Average generation cost: $ 12. Total abatement cost for this option is $ 24.9 BCF of natural gas for the whole planning period.778.1065 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.271 tonnes of coal and 1.807. 64. 73. which falls within 35% to 48%. Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements. This difference is attributable to the inevitable higher reserve margin for Mindanao.0565 or PhP 3.769.718.580. which is 63.857 tonnes of coal and 342.347. Of this mix.390. The total CO2 emissions is at 283.940.030 $ 2.076.349. Energy Mix With its installed capacities dominating.

000 15.11: 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 5.000 20. UPEEE Foundation page 73 .POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25.000 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 5.12: Energy Mix for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Inc.

000 50. UPEEE Foundation page 74 .000.000.000 (tonnes) 40. Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario 80.000.000.000.000 30.000 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 5.000. Inc.000 20.000 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 70.000.000.13: Coal and Oil-Based vs.000 60.14: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.

University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000.000 15.000 25. UPEEE Foundation page 75 .000 20.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Coal 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 5.000. Inc.000 5.000. Figure 5. clean energy share increased by 24% over the planning period.15: CO2 Emissions for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario 5.000 35. the country’s effective reserve margin ranges from 28% to 32%. Figure 5. Energy Mix While oil-based and coal share in the energy mix decreased by 38%.000.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 40. 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 2012.18 illustrate these changes in the energy mix.000. the Aggressive Clean Power Development option strategy is applied to the High Economic Growth Scenario.000 10.17 and Figure 5.16 illustrates this. Reserve Margin With the inevitably high reserve margin of 45% to 51% for Mindanao.4 HEGS-ACPD Scenario In this option.000 30.000.000.000.

POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements. Generation Cost For this HEGS-ACPD. UPEEE Foundation page 76 . 72. this scenario would require 90.288. Environmental Emissions and Abatement Cost Carbon dioxide generation for the HEGS-ACPD option is shown in Figure 5.567 $ 9.139 tonnes of coal and 276.682 tonnes of coal and 1. 67. The cost of abatement for SOx .568 $ 0. Inc.638.7 BCF of natural gas.842.0 million barrels of oil.824. NOx and particulates for this option is 23.0575 or PhP 3.560.1 million tonnes.584.532.723.19 shows the sharing of the imported and indigenous fossil fuels.199.1 million tonnes lower than that for the HEGS-PEP.513 million.182. All of the oil would have to be imported.458.402.1647 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. computed cost values for the planning period are as follows: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: Average generation cost: $ 12. Figure 5.791. along with 59. Cost of fuel imports is $ 3. Total CO2 emissions is at 275.20.730 $ 2.583.271 $ 25.5 BCF of natural gas for the whole planning period.

POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25. UPEEE Foundation page 77 .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 5.000 MW 10. Inc.000 15.000 5.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Oil-based Hydro Coal Biomass Natural Gas Wind Geothermal Peak Demand Figure 5.000 20.17: Energy Mix for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.

19: Fuel Consumption for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000.000.18: Coal and Oil-Based vs.000.000.000.000 70. Inc.000 60.000 10.000 0 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 5.000.000 (tonnes) 40. Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario 80.000.000 30.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 50.000.000 20. UPEEE Foundation page 78 .

000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Coal 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 5.000.000 30.000.000 15.000 10.000. Inc.000 25. UPEEE Foundation page 79 .000.000.000 5.000.000.000 35.20: CO2 Emissions for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 20.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 40.000.

Inc. which could adversely affect the power system’s stability at high levels of penetration. Biomass power is also an attractive option for grid-connected generation. This study has assessed the technologies and resources in the Philippines that could be tapped for clean power development. This study also offers two alternative paths or strategies (moderate and aggressive) through the alternative clean power development plans. These alternative plans are comparable to the PEP in terms of costs. To avoid significant amounts of GHG emissions in the future. At the current CO2 prices ($5 per tonne) in the market. new natural gas sites must be identified and developed. While the PEP has tried to address these problems. 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 aid planning and operation of the power system. wind and natural gas technologies. natural gas importation may be pursued. In the following paragraphs. is attractive as the price of carbon is expected to increase in the future. the installed capacity and hence the energy mix has been dominated by non-renewable energy. the country has to resort to biomass. study must be made to determine how much wind power capacity the local power system grids could absorb. UPEEE Foundation page 80 . The contribution from renewable energy is expected to decline in the next 10 years. storage and therefore requires that more research and development activities to address these issues. 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. therefore. But it is still associated with problems such as fuel collection. small hydro. the local natural gas industry is anchored on the natural gas find in Malampaya. 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. Historically. In addition. Another issue is the intermittent nature of wind power. The country has nearly exhausted its geothermal and large hydro resources.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. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. There are even opportunities that can create additional dollar income from carbon trading and local employment. Switching to cleaner energy. To support power switching. At the moment. which will worsen the situation from the point of view of clean and sustainable development. we have outlined a set of measures that should be made to attract more investments in renewable generation technologies in the future. as was done in this study. In the medium term. the business-as-usual Philippine Energy Plan 2003 – 2012 does not offer a different scenario.

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

Inc. These plants must “feed-in” the Grid at minimum prices that will guarantee the returns of power developers. This cost mechanism will ensure that all electricity consumers will share the cost of such a development. 6. particularly on the required technical analysis and compensating equipment.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. 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. 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.2 Transmission and Distribution Development Transmission and distribution infrastructure should be developed to increase access to renewable energy sites. The cost of such an expansion should be borne by the transmission or distribution utility. most of which are site specific. The Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) should allow such an expansion even if it does not initially show recovery of investment.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. run-of-river small hydro and biomass) should be given priority in the dispatch of generating units. UPEEE Foundation page 82 . Transmission facilities should deliberately be expanded toward locations of promising renewable energy sources.1: Recommended Bottom-Up Approach to Energy Planning 6. operation and control of nonconventional. renewable energy-based power plants.

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. tax exemptions. simplification of custom procedures and importation of consigned equipment) will be available for renewable energy developers.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.g. Dedicated Financing Windows that allow longer repayment periods for renewable energy-based development. • • University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas..POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 6.. Inc. An assistance program should be created for renewable energy development.g.

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

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

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 1.486 686 4906 15.922 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.Appendix A POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table A. Inc.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 1.280 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.

065 75 229 259 795 2. UPEEE Foundation page 2 of 4 .170 6.738 Table A. Inc.113 169 519 347 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.Appendix A POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table A. 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 1.2: 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 1.031 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.

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.030 1 10 53 9 79 415 3 32 168 3 22 116 4 40 210 8 72 378 30 318 1.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. Inc.585 Table A. UPEEE Foundation page 3 of 4 .5.4.258 6.671 6 35 184 3 34 179 15 181 110 4 26 951 3 28 147 19 179 941 1 6 32 129 1.

Inc. UPEEE Foundation page 4 of 4 .Appendix A POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table A.209 7 37 11 58 7 37 826 4.6.692 7 7 18 18 53 279 26 137 58 305 69 363 230 1.237 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. 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.

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

030 5.543 934 1.600 1.590 5.030 6.936 8.259 2.973 5.950 1.554 36.910 8.754 41.512 13.730 11.626 10.758 5.914 10.368 4.290 2001 13.579 1994 7.865 10.799 9.282 5.176 25.987 3.536 5.844 5.867 1.013 12.939 13.341 3.929 19.238 26.320 6.388 11.296 5.128 36.959 9.789 6.707 39.735 33.534 7.963 3.066 7.663 18.223 6.862 6.894 9.734 30.684 762 1.452 1.067 1.254 2.875 8.856 1.290 47.931 1.073 1.440 5.363 9.870 26.132 4.049 Source: DOE University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.942 1.399 4.432 2000 12.301 2.353 10.417 1.797 1998 11.348 2.578 1999 11.402 Source: DOE Table B.232 7.442 5.226 5.072 11.167 1.493 3.791 2.518 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 6.190 11.345 45.797 41.237 8.799 7.471 6.425 5.071 25.301 2.847 9.037 39.104 Source: DOE Table B.069 5.042 2.109 4.053 4.804 13.696 11.301 2.155 2.870 1993 6. Inc.154 4.145 4.901 12.725 12.849 41.086 3.963 Natural Gas 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 1. 1991-2001 (MW) Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Fuel Type Oil-based 3.432 45.078 18.Appendix B POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table B.339 952 1.600 2.050 12.927 Coal 405 405 441 550 850 1.395 721 1.135 6.212 9.185 13.708 1997 10.579 30.840 7.567 13.459 33.713 47.1: Installed Generating Capacity.578 41.459 1995 8.819 1.931 1.301 2.162 11.301 2.2: 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 25.931 Hydro 2.789 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 20 16 17 848 5.191 957 2.568 4.063 Geothermal 888 888 963 1.700 5.855 7.098 14.200 3.257 2.154 1.851 1.839 4.288 19.390 6.150 7. UPEEE Foundation page 1 of 2 .859 823 1.015 1.928 12.185 9.949 7.267 1.867 16.3: Energy Consumption by Sector.594 11.649 1992 6.132 4.554 1996 9.340 6.649 25.667 6.249 4. 1991-2001 (GWh) Year Year 1991 Residential Commercial Industrial Others Utilities Own Use Power Losses Total 6.725 9.547 10.444 921 1.196 5.477 8.335 5.531 1.301 2.116 18.183 16.

236.360 14.311 20.222 Natural Gas 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.343 41.582 11.679 8.164 19.347 5.337 25.932 154.678 117.896 136.553.396 18.062 1.351.703 47.175.687.964 114.796 CH4 587 643 685 835 963 974 1.666 1999 5.808 1995 3.529 296.311 10.555 30.547.633 130.519.185.521 18.348 2.652 4.116 20.644 13.704 18. 1991-2001 (GWh) 1991 Luzon Visayas Mindanao Philippines Source: DOE 1992 19.290 3.448 16. 1991-2001 (MW) Year Luzon Visayas Mindanao Philippines Source: DOE 1991 3.582 11. UPEEE Foundation page 2 of 2 .481 5.671 16.902 2.309 146.967 2.164 19.081 1992 3.854 6.820 474.702 7.411.882 149.553.428.403 1.903 21.687.075 N 2O 415 436 421 469 541 610 711 742 644 734 842 Particulates 10.521.233 11.204 160.915 12.045 410 626 4.674 480.291 1.698 4.729 NOX 58.639 16.688 3.090 16.286.566.566 3.028 770 868 6.291 1996 4.794 13.084 4.665 Coal 1.848 164.076 792 805 904 NMVOC 975 1.Appendix B POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table B.511 2.556 404.448 16.6: Environmental Emissions.530 15.352 1998 5.521.359 1.232.231.579 1994 23.238 106.365 39.184 5.233 11.755 4.038 973 1.835 893 954 7.816 1997 4.133 30.036 4.708 1997 30.351.908 2000 5.306 682 828 5.649 Table B.432 2000 34.687 1994 3.705.473 523 691 4.836 18.245 41.580.4: Peak Demand.725 117.813 3.773 727 852 6.695 33.083 18.611 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.159 13.733 24.122.831 189.578 1999 31.109 23.644 328.541 10.671 16.131.486 20.726 67.781 24.103.585.970 527.675 10.133 1.127 1.780 257.345 2.580 27.296 1993 3.459 1995 25.920 591 780 5.580.464 45.094.283 15.566.082.561 551 696 4.147 5.797 1998 31.159 13. tonne CO2 Year Oil-based 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 9.530 15.131.547.283 15.991 5.989 12.745 4.175 5.362 14.400 2001 5.338.428.069 84.290 2001 36. tonne Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Environmental Emissions CO 2 10.762 SOX 115.708 23.762 Table B.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 10.727 29.872 6.552 135.962 751.870.679 5.563 127.029 36.273 1.261 9.6: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Source.413 258.928 278.808 Fuel Type Geothermal 261.649 812 939 7.076 2.747 25.441 5.004 906 1.131.206 3.250 473 573 4.586 126.990 99.049 19.491.554 1996 27.163 5.704 18.282 286.682 Table B.119.712.807 CO 16.763 25.509.5: Generation by Grid. Inc.864 26.279 998.789 3.414 162.226 789 893 6.471.492 144.411.585.396 18.004 101.616 28.242 1.376 3.124 17.870 1993 19.

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

459 1.31% 7.033 7.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.161 9.958 8.377 1.360 1.30% 7.007 1.084 1.93% 7.830 10.519 10.319 12.1b: System Peak Demand Forecasts for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (MW) YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual Ave. UPEEE Foundation page 1 of 16 .159 1.912 2.39% NATIONAL Non-Coincident Peak 8.829 1.2012) LUZON 6.2007) (2008 .58% VISAYAS 1.R.275 7.752 7. G.673 1.254 1. (2003 .149 13.139 11.91% 7.814 15.276 1.855 8.034 7.26% 7.707 1.168 1.074 1.277 11.869 13.997 12.889 17.592 1.041 7.95% 6.789 1.813 14.503 9.95% 7.833 9.67% MINDANAO 1.57% Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.563 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.548 11.477 1.2012) (2003 .13% 7. Inc.

564 80.91% 7.306 7.497 9.411 9.30% 7.892 7.95% 6.548 64.2012) (2003 .57% Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.675 46.170 6. G.740 7.420 11.754 7.827 92.875 53.024 85.67% MINDANAO 6.342 8.016 9.135 11. Inc.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.452 7.870 66.604 42.26% 7.735 57.2007) (2008 .320 5.39% TOTAL 51.726 6.801 8.274 7.95% 7.072 49. UPEEE Foundation page 2 of 16 .103 9.93% 7.1c: Electricity Sales Forecasts for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (GWh) YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual Ave.924 8.31% 7.539 69.2012) LUZON 39.13% 7.506 74.154 59. (2003 .182 55.58% VISAYAS 5.660 61.057 98.R.743 10.686 7.391 71.661 10.260 76.258 6.

308 2005 2443 3758 450 3.517 2.308 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 11.817 2.617 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.308 2010 1583 3758 450 3.604 546 - 1.141 12.031 15.308 2011 1583 3758 450 3.141 12.308 2004 2443 3758 450 3.067 2.131 13.1d: DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (MW) Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Local Imported Year 2003 2443 3758 450 3.807 616 200 200 - 1.308 2009 2233 3758 450 3.217 2.647 1.441 13.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.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. UPEEE Foundation page 3 of 16 .207 616 200 200 - 2.707 616 200 200 - 1.267 2.308 2007 2443 3758 450 3.796 12.717 1.141 12.607 616 - 1.208 616 200 200 - 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 - 1.907 616 200 200 - 2.308 2008 2443 3758 450 3. Inc.657 616 - 1.381 11.107 616 200 200 - 2.308 2006 2443 3758 450 3.017 2.831 15.308 2012 1583 3758 450 3.367 2.

214 1.763 3.763 3.563 2008 3.763 2.214 1.505 18.970 65 150 350 - 2.763 3.763 3.214 1.970 65 550 1.163 600 3.970 65 2.381 4.763 3.163 600 3.340 3.963 600 3.563 2010 2.563 2009 3.214 1.214 1.930 - 2.950 750 2.340 4.565 17.457 3.970 65 3.350 300 2.340 4.214 1.869 1.163 600 3.519 1.950 900 Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking PHILIPPINES TOTAL 14.963 600 3.350 1.214 1.763 3.650 750 2.490 3.405 19.163 600 3.120 15.214 1.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Local Imported Year 2003 3.363 2004 3. UPEEE Foundation page 4 of 16 .163 600 3.163 600 3.763 3.480 4.865 16.500 1.970 65 300 - 2.563 2012 2.632 15.970 65 1.970 65 - 2.756 20.563 2011 2.163 600 3.615 15.563 Philippines Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 2.363 2006 3.970 65 350 - 2. Inc.563 2007 3.763 3.015 16.706 Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.963 600 3.363 2005 3.300 1.763 2.340 4.130 4.970 65 400 650 - 2.381 4.

200 5.100 2006 2007 Midrange 2008 Midrange 2009 Peaking 300 690 690 990 Panay Midrange Panay Baseload Cebu Baseload Negros Baseload 600 300 1.190 Cebu Baseload Panay Baseload 990 Baseload Plant 100 970 7. Inc.200 290 390 490 Mindanao Coal Baseload Plant Baseload Plant 200 50 150 370 420 570 1.240 Cebu Baseload 4.350 1.500 2.1e: 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 4.750 690 Baseload Plant 50 620 3.440 Cebu Baseload Negros Baseload 50 50 50 50 890 Baseload Plant 150 870 6.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.050 San Roque Hydro 2005 345 690 240 Diesel Plant from Luzon Midrange Plant 70 100 170 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. UPEEE Foundation page 5 of 16 .150 Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.

962 16.792 8.776 3.273 7.991 33.965 83.093 679.849 7.865 683.869.171 29.988 213.812 32.304.820.462 27.352.833.449 685.712 117.497 195.435 81.249.460 34.896 9.816.188.797 3.303 265.568 115.820.963 15.536 Oil-based 12.151 243.030 2.429 181.866.635 582.937 148.680 489.493 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.422 335.829 222.103 21.495 685.532 39.519 TOTAL 18.993 46.491 97.177 685.163 437.676 6.669.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.633 164.571.778.185 32.158.809.808 40.279 28.020 289.177 92.265.840 51.802.958.297 33.828 345.275.927 8.936.577.908 32.939 26.289 159.975 14.951.032 392.113 283.982.340 238.445 Oil-based 21.1g: 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 137.939 Natural gas 21.477 203.803 103.676 685.491.330 25.388.100 8.201 30.997 Table C.317 211.1h: 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 78.855 246.921.985 42.803.764.850 20.465 5.410 89.788 1.600.188 139.611 309.076.573.220 8.091 57.536.410 40.785 39.113.918 Coal 10.531 14.284 24.870 225.897.229 8.528 31.503 1.452 685.114.061 35.313 685.416 21.821 2.821 2.251 128.086 8.095 Oil-based 2.307. Inc.887.844 147.782 13.019 TOTAL 112.687 16.894 22.450 295.770 25.402.599 168.722 685.837 18.242 75.453 Table C.060.631.088 TOTAL 159.264 8.928 31.762 94.897 189.827.289 28.644 7.660 169.324 28.316.922 Natural gas 5.609 10.876.317.760. UPEEE Foundation page 6 of 16 .710 128.652 182.125.927 8.981 303.534 8.521 36.045.1f: 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 641.051.138 38.941 384.086.464 Natural gas 104 125 134 143 152 157 159 158 156 157 1.855 133.203 265.011 2.624 7.

763 13.656 12.285 13.241 28.963 3.595 46.363 36.454 Oil-based 163 195 267 238 302 449 713 770 755 802 4.268 11. UPEEE Foundation page 7 of 16 .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 9.519 1.228 Natural gas 1.355 26.630 2.586 10.432 25.580 1.045 1.121 54.060 6.999 7.730 Natural gas 145 174 186 198 211 218 220 219 217 218 2.586 1.176 17.581 1.008 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.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.425 1.373 2.385 11.323 362.966 32.240 4.274 13.250 3.602 16.776 10.414 Oil-based 2.655 TOTAL 1.620 20.1j: 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 1.254 1.571 14.069 14.125 13.562 1.196 13.008 2.362 23.971 12.714 3.586 50.575 13.319 13.341 1.810 2.1k: 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 1.193 121.925 4.873 9.758 24.571 1.529 11.758 42.337 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.134 3.157 2.397 3.712 28. Inc.548 Table C.078 165.554 12.207 TOTAL 21.049 Natural gas 8.671 Table C.053 76.

514 5.44 0.03 0.37 438.89 2.50 0.389 15.264 1.84 3.02 0.41 4.42 0.02 0.36 0.50 0.563 Oil-based 2.044 Natural gas 836 1.698 3.653 49.216 1.620 274.1n: Environmental Emissions per Unit Generation (tonne/kWh) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Environmental Emissions CO2 340.387 TOTAL 19.559 21.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.394 15.03 0.700 24.50 0.073 1. UPEEE Foundation page 8 of 16 .342 Natural gas 313 376 402 428 456 471 476 474 469 471 4.02 0.02 0.50 SOX 2.03 0.46 0.34 0.778 1.995 Table C.952 38.02 0.836 7.003 1.139 4.858 29.39 0.160 25.51 CH4 0.01 0.60 NOX 2.03 0.04 1.466 41.03 N2O 0.256 11.03 0.923 7.01 0.979 29.49 0.52 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.40 0.03 0.399 1.175 1.140 22.52 3.02 0.57 2.03 0.15 4.55 338.02 0.01 0.66 358.275 1.122 1.02 Particulates 0.47 0.424 1.01 0.528 3.176 2.39 0.39 373.78 346.45 2.256 34.03 0.353 55.031 46.686 Table C.684 7.1l: 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 1.69 2.35 0.589 1.89 4.008 TOTAL 952 1.37 0. Inc.66 429.257 1.336 Oil-based 79 95 121 108 142 202 305 320 308 328 2.43 0.647 338.221 3.01 NMVOC 0.244 26.78 CO 0.03 0.013 1.927 20.140 1.01 0.24 3.1m: 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 16.36 390.917 17.35 2.969 2.01 0.01 0.01 0.268 1.771 53.67 2.97 2.06 3.209 43.250 1.02 0.14 2.01 2.97 421.41 0.01 0.39 410.42 0.072 7.02 0.973 33.25 2.589 9.

014 1.46% 8. Inc.400 1.2012) (2003 . (2003 .2012) LUZON 6.378 13.675 1.23% Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.788 7.R.809 1.815 VISAYAS 1.543 1.804 13.106 MINDANAO 1.862 12.953 2.176 1.13% 8.790 18.357 7.94% 8.891 2.099 1.60% 8.562 16. G.22% 8.512 1.90% 8.994 8.469 11.423 15.73% 7.424 12.2b: System Peak Demand Forecasts for the High Economic Growth Scenario (MW) YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual Ave.883 9.711 9.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.630 1.081 1.92% 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.194 1.106 8.281 1.186 NATIONAL Non-Coincident Peak 8. UPEEE Foundation page 9 of 16 .633 10.2007) (2008 .992 11.09% 8.59% 7.757 1.428 1.034 2.438 10.65% 7.186 10.313 1.359 14.

807 6.155 8.94% 8.469 55.124 8.465 8.555 90.888 51.497 10.09% 8.149 8. G.363 59.266 104.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.59% 7.555 10.848 9.13% 51.711 77.148 97.90% 8.73% 7. Inc.746 64.938 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.732 8.2012) 39.888 8.60% 8.104 81.64% 7.015 11.851 7.814 43.578 75.23% Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.2007) (2008 .305 6.22% 5.814 60.300 6.187 71. UPEEE Foundation page 10 of 16 .542 8.233 11.355 5.847 12.2012) (2003 .46% 6.R.474 69. (2003 .156 46.658 66.314 11.392 83.094 55.033 8.92% 8.805 9.

308 2007 2.317 2.067 2.583 3.583 3.443 3.381 17.857 616 200 200 - 2.308 2010 1. Inc.867 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.758 450 3.796 12.717 1.758 450 3.707 616 200 200 - 1.308 2005 2.205 907 65 2.607 616 - 1.763 2.758 450 3.758 450 3.205 907 65 2.763 2.658 616 200 200 - 2.443 3.308 2012 1.443 3.205 907 65 2.817 2.500 900 2.308 2008 2.308 2006 2. UPEEE Foundation page 11 of 16 .567 2.141 12.881 16.758 450 3.308 2004 2.233 3.205 907 65 2.758 450 3.763 2.758 450 3.431 14.007 616 200 200 - 2.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.443 3.308 2009 2.205 907 65 2.763 2.017 2.604 546 - 1.510 907 - 2.763 2.441 13.758 616 200 200 - 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 1.443 3.700 1.205 907 65 Luzon Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking 300 1.557 616 200 200 - 2.763 1.800 3.357 616 200 200 - 2.763 2.758 450 3.767 2.657 616 - 1.205 907 65 2.131 468 205 150 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 - 1.2d: DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the High Economic Growth Scenario (MW) Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Local Imported Year 2003 2.860 907 65 2.300 1.583 3.758 450 3.763 2.308 2011 1.443 3.300 750 LUZON TOTAL Oil-based Coal Local Imported 11.647 1.141 12.381 11.141 12.763 2.205 907 65 2.367 2.800 3.308 Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 2.763 1.758 450 3.

869 1.970 65 2.865 16.970 65 2.970 65 2.163 600 3.214 1.763 3.214 1.615 15.970 65 2.970 65 Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking 300 350 150 400 450 800 700 2.214 1.763 3.763 3. UPEEE Foundation page 12 of 16 .850 3.480 4.163 600 3.963 600 3.930 - 2.214 1.806 22.563 2008 3.065 16.381 4.763 3.763 3.763 2.519 1.763 2.214 1.563 2011 2.500 0 3.963 600 3.563 2009 3.490 3.363 2005 3.381 4.155 20.250 750 PHILIPPINES TOTAL 14.457 3.970 65 2.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Local Imported Year 2003 3.970 65 2.563 2012 2.150 0 1.000 4.163 600 3.005 21.200 4.130 4.763 3.214 1.340 4. Inc.363 2006 3.763 3.163 600 3.340 3.563 2007 3.563 2010 2.214 1.163 600 3.970 65 2.340 4.214 1.632 15.120 15.163 600 3.963 600 3.765 18.340 4.756 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.163 600 3.250 0 3.363 2004 3.763 3.563 Philippines Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 2.970 65 2.

200 4.070 8.190 Cebu Baseload Panay Baseload Baseload Plant 50 720 3.100 2005 150 50 50 100 50 50 50 50 100 50 50 50 100 150 50 1.250 Midrange 1.290 Cebu Baseload Bohol Midrange Baseload Plant Midrange Plant 100 50 870 6. UPEEE Foundation page 13 of 16 .200 2.440 Baseload Plant 100 1.2e: 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 1.200 Peaking 2012 750 6.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.300 2010 Midrange Baseload Plant 2011 Midrange 900 600 5.140 940 590 290 440 Midrange Plant 100 2006 2007 Midrange 2008 300 690 690 Panay Midrange Panay Baseload Panay Midrange Mindanao Coal Baseload Plant 200 50 370 420 1.340 Baseload Plant Midrange Plant 150 50 1. Inc.170 9.150 Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.540 Cebu Baseload Panay Baseload 1.350 1.790 Cebu Baseload Negros Baseload Cebu Midrange 50 50 100 50 50 1.850 2009 Negros Baseload Cebu Midrange Bohol Midrange Baseload Plant 900 1.550 990 Cebu Baseload Cebu Midrange Negros Baseload Baseload Plant Midrange Plant 200 50 670 2.

784 157.939 26.609 28.208.849 7.051 8.437 242.293 82.921.706 153.317 3.887 197.351 79.017 30.686 347.267 121.686 Coal 10.124 11.399.299 33.989.220 8.198.000 684.094 104.779 15.741 631.207 14.792.653 27.170 89.645.537 16.866 288.233 33.888 232.787.518 214.434 28.178.073.689 Oil-based 9.064 118.206 180.806.912 293.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.862 11.253.211 173.891 8.927 8.194 TOTAL 111.862.945 479.722 685.661 30.396 154.636 Natural gas 104 126 136 145 155 158 159 158 156 157 1.518 77.341 26.465.808 139.744.300 Table C.677 174.565.033 8.264 8.435 2.639 34.450 685.2h: 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 79.710 546.873 49.683 61.221 109.839 182.829 347.043 41.585 685.316 257.297 33.490 157.383 326.824 13.701 Natural gas 5.526 33.060.620.912.767 685.822 23.877.499 TOTAL 167.735.534.951.864 2.258.415 Natural gas 21.198.734.879 Oil-based 2.945 1.320 681.370.793 3.050.828.473 51.294.070 305.254 191.2f: 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 641.173 56.498 264.722 685. UPEEE Foundation page 14 of 16 .934.300.488.891 11.055 2.585 685.713 217.167.2g: 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 139.812 6.897 409.796 44.877 20.895 12.634 149.202 74.843 20.185 32. Inc.052 418.808 243.708 137.722 685.630 162.198 192.785.250 284.590 Table C.125.322 12.035 TOTAL 19.297 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.106.172 22.840.909 224.812 33.625 1.922 383.664.582 40.859 7.234.226 7.890.965 19.498 130.897.042 17.014 42.124 8.239 10.533 32.743.002 321.774 12.820.180 42.673 35.941 30.456 Oil-based 27.897.970.704.529 5.572.688 221.296 1.021.863.

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 3.758 3.931 2.652 3.227 2.283 2.747 4.963 2.216 63 100 80 2.383 2.418 112 685 19.512 2.053 3.983 1.758 3.313 4.971 3.558 12 80 2.697 4.963 2.971 3.011 1.213 2. Inc.189 609 205 956 12 80 1.763 1.267 2.491 2.429 545 205 916 12 1.415 12 40 2.404 130 12.763 907 2.213 5.061 3.213 4.759 2.682 547 108 997 1.263 4.214 50 65 15.925 112 520 18.624 2.917 4.763 907 1.652 3.871 1.383 977 2.213 5.583 3.758 3.763 907 1.895 2.871 5.901 655 205 1.697 3.116 37 100 60 2.491 1.312 3.781 4.775 2.149 559 205 956 12 1.510 11.491 2.869 25 15.547 3.163 2.127 4.531 3.138 2.213 3.831 92 315 17.758 3.002 3.985 5.012 647 250 148 1.758 3.983 2.758 3.952 3.671 92 170 16.942 112 850 21.862 647 250 108 997 2.758 2.189 559 205 956 12 50 1.758 3.661 1.782 647 200 108 997 1. UPEEE Foundation Visayas page 2 of 16 .763 1.214 80 65 16.971 2.732 647 108 997 1.269 647 250 228 1.519 14.711 4.404 235 13.467 12 60 2.491 2.422 400 14.194 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.804 509 205 956 12 1.205 65 12.763 907 2.583 2.860 25 11.266 73 100 100 2.752 3.287 3.763 1.633 2.971 3.658 12 100 2.583 947 2.066 12 80 40 2.213 5.101 629 205 1.205 25 12.283 1.491 2.191 3.205 65 12.758 3.011 3.763 1.763 907 2.678 547 108 997 1.797 525 14.583 2.211 650 15.214 25 15.917 4.912 647 250 128 1.941 605 205 1.923 2.1a: 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 2.398 647 250 228 1.963 2.694 609 205 986 12 80 20 1.287 4.763 1.255 12 20 2.942 5.011 1.146 647 250 188 1.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.583 1.419 609 205 1.

908 Coal 10.456 758.074 24.099 14.958.763 0 0 0 0 0 820 800 900 300 400 1.623.975 14.528 31.590 1.583 0 0 300 0 50 0 0 20 75 50 Coal 3.213 1.235 1.141 18.523 4.097 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 14.462 27.776 3.571.449 685.906 27.975 15.720 3.896 9.816.011 2.181 69.001 16.915 Coal 18.484 1.831 2.757 846. Inc.151.931 0 40 0 0 0 90 130 340 180 70 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 2.121 14.372 64.636 99.943 27.383 Natural Gas 5.813 19.916.152.343 16.1d: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.452 685.113.884 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 0 645 785 785 785 Wind 0 153 153 153 153 153 843 1.757 30.249.094.579 1.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.897.093 679.247 3.576 14.893 7.148 1.577.764 6.209 Total Addition Table D.086 11.659 27.901.953 24.936.125.963 0 0 0 200 50 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 2.706 1.609 10.087 19.271 21.101 Fuel Type Geothermal 641. UPEEE Foundation page 3 of 16 .177 685.092 15.821 2.284 24.438 86.391 1.125.1b: Annual Capacity Additions (MW) Year Oil-based Current Installed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3.020.782 13.415 20.076.477 12.850 20.098 15.229 8.783 15.797 3.333.060 33.596 1.580 74.495 639.275.289 106.281.894 22.313 1.927 8.937 1.784 15.928 7.589 27.1c: Power Generation (GWh) Year Oil-based 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.114.979.629 18.833.644 1.857 27.837 15.820.641 6.534 8.519 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 1.687 16.388.465 5.710 18.215.948 80.360 92.272 Total 55.216 13.374 30.951 31.158.349 16.143 59.045.865 683.869.835 Natural Gas 13.402.968 8.573.100 18.133.210 19.943 7.652 1.113.054 15.952 3.654 29.085 16.324 6.521 27.297 Hydro Biomass Wind Total 18.430 Table D.089.760.536.061 27.653 821.689 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.174.778.263 14.017 17.982.550 30.849 7.624 7.

757 30.954 180.02 0.03 0.362 23.317 164.241 28.03 0.32 0.03 0.37 0.275 Environmental Emissions CO 21.536 27.37 0.78 346.380 169.215.17 2.32 299.06 0.1g: Generation Cost Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Generation Cost US$/kWh 0.897 189.373 2.936.73 1.966 32.952 27.98 10.36 0.01 0.01 0.840 217.36 390.147 943.726 215.113 283.778.90 1.06 0.05 3.251 128.689 SOX 159.03 0.901.981 3.06 0.34 0.238 N 2O 952 1.402.25 2.38 0.140 22.52 2.05 NOX 2.927 20.35 0.650 218.69 Environmental Emissions CO CH 4 0.40 0.06 PhP/kWh 3. Inc.110 35.36 0.810 2.584 2.84 3.03 0.01 0.160 25.28 0.01 0.542 Table D.249.05 3.630 2.937 148.89 2.01 0.04 1.355 26.69 2.424 1.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.397 943.03 0.581 1.04 3.46 0.1e: Environmental Emissions (tonne) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 18.09 314.10 3.979 29.113.677 28.31 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.275 1.535 Particulates 19.044 CH 4 282 314 346 379 423 470 443 470 497 536 NMVOC 1.39 0.1f: Environmental Emission per Unit Generation (tonne/GWh) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 340.03 0.451 943.122 1.06 0.157 2.02 0.66 358.70 304.422 217.55 338.01 0.779 2.03 0.39 373.01 2.01 NMVOC 0.14 2.013 1.589 775.87 Particulates 0.528 31.35 2.43 0.06 0.50 8.151 243.894 22.687 38.39 323.06 0.03 0.42 0.363 36.061 27.01 0.02 0.06 3.52 2.35 1.88 SO X 2.462 27.951 31.06 0.916.599 168.988 213.01 0.39 0.19 3.982.008 2.02 8.442 34.41 0.152.02 0.30 0.20 3.01 0.27 Table D. UPEEE Foundation page 4 of 16 .029 NOX 112.12 3.973 33.42 0.758 32.284 24.654 29.839 27.18 9.06 0.83 1.850 20.06 0.02 0.712 117.06 3.10 3.36 0.97 2.289 159.429 181.137 171.24 3.03 N2O 0.

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

011 3.325 3.578 2.213 2.053 947 2.747 4.658 12 335 3. Inc.168 4.583 3.743 2.422 25 1.763 2.011 1.763 3.865 14.413 647 250 228 1.633 907 2.763 1.149 559 205 956 12 1.758 3.697 4.213 4.758 3.758 3.480 23.923 907 2.825 510 205 1.214 50 65 15.491 2.265 13.465 16.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.778 4.778 2.467 12 179 2.682 547 108 997 1.752 3.797 25 2.763 1.856 609 205 1.952 3.652 3.925 117 2.213 5.661 1.104 19.011 1.096 12 80 40 2.205 65 12.189 559 205 956 12 50 1.214 25 15.735 1.758 3.369 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.957 2.146 37 80 60 2.862 647 250 108 997 2.168 4.991 4.138 907 2.963 2.531 1.189 609 205 956 12 80 1.213 4.678 547 108 997 1.519 14.418 117 2.065 17.042 647 250 148 1.491 2.491 2.963 2.671 102 718 16.476 63 80 80 2.763 1.841 4.063 3.718 609 205 996 12 80 20 1.763 1.968 2.758 3.510 11.468 2.468 907 1.763 2.963 2.488 1.763 2.758 3.782 647 200 108 997 1.932 117 3.759 907 1.221 3.227 2.213 3.214 80 65 16.917 4.860 25 11. UPEEE Foundation page 6 of 16 .211 25 3.136 647 250 188 1.758 3.868 609 205 1.971 3.491 1.163 2.732 647 108 997 1.267 2.002 3.267 4.291 510 205 1.205 25 12.971 2.205 65 12.763 1.411 18.561 3.547 3.922 647 250 128 1.429 545 205 916 12 1.404 25 1.971 3.558 12 262 2.2a: 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 2.283 647 250 228 1.130 2.548 4.697 3.758 3.964 977 2.831 117 1.871 1.971 3.404 10 665 12.804 509 205 956 12 1.063 2.758 2.415 12 106 2.287 3.213 3.491 2.255 12 33 2.127 4.071 3.758 3.869 25 15.968 5.931 2.763 2.346 63 80 80 2.652 3.548 2.807 21.

708 27.958.557.583 0 0 300 0 50 548 548 488 538 528 Coal 3.369 11.386 649.263 6.452 685.087 19.076.922 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 14.523 4.776 3.210 19.287 9.045.545.577.125.797 3.534 21.132.943 7.341 22.387 1.849 7.138 26.545 16.919 3.333.732 12. UPEEE Foundation page 7 of 16 .647 13.2b: Annual Capacity Additions (MW) Year Oil-based* Currently Installed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3.385 2.893 7.809 13.079 2.284 24.961.968 15.908 Coal 10.198 29.103.704 1.229 8.820.529 26.790 1.170 867.816.897.528 26.915 Coal 18.654 1.550 26.433 2. Inc.032.365 *includes capacities of diesel engines used as ancillary to wind power plants Table D.609 10.573.436.247 3.172.891 26.085 Total 55.764 4.181 69.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.143 59.449 597.361 10.430 Table D.982.624 7.651 1.054 15.629 18.017 17.927 8.281 2.602 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.815 19.975 15.121 14.477 12.372 64.659 27.113.975 14.931 0 40 0 0 0 100 150 340 280 150 2.104 20.462 27.948 80.203.746 23.360 92.415 18.178.741 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 715 820 820 436 259 Wind 0 153 153 153 153 1.349 16.885 32.760.437 86.821 2.778.117 10.622 7.270 21.992.791.952 3.973 769.249.536.687 14.141 18.758.082 Natural Gas 5.692 27.737.136 2.709 1.580 74.534 8.375 24.519 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 2.2c: Power Generation (GWh) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.388.636 99.953 24.919 Hydro Biomass Wind Total 18.245 Natural Gas 13.936.928 7.694 Fuel Type Geothermal 641.865 683.158 14.016.385 3.778.289 106.320.158.324 6.720 3.856 14.850 20.465 3.770 5.098 13.114.833.676.345 16.157.011 2.2d: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type (tonne) Year Oil-based 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.894 22.942 19.963 0 0 0 200 50 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 2.782 13.177 685.092 15.763 0 0 0 0 0 300 715 770 420 500 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 1.896 9.332 919.655 20.317 16.093 679.

34 0.675 146.599 168. UPEEE Foundation page 8 of 16 .122 1.43 0.63 1.01 0.02 0.284 24.00 0.66 358.02 0.68 11.01 2.00 0.12 3.223 151.539 185.897 155.00 NMVOC 0.676.737 148.739 161.125 985.859 NOX 112.157 2.41 10.151 243.01 0.01 3.35 0.21 Table D.06 0.30 0.355 26.679 2.154 2.89 2.241 28.06 0.03 0.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.107 Environmental Emissions CO 21.02 0.966 32.03 0.086 24.850 20.906 CH 4 282 314 346 379 423 389 418 444 462 492 NMVOC 1.32 0.311 525.462 27.020 22.546 150.150 312.013 1.03 N2O 0.138 26.927 20.23 0.008 2.529 26.737.442 21.75 1.475 31.63 271.42 0.979 29.961.01 0.065 214.78 346.731 171.140 22.02 10.39 Environmental Emissions CO CH 4 0.073 N 2O 952 1.64 5.35 0.583 Particulates 19.01 0.00 1.84 3.01 0.04 3.34 0.03 0.54 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.14 2.712 117.03 0.93 1.97 2.90 288.06 0.29 2.39 0.849 3.362 23.06 0.06 0.23 3.02 0.10 3.05 3.15 3.40 0.363 29.289 159.249.06 0.24 2.52 NOX 2.48 1.04 1.891 26.05 3.113.429 181.692 27.06 0.94 Particulates 0.376 30.00 0.113 232.407 2.69 2.581 1.937 148.06 PhP/kWh 3.988 213.426 33.2f: Environmental Emission per Unit Generation (tonne/GWh) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 340.251 128.2e: Environmental Emissions (tonne) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 18.160 25.39 0.89 2.36 325.37 0.33 0.528 26.2g: Generation Cost Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Generation Cost US$/kWh 0.55 338.38 3.810 2.03 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.06 3.06 0.25 1.373 2.73 1.45 308.424 859.48 2.702 32.13 SO X 2.35 0.973 28. Inc.852 Table D.275 1.894 22.936.602 SOX 159.00 0.778.03 0.36 0.37 0.54 261.39 373.26 0.03 0.982.791.010 26.41 0.301 985.178.

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

422 440 15.583 3.205 65 12.043 907 2.971 3.763 2.763 1.758 2. Inc.163 7.941 2.678 547 108 997 1.227 2.758 3.183 2.041 4.291 629 205 1.759 907 1.763 1.491 2.658 69 2.476 63 100 85 2.183 7.163 7.758 3.883 80 364 18.763 2.763 3.434 1.197 4.163 2.963 2.687 109 2.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.534 717 200 228 1.832 2.694 609 205 996 12 80 20 1.817 4.661 1.733 2.862 717 200 108 997 2.869 25 15.733 6.116 100 574 20.491 1.583 4.007 1.797 565 16.892 2.383 4.581 2.467 49 2.383 907 1. UPEEE Foundation page 10 of 16 .822 3.073 947 2.429 545 205 916 12 1.945 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.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 2.871 1.214 80 65 16.511 1.138 907 2.011 1.189 609 205 956 12 80 1.491 2.433 2.583 2.963 2.971 3.763 2.526 73 100 105 2.652 3.658 89 2.732 717 108 997 1.214 50 65 16.027 977 2.287 3.860 25 11.011 3.163 6.163 4.804 509 205 956 12 1.267 2.404 130 12.412 3.767 3.758 3.011 1.518 100 739 22.703 907 2.691 4.758 3.971 100 904 22.763 2.581 605 205 1.817 4.758 3.832 717 200 108 997 2.547 3.491 2.383 3.357 4.758 3.211 690 17.763 1.971 3.433 7.404 275 13.163 2.931 2.758 3.963 2.205 65 12.510 11.987 4.922 717 200 128 1.022 3.682 547 108 997 1.022 3.301 3.205 25 12.276 37 100 65 2.663 717 200 228 1.367 2.971 4.652 3.763 1.971 2.176 12 80 40 2.341 655 205 1.333 4.149 559 205 956 12 1.214 25 15.311 717 200 188 1.758 3.491 2.071 3.763 1.189 609 205 956 12 50 1.758 3.519 14.122 717 200 148 1.809 609 205 1.163 3.783 80 150 17.

209 26.146 29.108 20.840.664.484.000 684.964 Natural Gas 13.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.791 23.125.700 750 200 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 1.404 13.128.671 14.103 16.258.3d: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type (tonne) Year Oil-based 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.646 2.033.535 1.734.773.321 14.141.785.367 2.496 14.850 21.458 Natural Gas 5.932 7.768 3.016 28.891 11.828.934 17.439 18.272 Fuel Type Geothermal 641.349 16.745 912.919 33.931 0 40 0 0 0 100 230 390 280 70 2.065 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 14.920.766 19.595 66.739 26.722 2.952 8.759 0 415 715 340 30 1.964 26.807 93.578 19.107 4.907 937.649 6.615 4.893 18.252 2.028 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 561 561 701 343 701 Wind 0 153 153 153 153 402 974 1.874 109.897.243 26.858 1.218.859.115 100.877 1.569.779 15.694 2.673 29.076 15.573 1.208 14.640.234.208.650 79.672 938 Table D.448 Hydro Biomass Wind Total 19.855.315 118.450 685.722 597.465 37.458 14.156.879 3.777 34.897.963 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 2.153 85.020 16.084 17.019 814.704.051 10.503 42.756 31.163 30.188.695.583 0 0 370 50 0 0 0 20 75 50 Coal 3.849 7.463 2.537 18.946 20.269 36.640.471 Table D.239 10.000 15.106. Inc.324 6.101 15.150 1.885 23.496 5.600 16.747 Coal 18.104 13.574 1.158 14.916.602 17.555.042 15.585 685.110 2.169 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.984 30.420 4.672.534.479 27.585.973 27.891 8.862.556 60.859 3.130 20.317 Total 55.928.991 Coal 10.263 72.320 681.3c: Power Generation (GWh) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.050.207 14.3b: Annual Capacity Additions (MW) Year Oil-based Currently Installed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3.190 3.226.386 678.744. UPEEE Foundation page 11 of 16 .850 7.749 2.126 15.769 22.519 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 14.978 27.252.124 8.763 0 0 0 0 0 820 1.226 7.407.893 7.864 3.

0549 0.858 2.024 3.25 3.0536 2.41 0.45 0.202 173.18 2.0495 3.099 Table D.3138 3.101 CH 4 283 321 358 402 456 453 509 540 592 655 NMVOC 1.44 0.0578 0.16 2.03 0.69 4.141.32 2.272 41.750 24.43 0.17 351.447 153.10 2.56 0.596 2.37 0.30 3.166 37.21 2.494 23.18 351.51 0.777 34.50 0.269 36.01 0.4193 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.01 0.389 NOX 111.48 0.062 118.35 4.266 191.407.096 27.828.0868 3.421 Environmental Emissions CO 21.599 1.42 0.055 1.43 0.24 2.546 36.0561 0.39 0.38 0.01 0.591 216.151 31.274 3.617 413.0544 0.304 36.559 3.130 20.9923 2.506 45.04 0.566 674.13 373.10 354.50 0.711 48.79 385.984 30.03 0.264 200.928.050.44 2.54 367.139 288.873 215.284 27.68 429. UPEEE Foundation page 12 of 16 .734 179.065 2.636 217.01 0.343 31.01 0.169 S OX 167.01 0.0554 0.163 30.03 0.755 181.677 42.268 674.887 173.41 SO X 3.01 NMVOC 0.97 1.620 4.06 NOX 2.684 207.15 2.04 0.25 8.10 3.0542 0.44 0.0175 3.686 239.733 174.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.02 0.344 45.01 0.04 N2O 0.0555 0.756 31.91 376.0622 3.42 0.04 Particulates 0.02 0.377 1.43 0.03 0.0541 0.01 0.02 0.307 2.372 842.61 2.98 Environmental Emissions CO CH 4 0.430 43.885 23.38 0.500 132.01 0.02 8.199 33.859.862.3f: Environmental Emission per Unit Generation (tonne/GWh) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 370.04 0.07 9.024 N 2O 970 1.359 842.1790 3.02 0.12 2.845 Particulates 19.186 1.04 0.9785 2.916.03 3.3e: Environmental Emissions (tonne) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 19.099 214.44 0.46 Table D.03 0.71 8.428 38.672.3g: Generation Cost Generation Cost US$/kWh PhP/kWh 0. Inc.90 406.0603 0.676 20.739 26.673 29.9744 3.39 2.01 1.294 244.156.

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

758 3.763 1.214 25 15.832 717 200 108 997 2.978 2.548 717 200 228 1.429 545 205 916 12 1.146 47 100 230 2. UPEEE Foundation page 14 of 16 .687 186 2.758 3.862 717 200 108 997 2.491 2.758 2.991 4.163 4.043 2.557 125 3.871 1.942 717 200 128 1.163 3.476 73 100 314 2.678 717 200 228 1.122 717 200 148 1.661 1.804 509 205 956 12 1.180 2.963 2.163 5.333 2.149 559 205 956 12 1.763 1.238 4.758 3.333 1.422 25 1.063 947 2.094 2.540 152 2.214 80 65 16.841 4.138 2.291 609 205 1.963 2.759 2.4a: 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 2.227 2.971 3.065 17.073 3.763 907 1.465 16.265 12.983 2.460 3.767 3.281 20.491 2.690 510 205 1.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.287 3.155 125 2.971 2.732 717 108 997 1.205 65 12.404 15 3.763 907 2.763 907 1.763 1.519 14.758 3.763 1.758 3.548 665 1.527 17.758 3.205 65 12.510 11.605 5.063 2.339 76 2.822 3.163 5.983 1. Inc.333 1.197 4.189 609 205 956 12 80 1.687 12 336 3.221 3.071 3.561 4.763 907 2.797 25 2.971 3.583 3.817 4.041 22.214 50 65 16.687 262 3.011 1.971 3.267 2.682 547 108 997 1.763 907 2.931 2.189 609 205 956 12 50 1.678 547 108 997 1.869 25 15.652 3.337 4.547 3.758 3.205 25 12.963 2.758 3.966 95 Visayas 771 1.491 2.865 15.758 3.346 73 100 314 2.860 25 11.163 2.765 95 609 205 1.763 1.163 2.652 3.211 25 3.022 3.863 609 205 996 22 80 30 1.491 1.703 2.817 4.297 5.096 22 80 110 2.987 4.715 23.491 2.723 13.163 3.971 137 3.656 510 205 1.238 4.333 2.011 3.741 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.404 15 4.783 2.783 977 2.124 18.022 3.757 2.336 717 200 188 1.011 1.

142 29.807 93.828.080 6.443.263 Fuel Type Hydro 6.386 649.125.263 72.639 Fuel Type Geothermal 641.653 Total 55.840.239 10.791 21.332 919.953 Geothermal 14.471 3.439 18.045 26.556 60.106.200 350 0 1. Inc.779 Total Addition *includes capacities of diesel engines used as ancillary to wind power plants Table D.650.420 4.874 109.288.865.618.578 19.407.324 6.897.942 19.320 681.170 867.419 14.016 28.538 2.600 Coal 18.130 20.891 8.193 6.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.387 1.124 8.549 6.768 3.335.744.484.615 4.891 11.956.012 Natural Gas 13.409 3.850 21.897.722 2.290 36.471 Table D.193 16.511.239 21.734.426 20.109 8.104 20.739 26.014 17.292 2.885 23.000 15.317 16.126 15.919 Hydro Biomass Wind Total 19.893 18.963 22.4d: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.450 685.226 7.118 31.932 7.186 2.864 3.583 0 0 370 50 0 621 582 549 595 529 Coal 3.746.960 19.496 5.849 7.779 15.084 17.216 11.4b: Annual Capacity Additions (MW) Year Oil-based* Currently Installed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3.814.993 Natural Gas 5.735 12.051 9.585 685.382 1.103 11.252.418 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.158 14.095 7.763 0 0 0 0 0 300 720 1.050.326.704.862.508 29.893 7.722 597.349 16.076 15.859 4.060 4.153 85.207 14.326.978 26.243 26.000 684.519 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 2.850 7.664.091 33.650 79.644 34.042 14.883 9.208.931 0 40 0 0 0 100 150 340 280 150 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 2.101 15.298.315 24.673 28.952 8.036.4c: Power Generation (GWh) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.630.258.315 118.916.963 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 2.104 13.538 4.527.984 30.020 16.209.398.708.973 769.016 17.479 10.190 3.633.639 16.115 100.234.115 13.062 2.595 66.534.867 Coal 10. UPEEE Foundation page 15 of 16 .030 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 666 666 876 876 960 Wind 0 153 153 153 153 2.760 23.953 36.107 6.

0495 3.746.625 166.430 46.02 0.425 2.997 56.055 1.03 3.68 429.00 Particulates 0.42 0.0549 0.186 1.01 0.67 NOX 2.0622 0.40 0.53 0.679 188.0555 0.54 Table D.4f: Environmental Emission per Unit Generation (tonne/GWh) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 370.956.82 1.16 2.4g: Generation Cost Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Generation Cost US$/kWh 0.97 319.263 44.03 SO X 3.508 29.09 1.291 CH 4 283 321 358 402 456 439 479 517 559 634 NMVOC 1.75 2.69 4.916.644 34.050.01 0.199 32.38 0.18 2.151 31.4e: Environmental Emissions (tonne) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 19.31 358.307 2.065 2.0544 0.264 200.60 0.596 2.654 Environmental Emissions CO 21.294 38.02 0.118 31.750 24.6854 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.01 0.343 31.03 0.0554 0.01 0.10 3.0228 3.153.720 234.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.858 2.18 2.03 0.91 372.738 45.41 0.01 0.03 0.79 385.438 1.9785 3.9923 2.0536 2.09 329.01 NMVOC 0.44 0.44 2.30 3.862.754 NOX 111.04 N2O 0.03 0.68 10.41 0.51 0.01 0.25 3.494 23.887 168. UPEEE Foundation page 16 of 16 .418 SOX 167.01 0.142 29.0542 0.196 3.02 0.599 1.139 288.0175 3.984 30.882 164.04 0.130 20.0670 PhP/kWh 3.02 0.12 2.02 10.355 Table D.673 28.32 2.03 0.740 1.81 2.511.750 N 2O 970 1.052.04 0.79 1.294 244. Inc.50 0.58 11.01 0.676 20.828.052.03 0.407.885 23.777 Particulates 19.01 0.546 36.04 0.1607 3.0550 0.34 9.45 0.48 0.258 34.52 329.0593 0.00 1.44 0.03 Environmental Emissions CO CH 4 0.465 36.106 170.485 45.0575 0.479 3.733 174.739 26.202 173.036.212 174.38 0.19 2.4234 3.096 27.284 27.377 1.814.062 118.500 132.40 0.82 11.39 0.785 1.37 0.771 3.47 0.374 800.248 42.566 800.2638 3.447 153.515 212.686 246.90 406.42 0.073 174.13 373.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful