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

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

...........................45 National Energy Planning Process ..............................1 Figure 3..............1 Figure 2....5 Practical Wind Resources in the Philippines ...................................................................53 Fossil Fuel Consumption for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario............................... 1991-2001 ............................................3 Figure 3..................................................................4 Figure 4..49 Generation under the Low Economic Growth Scenario..............................39 Electricity Generation by Grid...........58 Figure 4.......56 Generation under the High Economic Growth Scenario........................................................POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2............7 Figure 3....45 Energy Mix and Carbon Dioxide Emissions............... Inc......8 Figure 4..............................55 Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario.....23 Practical Small Hydro Resources in the Philippines.........................................................59 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas............................. 19912001.......................39 Electricity Consumption........41 Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type............9 Figure 4.......................................................... 1999-2001 ........44 Share of Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy in the Energy Mix...9 Figure 4......................................53 Coal and Oil-Based vs...................................................................................... Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario.........8 Figure 3.......................6 Figure 4.............................10 Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario...7 Figure 4..........................................3 Figure 4.........2 Figure 3............40 System Peak by Grid...........6 Figure 3............................................... 1991-2001...............................................................................51 Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario.....50 DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the Low Economic Growth Scenario....2 Figure 3...57 DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the High Economic Growth Scenario ........ 1999-2001 .........................................................2 Figure 4.......43 Energy Mix................... Gross Domestic Product and Population............. 2001.............................................................................40 Total Installed Generating Capacity by Source...4 Figure 3............. 1999-2001.27 Electricity Consumption by Sector...................................................................... 1991-2001 ............... UPEEE Foundation page iii .......................5 Figure 3.1 Figure 4......... 19992001.....

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

....................................POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines LIST OF TABLES Table 1............................................11 Table 2.34 Value of Air Emissions Reductions in California ................................12 Table 2...................................3 Table 2........................................................................22 Available Large Hydro Resources ...42 Historical Environmental Emissions for the Philippine Power Sector ........30 Available Geothermal Resources for Power Generation......17 Table 3..................................................28 Philippine Bagasse Electric Potential..............................3 Table 3....7 Table 2....1 Table 2.....................................26 Small Hydro Power Sites Verified by the DOE . 1991-2001 ..................................38 Reserve Margin...................5 Cost Comparison of Power Plants.......................................................... Inc....36 Carbon Dioxide Emissions of Different Power Plant Types .....................................36 Emission Factors for Various Power Plants ........ 1991-2001 ................26 Projected Supply of Biomass Resources .................................. 1991-2001 .......................2 Table 2.........2 Table 2..........46 NPC and IPP Production Cost at 1990 Constant Prices..................... 2 1994 Philippine Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector .....................32 Cost Comparison of Power Plants........................................................................13 Philippine Wind Electric Potential ......................................................4 Table 2.............................13 Table 2...........................................................25 Philippine Small Hydro Electric Potential . UPEEE Foundation ...4 Table 3.....................2 Table 3...1 Table 1.....................22 Practical Wind Resources in the Philippines .......8 Table 2........1 Table 3.....6 Table 2..........33 Typical Capacity Factors of Power Plants and Levelized Generation Costs...............5 Table 2....................47 page v University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.........26 Practical Small Hydro Resources in the Philippines.10 Table 2.................9 Table 2.13 1994 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Philippine Energy Sector ................31 Philippine Natural Gas Resources...............42 NPC Average Electricity Rates...36 Energy Consumption by Sector......14 Table 2....16 Table 2.........15 Table 2................................................................ 2 Typical Capacity Factors of Power Plants and Levelized Generation Costs...........................

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

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

Inc.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. UPEEE Foundation page ix .

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

0193 0.2282 2.0602 2.8236 4.0494 0.1 below shows the costs used in this study.0405 0.4376 12.0625 0. Table 1.800 1. (c) fuel cost. market risks.56 73. Actual industry discount rates may be higher depending on the following factors: required equity return.0794 0. capacity factor) were developed based on the life cycle of each power generation technology and the four economic factors mentioned above.150 – 1.68 Table 1. years 30 20 20 20 30 30 20 50 30 50 20 Investment Cost.8174 3. (b) operation and maintenance cost.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.0557 2.5219 1 A discount rate of 12% was used to derive levelized generation costs.500 700 – 900 Annual Fixed O & M Cost.12 0 0 3.500 1.3644 6. $/MWh 41. UPEEE Foundation page 2 . Inc.750 – 1.40 9.04 49.2282 2. Table 1.1101 0.550 700 – 900 550 – 650 1.000 450 . and (d) the level of generation (also called capacity factor).93 32. including: (a) investment cost. country risks and availability of financing. regulatory risks.750 – 1.0512 0. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.1059 0. Screening curves (costs per kWh vs.200 – 1.2277 1.7153 5.10 11.2: 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. $/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.53 0 36. $/kWa 850 – 1.400 1.000 – 1.250 2.0405 0.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.000 – 3.800 1.

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

935 GWh annually can be obtained from additional verified geothermal sites in the Philippines. This first criterion reduced the number of wind sites to 2. The application of the second criterion further reduced the number of sites to 1. UPSL considered only bagasse from sugarcane processing as practical resource for grid connection.. and competing uses to be viable for large-scale power generation. Selecting only the sites with capacities of 5 MW or more as criterion. The transmission system of the National Transmission Company (TransCo) was overlaid to the GIS based wind resource map to determine the proximity of the sites to the grid. Only those sites whose connection (i. Of all the biomass resources in the country.323 MW. construction of transmission lines) will cost up to 25% of the total life-cycle cost were considered.404 MW potential. (i.e.442 GWh.092 with an aggregate potential of 14. total geothermal installed capacity amounted to 1. This accounts for 14% and 22% of the total installed capacity and total generation. This potential is spread all over the country where sugar centrals are situated.e. the UPSL identified 236 small hydro sites in the country with an aggregated capacity of about 2. In addition to existing geothermal power facilities.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 195.200 GWh of electricity per year. A few natural gas finds in the Philippines have been made. A re-analysis of the NREL small hydro resource assessment was also conducted. UPEEE Foundation page 4 .771 to 4. The Philippine government is considering plans to develop a local natural gas industry. Additional screening criteria were imposed to determine practical and viable wind power sites. Using the second screening criterion similar to that use in the wind resource assessment. a re-analysis of the NREL wind mapping data was conducted. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. local natural gas production would be supplemented by imported natural gas.3 Historical Performance of the Philippine Power Sector The performance (in terms of reliability. limiting the transmission investment cost to 25% of total investment cost) resulted to the elimination of three sites from the small hydro resource pool. which generated a total of 10.038 with 7. UPSL estimates the electric power potential of bagasse at 235. cost and environmental emissions. The Philippines power sector largely depends on geothermal energy to meet the demand and energy requirements of the country.200 MW that could generate about 8. the most significant of which is that found in Malampaya and San Martin in Palawan. an estimated capacity of 1. For the purposes of this study. If this pushes through. Inc.931 MW.. respectively in the country.308 MW. A second criterion that relates to grid connection costs was also used.7 MW. In 2001. storage. with a combined estimated reserves of 2. Other biomass resources are still facing problems or issues like collection. This include considering only sites with power density of at least 500 W/m2.731 billion cubic feet (BCF). 1.) of the Philippine power sector from the period beginning 1991 to 2001 was also assessed in this study.

respectively.049 GWh energy generation which represents 77% of the requirements of the country.184 GWh of the total 47. the installed generating capacity in the country doubled in 11 years with 6. The analysis has shown that the generating facilities in the early 1990’s were performing very badly from the point of view of reliability. It can be concluded. However. Bulk of the energy demand and consequently the generation comes from the main island of Luzon.A. that the generating capacity of the power system in the Philippines can be considered highly reliable. the Luzon Grid has a share of 36. It was noted that the rates of NPC is for its bundled generation and transmission services. In order to meet the growing demand for electricity. This validates the clamor of the people regarding high electricity rates which is due to oversupply since most of the generating facilities are operating under the take-or-pay contract with the National Power Corporation (NPC) and other distribution utilities. For purposes of this study. It should be noted however.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 8.5% while that of the residential sector grew by 11. Historical Cost Performance This study also assessed the power development in the Philippines by analyzing the cost of electricity. The increase in rates is attributed to the economic performance of the country (as exhibited by the exchange rates) and due to the take-or-pay contracts of NPC with Independent Power Producers (IPPs). 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.789 MW in 1991 to 13. the reserve margin (i. The rates of NPC appear to be increasing annually except for the year 2001 when R.7% annually for the 11-year period. from mid 1990’s onward.e. the energy demand in the country was distributed among the three (3) main islands of Luzon. Historical Reliability Performance To analyze the reliability performance of the power system in the Philippines. Inc. Visayas and Mindanao. the Philippines power sector performance went to the other extreme of having excessive capacity compared to the demand. UPEEE Foundation page 5 .402 MW in 2001. accounting for 31% and 29% energy share for the year 2001. losses and miscellaneous uses. In 2001 for example. Visayas and Mindanao share the remaining balance almost equally. The interruptions that the country has been experiencing can be attributed to the unreliable transmission and distribution systems and their operations. these rates were unbundled into 76% and 24% for generation and transmission. The commercial sector accounts for 21% of the total consumption for 2001.3% annually from 1991 to 2001. therefore.. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. The industrial and residential sectors. generating capacity compared to the system peak) from 1991 to 2001 was determined from historical data. that the industrial sector demand grew only by 5. The rest are attributed to own use. are the biggest users of electricity. respectively. Geographically.

279 tons in 1991 to 10. Accounting the changes in oil and coal. which range from PhP 4. Over the period considered. 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. the net increase in CO2 for the 11-year period is 73%. there is difference of PhP 1. This considerable difference can be attributed to the cost of distribution and to the PPA of IPP’s that sell electricity directly to the distributors. Comparing the average rate of NPC with that paid by the consumers.222 tons in 2001.338. on the other hand. decreased by 21 percent from its level of 9. Looking into the energy mix to link the environmental performance of the power sector. and not towards the utilization of renewable resources.00 to PhP 3.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. CO2 emissions from oil-based power plants. renewable hydro share decreased from 20% to 5% over the same period.49% in 1991 to 62.236. 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. It is also worthwhile to note that with the existence of the Non-NPC IPPs (permitted to operate through Executive Order 215). generation share from oil-based power plants declined from 49.9% 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.00 per kWh. Inc. This explains why the emissions of the power sector almost doubled in only 11 years. particularly those owned by electricity distributors like Manila Electric Company (MERALCO).00 per kWh.665 tons in 2001. particularly the NPC. Its contribution increased almost ten times from 1. The share of non-renewable sources in the energy mix even increased from 57.471.9% in 1991 to 21.71% in 2001. UPEEE Foundation page 6 . coal contribution increased more than fivefold. the shift is only towards the use of coal. which emits more greenhouse gases. many power plants were installed even though there were already excess generation capacity in the system. it can be concluded that that non-renewable energy have remained greatly dominant over renewable energy as source of fuel for power generation.541 tons in 1991 to 7. However. In addition. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. This scenario allowed the continued dominance of non-renewable fuels.00 to PhP 6. 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. from 8% in 1991 to 40% in 2001.082. For the CO2 emissions. Clearly. coal power plants are the major contributors.

706 MW by 2012. based on the low economic growth projections of NEDA. The contribution of non-renewable energy sources to the energy mix.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. No additional capacity addition for natural gas is expected in the period. This scenario will require $ 29. 24% and 4%.3 million tonnes. 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. From a share of 37% in 2003. In terms of reliability.263 billion cubic feet (BCF) of natural gas. PDP for the Low Economic Growth Scenario The PEP. 91.828 million (UPSL estimate at 2002 present value).57% annually. Total CO2 emissions for the DOE plan for the low economic growth scenario is 309.500 MW) and oilbased plants (1. this scenario would require 124. Capacity additions.142 GWh in 2003 to 106. While the generation cost for this scenario is estimated at PhP 3. Geothermal plants will contribute only 2%. the reserve in 2003 will be 66%.9 million tonnes of coal and 1.4 Scenarios under the Philippine Energy Plan 2003 .5 MMBFOE of oil and 80.2012 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. shows that energy generation will increase by 93% (55. on the other hand will increase by 24%.430 GWh in 2012) over the entire period at an average rate of 7. Of these amounts.2 million tonnes of coal would have to be imported. operations and maintenance and fuel would require a total cost $ 23. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. 124.775 MW). Oil-based and natural gas plants will contribute 17% and 26% to the CO2 emissions. Total installed capacity of 14. The increase in demand will be met mostly by increases in coal power plants (3.368 million in abatement cost.16/kWh. the planned capacity additions will result in high reserve margins. UPEEE Foundation page 7 . natural gas and oil-based sources in the energy mix which is 34%.632 GW for 2003 will increase to 20.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 1. Although this is expected to decline to 22% by 2012. respectively. renewable energy’s share will decrease to only 22% in 2012. These emissions will be the direct result of the share of coal. Reliability. respectively for year 2003. The environmental emissions resulting from DOE’s generation plan for the low economic growth scenario would result in an increase in CO2. 65 MW wind and a 40 MW geothermal capacity additions. Inc. with the continued dominance of coal plants. environmental emissions and costs were calculated similar to that of the historical performance assessment. SOx and other emissions. To meet the energy requirements. For example. The increase in the use of coal will account to contributing 55% of the total CO2 emissions for the period. it is still unrealistic to expect that cost of electricity in the Philippines in the near term will decrease under this scenario.

24% in 2003 decrease to 17% in 2012 With the continuous decline in the share of renewable energy. biomass.995 million in abatement cost. capacity addition and utilization of renewable energy (geothermal. Notably.37% in 2003 decrease to 20% in 2012 Natural gas . University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Total installed capacity of wind power plants is allowed to reach a maximum of 5% of the peak demand. UPEEE Foundation page 8 .E.16% in 2003 increase to 47% in 2012 . PDP for the High Economic Growth Scenario The DOE also prepared a power development plan based on high economic growth projections of NEDA. 1. nor the scenario for the low economic growth.5 Clean Power Development Options for the Philippines Using the clean energy technologies and resources.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. 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. wind and hydro power) and natural gas plants are given priority over that of non-renewable plants for power generation. increasing by 195% from 2003 to 2012.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. Inc. greenhouse emissions is expected to further soar. and will require $ 32.632 MW in 2003 to 22. These strategies are the following: • Moderate Clean Power Development (CCPD) Plan In this plan. 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.5% in 2003 increase to 16% in 2012 .556 GWh in 2003 to 118. . 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. The following performance indicators can be expected if this scenario push through: a) Installed capacity: 14.756 MW in 2012 (56% increase for the 10-year period) b) Energy generation: 55. within the planning period.

It was assumed in these plans that the local natural gas industry will be able to supply fuel for up to 3. The share of renewable energy in the energy mix will increase from 37% to 41%. the capacity additions starts only in 2008. The share of coal and oil in the mix will be reduced by about 11% at the end of the period. This plan will reduce the GHG emissions and abatement costs for the Low GDP Scenario by 14% and 21%. O&M and fuel costs. UPEEE Foundation page 9 . respectively. Note.16/kWh.12/kWh. from the period 2003 to 2012. In this summary. Inc. which serve as frequency regulating plants for the wind power plants. The natural gas contribution will also increase from 24% to 31%. which is PhP 3. 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. For all the plans. The plans that correspond to the High Economic Growth Scenario are detailed in Chapter 5.800MW natural gas power plants (maximum generation of 23.763 MW in 2003 to 5. however. that these reserve margins do not take into account the ancillary diesel engines.6 million tonnes. the strategy is to utilize all the practical renewable energy resources where possible without caps. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Assuming a five-year lead-time for the planning to commissioning of the additional power plants. the 2003 to 2007 capacity additions were based solely on the PEP list of committed projects.000 GWh annually) for the next twenty years. This average generation cost is even cheaper than that of the PEP Low GDP scenario. Considering the investment. Total CO2 reduction as compared with the PEP is 44. this plan will increase the renewable energy plant installed capacity by 95% (from 4. This will translate to a 72% total share of clean energy in the energy mix by 2012. only the power development plan to meet the Low Economic Growth Scenario of the PEP 2003 – 2012 is presented.592 million and the average generation cost is PhP 3.685 MW in 2012) and the natural gas plant capacity by 117% (from 2. as compared with the PEP. Moderate Clean Power Development (MCPD) Plan To meet the demand of the Low Economic Growth Scenario. The total cost calculated for this plan is $23.983 MW in 2012). 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. This translates to a 69% total installed capacity for the combined natural gas and renewable energy plants.450 MW in 2003 to 8. this plan will save $235 million in the planning period. The percentage installed reserve margin for the years 2008 onwards is kept as close as possible to the corresponding PEP reserve margins for comparison.

wind and natural gas technologies. With the current price of CO2 at $2 . This will translate to a 79% total share of clean energy in the energy mix by 2012. small hydro. This translates to a mitigation cost of $0. UPEEE Foundation page 10 .67/tonne of CO2. This translates to a 79% total installed capacity for the combined natural gas and renewable energy plants.383 MW in 2012). This study also offers two alternative paths (moderate and aggressive) through the alternative clean power development plans.05) per kWh more expensive than the Moderate Clean Power Development Plan due to the additional ancillary services for the intermittent wind power supply. To avoid significant amounts of GHG emissions in the future. To support power switching. 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. This is comparable to the PEP Low GDP scenario. 1. The share of renewables in the energy mix will increase from 37% to 48%. Considering the investment. 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. natural gas importation may be pursued.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.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. These alternative plans are comparable to the PEP in terms of costs. the country has to resort to biomass. O&M and fuel costs. The share of coal and oil in the mix will be reduced by about 20% at the end of the period.881 million and the average generation cost is PhP 3. There are even opportunities that can create additional dollar income from carbon trading and local employment.520 MW in 2012) and the natural gas plant capacity by 95% (from 2. respectively.450 MW in 2003 to 11. this plan will cost an additional $41M in the planning period compared to the PEP low GDP plan. as was done in this study.16/kWh but five centavos (PhP 0. Inc. At the current CO2 prices ($5 per tonne) in the market.$10 per tonne. which is PhP 3.6 Conclusions and Recommendations The Philippine power sector from 1991 to 2001 has not performed very well in terms of reliability and cost to end-users. this plan will create an opportunity for the country in the carbon market. The total cost calculated for this plan is $23. This plan will reduce the GHG emissions and abatement costs under the PEP Low GDP Scenario by 18% and 27%. from the period 2003 to 2012. In addition. The natural gas contribution will also increase from 24% to 31%.17/kWh. new natural gas sites must be identified and developed. the ACPD plan will increase the renewable energy plant installed capacity by 159% (from 4. While the PEP has tried to address these problems.

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

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

890 3. The UPSL came up with 13. Fugitive Emissions from Fuels 1.985 7 20. Table 2.774 55.335 15. Oil TOTAL EQUIVALENT CO2 EMISSIONS * does not include emissions from biomass Source: The Philippines’ Initial National Communication on Climate Change CO2 47. the energy sector accounted for 50.980 15.59 216.330 954 245 14.1: 1994 Philippine Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector (equivalent ktonne CO2) SECTOR Energy Industry Agriculture Waste Land Use & Forestry TOTAL EQUIVALENT CO2 EMISSIONS CO2 47. as shown from Table 2. accounts for more than thirty (30) percent as a result of the burning of fossil fuels. or roughly 47 percent.497 15. mainly the power industry. as shown in Table 2.509 9.1. the power sub-sector represents a large opportunity for carbon emissions reduction and sequestration. Transport 4. Fuel Combustion Activities 1.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.246 Total 50.185 3 CH4 1.529 2 N2O 717 40 347 43 0 285 3 Total 49.038 10. the energy industries. Residential 6. of total net GHG emissions in the country.603 33. In 1994.335 N2O 717 0 12.801 3.738 ktonnes. Inc. Manufacturing Industries 3. Commercial/Institutional 5.738 Source: The Philippines’ Initial National Communication on Climate Change Table 2.800 6.157 CH4 1.130 7.2: 1994 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Philippine Energy Sector* (equivalent ktonne CO2) SECTOR A.403 31.548 ktonnes of CO2 for the Energy Industries for the year 1994.759 11 170 45 1 1. Agriculture B. Energy Industries 2.811 15.544 1. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. UPEEE Foundation page 13 .190 226.094 100. Coal Mining 2. given that clean energy technologies and resources are available.140 2. Although it ranks only second to the transport in terms of GHG emissions.596 0 -2.72 9.369 4.359 1.038 ktonnes of the 100.038 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.368 2.094 7.458 8.335 10. Of the energy sector GHG emissions.87 227 217 10 50.2.

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

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

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

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

These include fluidized bed systems such as pressurized fluidized bed combustion (PFBC) and circulating fluidized bed combustion (CFBC). Many such technologies have been demonstrated in various countries but still remain not widely used because its high investment costs are quite prohibitive. 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. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. 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. this would have a relatively low impact on emissions reduction. convert solar energy directly to electricity in a solid-state device called the solar cell. • 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. Despite its unfavorable environmental reputation. on the other hand. • Distributed energy technologies Unlike centralized generating units. Inc. coal is still widely used around the world for power generation because it is abundant and cheap. • Gas turbines Current gas turbine plants have efficiencies of around thirty percent. For most fuel cells. Photovoltaics. and thus. Solar thermal engines make use of solar concentration systems. Solar Energy. with sizes ranging from a few kilowatts to a few megawatts. • Fuel cells Fuel cells are devices that convert fuel and oxygen to electricity and heat by means of an electrochemical reaction. Newer plants are actually achieving efficiencies greater than forty percent.000 to $4. sometimes requiring around $3.000 per kilowatt of installed capacity. less GHG and air pollutant emissions. concentrates the power of the sun. But since this type of plant is normally used for peak load applications. Greater local control of the system and waste heat utilization lead to higher energy efficiencies.000 per installed kilowatt. integrated gasification combustion cycle (IGCC) systems and coal-fueled diesel engines. which. to generate high enough temperatures to heat and boil water to drive steam engines. Solar radiation may be converted to electricity by using solar thermal engines or photovoltaic cells. 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.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 5. as the name implies. UPEEE Foundation page 18 . Costs are prohibitive. which is the form of fuel required for the electrochemical reaction to take place. hydrocarbon fuels need to undergo a process of reforming to produce hydrogen. Clean coal technologies are costly. distributed energy technologies are small and modular. ranging from $2. however.

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

3. The study. would more than double total installed capacity to 173. eastern Mindanao.equivalent to an annual average wind power of 300 W/m2 or greater12 (wind speeds of 6.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 2. 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. turbine spacing = 10D by 5D. Including sites with moderate wind resource levels. 2. Palawan.600 MW bringing the total estimated power generation from wind to 361. well-exposed east-facing coastal locations from northern Luzon southward to Samar. UPEEE Foundation page 20 2 . Negros. occupying a total area of 11. between Mindoro and Panay (including the Semirara Islands and extending to the Cuyo Islands). which will then be subsequently used for the generation of power switching scenarios. the northwest tip of Luzon (Ilocos Norte). however. capacity/km = 6. 5. amounting to 97. 14 UNIDO. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 installed capacity.600 MW of installed capacity and generate 195. 6. Samar. the higher interior terrain of Luzon.000 GWh/yr.055 km2 or roughly 3. Assessment of Technical. (1994). the wind corridors between Luzon and Mindoro (including Lubang Island). 4. 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. rotor diameter = 38 m. with good to excellent resource levels . The NREL study identified around 10. Panay.34% of total Philippine land area.200 GWh/yr. In contrast to the optimistic estimate of the NREL. 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.2 Resource Assessment The technologies described above would be rendered useless without the energy resource required to run them. Financial and Economic Implications of Wind Energy Applications for Power Generation.9 MW. was not able to include factors such as transmission and grid accessibility constraints in the assessment. Leyte. and adjacent islands. The following sections will quantify the amount of clean energy resources in the Philippines. Inc. The NREL study identified six regions in the country where the best wind resource in the country are located. 12 In one of the NREL scenarios.000 sites in the country. these sites could support at least 76. hub height = 40 2 m. Mindoro. These are: 1.4 m/s or greater). the Batanes and Babuyan islands of north Luzon. According to the study13. 13 Assumptions used by NREL to come up with estimates are: 500 kW turbine size. Cebu.

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

3: Philippine Wind Electric Potential (with wind power density ≥ 500 W/m2) Number of sites Total area. 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. This distance was multiplied by a factor of 1. The first criteria reduced the number of wind sites to 2.3 and 2. Power density of at least 500 W/m2.900 15.527 7. 2. MWe Estimated Annual Generation. Table 2.4: Practical Wind Resources in the Philippines (with wind power density ≥ 500 W/m2 and transmission cost constraint) Luzon 686 753 4.755 11.032 Philippines 1. km 2 Potential installed capacity.437 Visayas 360 385 2. Locations of these sites are shown in Figure 2.206 14. Tables 2.363 MW. Inc. The application of the second criteria further reduced the number of sites to 1. To compute for transmission cost. Appendix A identifies the provinces where these wind resources are located.092 2.363 44. UPEEE Foundation page 22 . with an aggregate potential of 14.865 Mindanao 64 66 455 1.1.404 23.397 Philippines 2.381 35.400 MW potential.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines For the purposes of the present study.168 6.277 Visayas 305 330 2.668 1. GWh/yr Luzon 1.132 7. a re-analysis of the NREL data was conducted by the UPSL using the following criteria to screen for viable wind power sites: 1. the UPSL computed for the linear distance between the wind site and the nearest existing substation.699 Table 2.047 Number of sites Total area.092.5 to adjust for topography and other factors that may affect the routing of the transmission system.038 1. MWe Estimated Annual Generation. GWh/yr University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.738 Mindanao 47 49 336 1. km 2 Potential installed capacity.4 summarize the results of the re-analysis. as well as its corresponding estimated electric capacity and annual generation.038 with 7.

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. UPEEE Foundation page 23 .168 MWe Estimated Annual Generation: 6. Inc.277 GWh Visayas Number of sites: 305 Potential Installed Capacity: 2.900 MWe Estimated Annual Generation: 15.032 GWh Figure 2.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Luzon Number of sites: 686 Potential Installed Capacity: 4.738 GWh Mindanao Number of sites: 47 Potential Installed Capacity: 336 MWe Estimated Annual Generation: 1.

17 As per WEC definition. the UPSL identified 239 small hydro sites in the country with an aggregated capacity of about 2. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. as listed in Table 2. UPEEE Foundation page 24 . By the end of 2001. with an annual production of 7. Table 2. The DOE has verified a number of these small hydro sites. Inc. a number of large hydro sites in country to be used as candidate power plants for energy planning. on the other hand. Using this criterion. Tables 2.8. This water may then be used to augment supply during low flow periods and thus ensure a relatively constant supply of power.7 shows the results of the application of the criteria mentioned above. 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.518 MW of hydro power is installed in the Philippines. These hydro power facilities range in size from 1 to 360 MW and includes reservoir type (dams) and run-of-river systems15. The UPSL made a re-analysis of the small17 hydro resource assessment made by the NREL. These resulted to the elimination of three sites from the small hydro resource pool. while Figure 2.5 lists down identified sites for large hydro16. 15 Impoundment dams involve the impounding of a large volume of water in or upstream of power plants by use of reservoirs or dams. selecting sites with capacities of 5 MW or more. a total of 2. In addition to the existing hydro power generation facilities. An additional screening criterion was used. make use of the natural flow of a rivers as head.. i.6 and 2.2 shows the location of the sites selected. 16 Two of these sites. Kalayaan and San Roque.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.104 GWh.327 MW. Run-of-river systems. are committed projects.e.

8 29 29 108.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2.6 93 45 175 24 332 350 113 12 52 to 250 45 42 34 345 27 21 2.5: 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 11.189.9 44 300 68 841.3 Negros Oriental Negros Oriental Aklan Antique 33 17. Inc.387.6 to 2.140.9 3.3 to 3.6 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. UPEEE Foundation page 25 .338.8 Province Estimated Capacity (MW) 60 46 360 13.

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) 1.4 10. GWh/yr Table 2.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2.786 Visayas 9 58 305 Mindanao 96 978 5.0 1.6 28.7: Practical Small Hydro Resources in the Philippines (sites with power capacity ≥ 5 MW and transmission cost constraint) Luzon 131 1.0 4.140 Philippines 236 2.0 5.8 44.0 1. Inc.308 12. MWe Estimated Annual Generation.291 6.0 4. MWe Estimated Annual Generation.6: Philippine Small Hydro Electric Potential (sites with power capacity ≥ 5 MW) Luzon 134 1.140 Philippines 239 2.4 14.327 12.231 Number of sites Potential installed capacity.8 7.131 Number of sites Potential installed capacity. GWh/yr Table 2. UPEEE Foundation page 26 .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.0 4.4 3.0 3.686 Visayas 9 58 305 Mindanao 96 978 5.

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

particularly to fuel boilers in sugar mills.2 3.0 22. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. storage and competing uses. Table 2. Unlike other biomass fuels. as listed in Table 2.442 GWh.931 MW and geothermal generation was 10.9 5. Of the total estimated capacity.8 235. Inc. 380 MW. an estimated capacity of 1. In 2001. which the mills have to dispose.200 MW and energy of 8. UPEEE Foundation page 30 .7 7. Visayas and Mindanao respectively.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. In addition to existing geothermal power facilities.1 14. bagasse has traditionally been used in large quantities. respectively. total geothermal installed capacity amounted to 1.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Because of problems with such issues like collection.6 127.7 TOTAL PHILIPPINES Geothermal Power The Philippines power sector largely depends on geothermal energy to meet the demand and energy requirements of the country. this study only looks on the potential of bagasse for grid-connected electricity generation.935 GWh can be obtained from the verified geothermal source candidates in the Philippines. 700 MW. additional geothermal resources could be expected in the future as the Philippines has nearly used most of its geothermal resource sites. if any. Despite sugar mills’ own use of bagasse for fuel. and 120 MW come from Luzon. Very small.8 32.11.0 4.6 17. accounting for 14% and 22% of the total installed capacity and total generation. which are like associated with the use of biomass fuels for large scale power generation. there usually remains a considerable amount of this waste material.

The Philippine government is considering plans to develop a local natural gas industry. 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. Cabalian Leyte Optimization Biliran Mt. Natib Mabini Batong Buhay Buguias-Tinoc Total Luzon VISAYAS Northern Negros* Dauin Mt. the most significant of which is that found in Malampaya and San Martin in Palawan26.11: Available Geothermal Resources for Power Generation Name LUZON Bacman I Rangas Tanawon Manito Montelago Daklan Mt. local natural gas production would be supplemented by imported natural gas that would come from the Trans ASEAN Gas Pipeline to meet demand. Source: PEP 2002-2011. 26 These are proven fields. 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 1.731 billion cubic feet (BCF).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. Table 2. Inc.771 to 4. If this pushes through. page 31 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. UPEEE Foundation .12 lists down identified natural gas fields in the country and their corresponding resource sizes.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2. with a combined estimated reserves of 2.

Renewable energy technologies.340 359 4 7. (c) fuel cost. 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.e. For fossil-fuel-based power plants. renewable energy-based plants have high investment costs. energy production (kWh) CF = × 100 plant capacity(k W) × 8.158 322 637 Maximum 4.720 60 176 78 11.538 243 Resource Size (BCF) Prospective 3. The fuel costs in Table 2.760 hours (i. For example. one year). it is notable that the technologies that require low investment normally require fuel with high cost. 29 Capacity Factor (CF) refers to the percentage of the rated capacity of the power plant used for 8. Screening curves can be developed to determine the optimum power generation plan considering these four factors. Mathematically..594 2.060 1. Inc.13 include only the costs of the technologies but not the associated site-specific costs that could be more expensive than the plant itself. Being site-specific. Using these curves.3 Cost Comparison of Power Generation Technologies The investment.760 hours University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2. O & M27 and fuel costs28 comparison of the different types of power plants are shown in Table 2.13 lists for different fuels used for power generation are based on typical power plant efficiencies. 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. Furthermore.13. and (d) the level of generation (also called capacity factor29).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. renewable energy-based power plants have to address these issues that will ultimately determine the viability of the power projects. in general entail high investment costs. the economics of power generation technologies depends on several factors. In addition. the prices of fuel are likely to differ at the time this study is released. namely: (a) investment cost. (b) operation and maintenance (O&M) cost. 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. In general.210 1. Wind and hydro plants do not require fuel but do not run at full capacity due to availability of resources. UPEEE Foundation page 32 . Clearly.760 518 2. the total investment costs vary with site preparation and the required transmission lines to enable the plants to deliver power to the grid.277 454 2. The costs shown in Table 2. The fuel costs used in this study do no include import duties.

500 700 – 900 Annual Fixed O & M Cost.e.93 32.53 0 36. Table 2. Table 2. 31 Fuel costs for oil.. 30 Investment costs used in this study do not include site preparation. on a life-cycle basis.14 also shows the corresponding levelized cost of generation for each power plant type using the typical capacity factors.800 1. 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 2.000 – 1. $/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. These values show that electricity generation from renewable sources. O&M and fuel costs31 of the different power plant technologies.800 1. Table 2.250 2. These figures are intended only for relative comparison of the different power plant technologies.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines operate as “baseload”. 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.000 – 3. Deutsche Gessellschaft für technishe.56 73.40 9. medium or low capacity factor) could be determined/selected. They are however useful in evaluating and developing energy plans.12 0 0 3. except for Clean Coal Technologies Considering the availability of the resource and reliability of the technologies. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Geothermal steam and biomass fuel costs also vary. which will operate at high.000 450 .14 shows the typical capacity factors based on the investment30. transmission line and transformer costs. years 30 20 20 20 30 30 20 50 30 50 20 Investment Cost. $/kWa 850 – 1.10 11. Inc.14 to satisfy the minimum offtake character of the IPP contracts.750 – 1.200 – 1. UPEEE Foundation page 33 .150 – 1.550 700 – 900 550 – 650 1.750 – 1. depending on the site/environment. coal and natural gas do not include import duties.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. $/MWh 41.500 1.04 49.400 1. is competitive in comparison with conventional fossil fuel-based generation. “intermediate” or “peaking” plants (i.68 From “ The Environmental Manual for Power Development”. the prices of fuel are likely to differ by the time this study is released. Furthermore.

0512 0.8236 4.0794 0.2282 2.0405 0.8174 3. Actual industry discount rates may be higher depending on the following factors: required equity return.0494 0.0557 2.3644 6.1059 0. country risks and availability of financing.0625 0.4376 12. Inc. UPEEE Foundation page 34 . University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.2277 1.7153 5.0602 2.14: 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.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2.0193 0.2282 2.0405 0. regulatory risks. 33 The low capacity factor computed for diesel plant is 9%.1101 0.5219 32 A discount rate of 12% was used to derive levelized generation costs. market risks. meaning it will be used for load following and/or peaking applications.

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

01 9.15: Value of Air Emissions Reductions in California 36 ($/pound of pollutant) District Pollutant South Coast DC SOx NOx CO ROG 4.40 7.00 0.03 0.08 0.03 NOx 4.01 0.37 12.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2.55 AC 13.99 0. 10. Deutsche Gessellschaft für technishe 36 Lifted from “What Causes the Disparity of Electricity Externality Estimates?”.75 16.16: 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 45.02 1.88 Bay Area DC 2.52 0.02 0.72 AC 5.85 I 13. except for geothermal which was computed from DOE data Table 2.72 0.51 San Joaquin Valley DC 0.59 DC – damage cost.03 0.85 6. AC – abatement cost.88 0.03 0. CO – Carbon Monoxide.01 North Coast DC 0.83 441.00 2.02 Source: The Environmental Manual for Power Development.05 Particulates 0.04 0.04 Source: Computed from data give in “The GHG Indicator: UNEP Guidelines for Calculating Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Business and Non-Commercial Organizations.61 763.85 0.02 0.10 867.37 0.10 8. NOx – Nitrogen Oxide.07 AC 2.30 6. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.96 I 2.06 0.72 11.99 565.03 0.66 2.06 0. and PM – particulate matter Table 2.00 0.71 9.18 AC 4.45 AC 11.53 0.98 2.10 0. SOx – Sulfur Oxide.03 0.02 17.82 713.71 San Diego DC 1. UPEEE Foundation page 36 .00 0. 2002).12 12.45 6.84 1.44 1.83 0.03 0.55 0.01 3.52 1. one of the six selfcontained papers included in Sundqvist’s Doctoral Thesis. ROG – Reactive organic gases.75 11.10 5.98 3. p.43 Ventura County DC 0. Inc.00 2.40 726.17: 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 7.32 3.74 2.04 0.26 0.39 6.34 1.73 Environmental Emissions CO CH4 NMVOC N2O 0.07 AC 5.98 Sacramento Valley DC 0.08 0.4 6.05 1.64 2.47 3.76 3.65 0.87 0.66 0.35 0.05 0.99 4. “Power Generation Choice in the Presence of Environmental Externalities. Luleá University of Technology.02 0.18 15.53 0.08 10.99 1.75 0.42 1.28 4.31 PM 31.02 0.99 4.78 1.20 2.01 0. I – internalized.88 9.00 4.05 0. Sundqvist cites the 1992 Electricity Report by the California Energy Commission as the source of these data.31 AC 1.00 3.57 1.71 5.00 0.66 0.

it was assumed that infrastructure would be built to support an expanding natural gas industry. On the use of natural gas. wood wastes. only bagasse was considered as option. Inc. 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.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 2. UPEEE Foundation page 37 . collection. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.5 Mitigation Options As a result of the technology and resource analyses made by the UPSL. 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. storage and competing uses.

340 6.053 4.042 2.901 12.154 4. Inc.649 1992 6.578 1999 11.531 1.267 1.5% while that of the residential sector grew by 11.132 4.390 6.150 7.368 4. Visayas and Mindanao share the balance energy almost equally.512 13.684 762 1.1: Energy Consumption by Sector. Visayas and Mindanao as shown in Figure 3.2. Both the economic performance and population growth remain as the main factors driving the consumption pattern of energy of the country.339 952 1.282 5.6%.226 5.713 47.353 10.870 1993 6. respectively.682 MW in 2001.191 957 2.238 26. Visayas and Mindanao lag far behind with only 893 and 954 MW peak demand. and the whole of the Philippines. In 2001 for example. Figure 3.067 1.708 1997 10.128 36.049 Geographically. and cost.290 2001 13.894 9. Bulk of the energy demand and consequently the generation comes from the main island of Luzon.049 GWh energy generation which represents 77% of the requirements of the country.859 823 1.184 GWh of the total 47.013 12.098 14.4 shows system peak demand of the power supply system from 1991 to 2001 for the Luzon.849 41.936 8. or at an average annual growth rate of 7.071 25. with 31% and 29% share respectively. the gross domestic product and the population growth from 1991 to 2001 demonstrate a strong correlation with the consumption of electricity. that the industrial sector demand grew only by 5. 1991-2001 (GWh) SECTOR Residential Commercial Industrial Others Own Use Losses Total 1991 6.754 41. Visayas and Mindanao grids.950 1.081 MW peak demand in 1991.3.875 8. Table 3.851 1.536 5.471 6.543 934 1. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.249 4.1 Historical Energy Demand and Installed Generating Capacity The Philippines electricity consumption posted a moderate growth rate of 8. whose demand grew by 108% from 1991 to 2001. UPEEE Foundation page 38 . it also had the highest peak demand (5.835 MW in 2001). This is almost twice of the 4. As shown in Figure 3. the Luzon Grid consumed 36.1).132 4.910 8.432 2000 12. The industrial and residential sectors.477 8.1. the energy demand in the country was distributed among the three (3) main islands of Luzon. environmental emissions.797 1998 11.459 1995 8. The system peak for the whole Philippines reached 7.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 2001.7% annually for the 11-year period.452 1.223 6. Significant also was the growth in the consumption of the commercial sector.345 45. 3.725 9.734 30.072 11.547 10.176 25.579 1994 7. are the biggest users of electricity (Figure 3. Data for the historical performance of the Philippine Power Sector is given in Appendix B.037 39. Performance is assessed in terms of reliability.725 12.590 5.735 33.444 921 1.167 1. It should be noted however.196 5.395 721 1.554 1996 9.847 9.865 10.086 3. With most of the industrial and commercial activities centered in Luzon.3% annually from 1991 to 2001 as shown in Table 3.

5) This corresponds to the growth in demand that also doubled in the same period. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. 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.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 3.402 MW in 2001 (Figure 3. Gross Domestic Product and Population. UPEEE Foundation page 39 .1: Electricity Consumption by Sector.789 MW in 1991 to 13.2: Electricity Consumption. the installed generating capacity in the country doubled from 6. Inc. 1991-2001 In order to meet the growing demand for electricity.

000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 Luzon 1995 Visayas 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Mindanao Philippines Figure 3.4: System Peak by Grid.000 35.000 20. Inc.000 5.3: Electricity Generation by Grid.000 GWH 25.000 40.000 30.000 45.000 10. 1991-2001 (MW) University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 15. UPEEE Foundation page 40 .POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 50. 1991-2001 (GWh) 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 Luzon 1995 Visayas 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 MW Mindanao Philippines Figure 3.

UPEEE Foundation page 41 .000 6. 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.. Inc.000 10.2 presents the reserve margin of the power system from 1991 to 2001. To analyze further the generating capacity vis-à-vis the system peak. Table 3.5: Total Installed Generating Capacity by Source. In developing countries. 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. Today.000 14. people complain of high cost of electricity allegedly due to over supply as there is “too much” installed generating capacity. In the Philippines. There was not enough generating capacity. the generating capacity reliability criteria of one day per ten years (1 day/10 year) of Loss-of-Load Probability (LOLP) translates to about 20% reserve margin. The reserve margin based on dependable capacity shows that there is indeed a large excess generating capacity in the Philippines. 1991-2001 (MW) 3.000 12.000 MW 8. Hence. the National Power Corporation since the power crisis has adopted 1day/year LOLP. In other countries such as the U.000 4. This criterion is considered high but is needed to support their industries.S.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 16. the reliability criterion is very much lower compared to that in developed countries.A.000 0 1991 1992 1993 Oil-Based 1994 Coal 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Hydro 2000 2001 Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 3.000 2. the National Power Corporation has to resort to rotating “brownouts”. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.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.

UPEEE Foundation page 42 .55 45.45 85.014 1994 4.621 7.497 11.76 37.807 20.3 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.233 115.762 1998 6. Table 3.3.580.76 70.908 12. The environmental performance of the Philippine power sector from 1991 to 2001 is summarized in Table 3.212 1995 5.60 83.400 13. The interruptions that the country has been experiencing can be attributed to the unreliable transmission and distribution systems.816 11.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines It can be concluded.682 13.075 842 29.17 78. therefore.789 1992 4.762 189.48 53.185 2001 7.91 3.402 66.687 8.611 % Increase 74 64 150 29 54 10 103 169 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.081 6.18 74.96 78.2: Reserve Margin.931 1999 6.291 9.352 11.99 79.732 1996 5.450 9.808 9. Historical Environmental Emissions for the Philippine Power Sector (tonne) Environmental Emissions CO2 SO2 NOx CO CH4 NMVOC N2O Particulates 1991 Level 10.726 16. that the generating capacity of the power system in the Philippines can be considered highly reliable. Inc.296 6.666 11. The CO2 emissions increased by 74 percent while the rest of the air emissions increased by 10 to 169 percent.363 11.729 146. A complete list of emissions for each year from 1991 to 2001 is provided in Appendix B.46 8.36 61.796 904 1.411.725 58.431 2000 7. Table 3.72 11.209 35.989 2001 Level 18.949 1993 4.93 92.193 1997 6.98 91. This part of the study has quantified the environmental emissions of the power plants in the country. 1991-2001 (%) 1991 Peak (MW) Installed Capacity (MW) Percentage Reserve Margin (installed) Dependable Capacity (MW) Percentage Reserve Margin (dependable) 4.3.124 587 975 415 10.

000.9 shows how carbon dioxide emissions varied with the energy mix within the 1991 to 2001 period.000. the percentage share of oil-based power generation declined by 58%. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000. Figures 3.000. decreased from 42.29% during the same period.541 tons in 1991 to 7. 20.000 6. Inc.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines For the CO2 emissions.000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Figure 3.000 18. Over the period considered.000. UPEEE Foundation page 43 . The CO2 emissions however from oil-based power plants decreased by 21 percent from its level of 9.000 14. However.6: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type.7 and 3. the share of coal-based generation increased by 427%.000. Note from this figure how much the CO2 emissions decreased and increased with the generation from oil-based and coal power plants.000.71% in 2001. Figure 3.222 tons in 2001. In order to analyze the factors that brought about the environmental performance of the power sector.000 8. This scenario allowed the continued dominance of non-renewable fuels.000.51% to 37.000 10.665 tons in 2001. Its contribution increased almost ten times from 1.000.000 16.082.471. The share of renewable sources.236. it is necessary to look at the power development as measured by the energy mix.000 2.279 tons in 1991 to 10. The net increase in CO2 due to the changes in oil and coal is 74%.6 shows that the coal power plants are the major contributors in greenhouse gases.000 4. on the other hand.000 tonne CO2 12.8 show that nonrenewable energy have remained greatly dominant over renewable energy as source of fuel for power generation. 1991-2001 (tonne) The share of non-renewable sources in the energy mix even increased from 57. The energy mix indicates the intensity of contribution of renewable energy resources as fuel for power generation.000.338.49% in 1991 to 62. Figure 3.

One thing to note. and not towards use of renewable resources. however. renewable hydro and geothermal sources share decreased by 25% and 1%. 1991-2001 (%) University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.700 MW installed by 2002. (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 3.063 MW of natural gas plant already installed in 2001 and another 1. Inc. With 1. Clearly.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines In addition. respectively. the shift is only towards use of coal. This leaves the percent share of non-renewable (coal and oil) to 61%. respectively over the same period. UPEEE Foundation page 44 . which despite being non-renewable is considered cleaner fuel for power generation. the percent share of cleaner fuels increased a bit from 37% (renewable only) to 39% (renewable plus natural gas). Combining the generation from natural gas in the year 2001 with that of the renewable sources. is the emerging use of natural gas. more energy generated from this source can be expected in the coming years. for 2003 to 2012).7: Energy Mix. This explains why the emissions of the power sector almost doubled in only 11 years. which is a cheaper fuel.

000 45.000 35. UPEEE Foundation page 45 .000.000.8: Share of Coal and Oil-Based vs.000 8.000 14.000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro CO2 20.000 2.000.000 6.9: Energy Mix and Carbon Dioxide Emissions.000 10.000.000 GWh 25.000.000.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Coal and Oil-Based Renewable and Natural Gas Figure 3.000 16. Inc. 1999-2001 (%) 50.000 5.000.000.000 10.000.000 20. 1991-2001 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 4. Renewable Energy and Natural Gas in the Energy Mix.000 15.000 30.000 0 Figure 3.000.000 tonne CO2 12.000 40.000 18.

35 0.4 Cost of Electricity This study also assessed the power development in the Philippines by analyzing the cost of electricity.4. which range from PhP 4.14 1. Inc. Comparing the average rate of NPC with that paid by the consumers. The average rates and the estimated unbundled generation and transmission rates of NPC from 1995 to 2001 are shown in Table 3.00 per kWh. It was noted that the average rates of NPC is for its bundled generation and transmission services. This considerable difference can be attributed to the cost of distribution and to the IPP’s that sell electricity directly to the distributors.70 Luzon Visayas Mindanao Philippines Generation Transmission Note: Generation and Transmission Rates assumed 76% and 24% of the average rate.65 2.49 0. there is difference of PhP 1.92 3. As a result.75 2001 3.62 1999 2.25 2.4: NPC Average Electricity Rates. IPP costs were always higher than NPC rates. 9136 (Electric Power Industry Reform Act) was enacted.85 1.12 2.02 1.93 1. UPEEE Foundation page 46 . University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.01 3.47 1997 2. Table 2.28 1. The increase in rates is attributed to the economic performance of the country as measured the exchange rates and allegedly due to the take-or-pay contracts of NPC with Independent Power Producers (IPPs). 1991-2001 (PhP/kWh) 1995 1.77 1. respectively. the rates of NPC were unbundled into 76% and 24% for generation and transmission.5 show the production cost of NPC and IPPs.44 1. except for the year 2001 when R.08 2.20 0.34 3.00 to PhP 3.84 2. For purposes of this study. the law has mandates to reduce the rates of electricity in the Philippines. respectively The average rates of NPC increased annually from 1991 to 2001.96 1.25 1.37 0.00 per kWh.67 2.64 2000 3.02 2. particularly that of the electricity distributors like MERALCO. many power plants were installed without the benefit of proper coordination through the centralized planning of the NPC or the government. Table 3.02 0. many power plants were installed in excess of what was actually needed. for the years 1995 to 2001 by fuel type. the average rates consist of the actual operating expenses and the financing charges of NPC.23 1. It is worthwhile to note that with the existence of the Non-NPC IPP’s (permitted to operate through Executive Order 215).00 to PhP 6. and the cost of which has to be paid off through the Purchased Power Adjustment (PPA). In addition. Interestingly.52 Year 1998 2.52 1.63 0.96 0.43 1996 2.68 2.77 2. respectively.58 1.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 3.90 2.15 1.29 2.08 2.A.

0462 Hydro NPC IPP 0.0450 0.0110 0.0331 0. UPEEE Foundation page 47 .0394 0.0150 0.0109 0.0329 0.0294 --0.0265 0.0428 0.0302 0.0177 0.0252 0.0431 0.0367 0.0203 * Lifted from “Renewable Energy Prospects for Supplying Electricity in the Deregulated Market in the Philippines” by J.0281 0.0232 0. Estiva and M.0284 0.0276 0.0212 0.0198 0.0281 0.0100 IPP --0.0538 0.0092 0.0047 0. Inc.0284 0.0254 0.0358 0.0230 0.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 3.0276 0.0067 0. G.0326 0.0683 Geothermal NPC IPP 0.0244 0.0369 0.0267 0.0349 0.0360 0.0125 0. N.0195 0.0270 0.0167 0.0366 0.0662 0.0111 0.0236 0.0038 0.0137 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. Guzman University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.0386 0.0233 Coal NPC 0.0303 0.

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

24 1.276. Table 4.82 1.203.27 1.23 5. Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.62 1.01 6.80 5.74 1.1.60 1.91 1.69 1.1: Low and High GDP Forecasts for 2003 to 2012 Year Low GDP GDP Growth Rate (billion PhP) (%) 1.85 4.80 5.23 5.64 5.51 1.467.95 1.23 5.10 1.51 6. 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).80 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2010 Note: GDP values for 2003 to 2006 are actual NEDA forecasts.80 5.079.44 5. the DOE uses two economic scenarios from which to forecast future energy requirement of the country.732.2 Gross Domestic Product Projections In the Philippine Energy Plan for the period 2003-2012.04 5.59 1.70 6. In this report.23 High GDP GDP Growth Rate (billion PhP) (%) 1.646.14 1.642.343.413.564. Oil.229.01 1.311. The GDP projections for the two scenarios.138. For 2007 to 2012.48 1.737. as well as the its corresponding growth rates are shown in Table 4.57 5.80 5.96 5. Coal.091.80 5.487. Philippine Energy Plan Top-Down Approach Figure 4.23 5. the DOE estimated GDP values based on the average growth rates forecasted by NEDA.838. UPEEE Foundation page 49 .70 1.156.387. Inc.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.09 1.1: National Energy Planning Process 4.29 6.552. etc.11 1.23 5. 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.

Inc.57% annually and 93% over the entire period.142 GWh in 2003. generation would almost double to 106. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.3 DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario Energy Generation Figure 4. 120000 100000 80000 60000 GWh 40000 20000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4.2: Generation under the Low Economic Growth Scenario 38 Generation costs were calculated using generic data for investment. From 55. 39 Details of the calculations made for this section are provided in Appendix C. transmission and distribution costs. Costs calculated do not include ancillary. O & M and fuel costs. UPEEE Foundation page 50 . energy generation is projected to increase at an average rate of 7.430 GWh in 2012. 4. In addition.2 shows the energy generation projected by the DOE that would meet the future energy requirements in 2003 to 201239.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines In the PEP. These plans will be discussed in the following sections. the DOE formulates generation plans for the two economic scenarios. 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. For this period.

500 MW. As shown in Figure 4. For indicative plant additions.775 MW and 3.632 GW and will increase to 20. and renewable energy plants. the UPSL assumed that indicative base load capacity will be coal plants while intermediate and peaking plants corresponds to oil-based plants. Reserve Margin and Reliability Table 4. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Notable are the considerably high reserve margins for 2003 to 2009. 65 MW wind capacity and a 40 MW geothermal capacity additions. UPEEE Foundation page 51 . which are more capital intensive. These figures just show the continued preference on the use coal over natural gas. Notably.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Installed Generating Capacity Total installed capacity for 2003 is 14. the increase in demand requirement will be met mostly by increases in oil-based and coal plant capacities of 1.3: DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the Low Economic Growth Scenario 40 In the PEP.3. amounting to 800 MW.000 MW 10. These high reserve margins would translate to higher electricity prices during the period. The table also computes the capacity that would be required if the percentage reserve margin was kept at 20%.2 summarizes the results of the UPSL’s calculation for the DOE’s plan for the LEGS.000 20. which is a more expensive fuel.706 MW by 2012. Inc. No additional capacity addition for natural gas is expected in the period. will be due to a 795 MW hydro capacity. committed and indicative capacity additions for each year in the planning period are given. this scenario is very similar to how the Philippine power sector performed historically.000 15.000 5. respectively40. 25. The increase in the share of renewable energy generating 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.

139 11.889 17.576 17.813 14.519 10.5 million barrels of oil. will supply 26% and 11%.208 GWh energy production annually.869 13.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 4. Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements.615 15. Clean fuels’ (renewable energy and natural gas) share in the energy mix decreases from 61% to 41% by 2012. renewable energy’s share decreases to 22% in 2012.5) for the planning period indicates minimal thrust towards more use of renewable energy sources and cleaner fuels. natural gas and oilbased sources will supply 34%. 41 This assumes that: local natural gas production can support 3. The breakdown of the fossil fuel that would be consumed in the LEGS-PEP scenario is shown in Figure 4. A look at the energy mix (Figures 4.367 14.5 tonnes of oil and 80. 2003-2012 Peak Demand (MW) 8. particularly geothermal and hydro.224.440 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Energy Mix For the LEGS.632 15.706 Percentage Reserve Margin (%) 66 59 52 42 33 29 27 24 24 22 Capacity Required for 20% Reserve Margin 10. coal.505 18.324 million.865 16. and. respectively. the PEP expects that for the year 2003.895. From a share of 37% in 2003.777 20.576 16. Of these amounts.756 20.997 12. UPEEE Foundation page 52 . Contribution from wind sources stays insignificant for the whole period.393 tonnes of coal would have to be imported41.4 and 4.143 GWh generation. of the total generation. Imported fuel would cost $4.2: Percentage Reserve Margin for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario. as it was in 2001. on the other hand will increase to 59% in 2012 to from a value of 38% in 2003.833 9. • share of imported coal is 87.443 16.263 billion cubic feed (BCF) of natural gas for the whole planning period. of the total 55.800 MW capacity of 23. this scenario would require 124.3% of total consumption.600 11. 24% and 5%.423 12. 91.015 16.066 tonnes of coal and 1.120 15. 124. The combined contribution of coal and oil to the energy mix.277 11.396 15. Inc. • University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.332 13. Renewable energy sources.814 15.6. respectively.565 17.405 19.033 Installed Capacity (MW) 14.

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

916 42 Abatement costs values in this chapter and the chapters that follow were computed using abatement costs for SOx .4 lists down the generation costs calculated for each year of the planning period.1592 per kWh.454. Appendix C shows the amount of emissions for the whole planning period. Total CO2 emissions for the period amounts to 309.189 $ 2.391.292 $ 23.376.744.71642.479. NOx and particulates for the North Coast of California. Coal contributes 55% of the CO2 emissions for the period.368. Total cost of abatement for this scenario is $ 29. Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: $ 11. and operations and maintenance costs involved in the operation of the different plants to meet demand and energy requirements for the scenario. respectively.3 shows the values for the years 2003 and 2012 and Figure 4.7 shows the contribution of each type to the CO2 emissions. Inc. These generation costs were computed from the values for investment. These do not take into account the effect on the generation cost by deals made with independent power producers. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.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. SOx and other emissions. fuel.707. Average generation cost for the period is PhP 3.434 $ 9. along with the assumptions used. As would be expected. Table 4.828.137. UPEEE Foundation page 54 . as given in Chapter 1.324. Generation Cost The present value of the costs calculated for the PEP-LEGS is given below. the increase in the use of coal would result in an increase in CO2. Geothermal plants contribute only 2%.3 million tonnes. Table 3. Oil-based and natural gas plants contribute 17% and 26% to the CO2 emissions.

6: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario Table 4.000.432 2.000 (tonnes) 50.362 282 1.000.323 644 3.000.000 90.000 0 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 4. UPEEE Foundation page 55 .669.788 54.000.000 80. Inc.000 70.821 295.289 112.000.581 952 19.000.712 21.389 55.647 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.611 489.850 159.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100.000 30.927 Year 2012 46.000 10.000.000 40.000.000 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 18.000.778.000.000 20.

000 10.7: Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario Table 4.3072 3.0429 3.0554 0.0553 0.000.0584 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 0.0592 0.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4.000 tonne CO2 30.000.0601 0.000 25.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 50.000.000.1592 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.2123 3.000 15.000.0612 0.000 20.0564 0.000 35.000 5.000.4: Generation Costs for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario.0574 12% 3% 2% PhP/kWh* 3.000.1026 3.000.0564 0. Inc.2548 3.0409 3.000.1229 3.3636 3.000.0568 0.000 45.0997 3.0447 3.0553 0. UPEEE Foundation page 56 .000 40.

756 MW in 2012. UPEEE Foundation page 57 . Figure 4.8: Generation under the High Economic Growth Scenario Installed Generating Capacity Installed generating capacity would increase from 14. Inc.556 GWh in 2003 to 118. Reserve Margin and Reliability Similar to LEGS. corresponding to a 56% increase within the ten-year planning period. A large part of this increase is due to the addition of coal plants.5 lists down the percentage reserve margins for the PEP Plan for the HEGS.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 4. Table 4.9 shows how the installed generating capacity would change from 2003 to 2012.8 shows the expected generation under the HEGS.632 MW in 2003 to 22. 140000 120000 100000 80000 GWh 60000 40000 20000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4. increasing more than 200 percent within the ten-year planning period. the percentage reserve margin in the HEGS is considerably high. with a minimum value of 26% and a maximum of 65%. generation is expected to increase from 55. Figure 4.470 GWh in 2012.4 DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario Energy Generation In the high economic growth scenario. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.

469 11.765 18.000 5.633 10.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Wind Demand (MW) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4.423 15.806 22.359 14.615 15.709 14.727 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.560 12. 2003-2012 Peak Demand (MW) 8.378 13.790 18.632 15.9: DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the High Economic Growth Scenario Table 4.424 12.563 13.660 11.865 16.308 18.065 16.854 16. Inc.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25.106 Installed Capacity (MW) 14.674 20.155 20.562 16.148 21.5: Percentage Reserve Margin for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario. UPEEE Foundation page 58 .000 15.883 9.120 15.005 21.000 20.000 MW 10.756 Percentage Reserve Margin (%) 65 57 49 39 30 25 26 29 30 26 Capacity Required for 20% Reserve Margin 10.031 17.

and natural gas whose contribution ranges from 24% to 17% for the period considered. 98.322. Of these amounts. Inc. Coal share remains very significant at 47% in 2012.272 BCF of natural gas for the whole planning period.835.120 tonnes of coal and 1. Total cost of imported fuel is $5. While the share of renewable energy declines to 20% by 2012 from 37% in 2003. 184.5 million barrels of oil. it is quite evident that dependence on non-renewable energy for power generation remains strong. Much of the increase in the share of non-renewable energy may be attributed to oil whose shares increase from 5% to 17%.10: Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements.10 and 4.127 million.5 million barrels of oil 85. this scenario would require 184.211 tonnes of coal would have to be imported.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Energy Mix From Figures 4. the share of non-renewable energy increases to 80%.11. UPEEE Foundation page 59 . 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. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.12. The breakdown of fossil fuels that will be used in the HEGS-PEP scenario is shown in Figure 4.

000.000 (tonnes) 50.000.000 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 4.000.000 20.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 40.000.000 80.000. UPEEE Foundation page 60 .000 70. Inc.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.000.000 90.000.000.11: Share of Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy in the Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario 100.000.000 10.000.

Figure 4.294.236. UPEEE Foundation page 61 .677 Year 2012 565.829 631. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.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.820 61.409 2.6: 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 19.211 111.132 Generation Cost The PEP-HEGS Scenario will require the following costs: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: $ 12.751 283 1.059. An estimate of the environmental emissions is provided in Table 4. Total abatement cost for the HEG-PEP Scenario is $32.599 970 19.896 Based on the installed capacities and energy generation indicated in the PEP for the HEGS.843 167.076. the UPSL obtained the following shown in Table 4.317 326.680.568.913 $ 2.610 778 4.779.059.022.2 million tonnes.050.995.064 21. greenhouse has emissions is to further soar.7 for energy generation cost for 2003 to 2012. Table 4. Total CO2 emissions for the period is 347. Inc.165.758 $ 25.225 $ 10.945 70.764.6.13 illustrates the contribution of each energy source to CO2 emissions resulting from the DOE plan for the HEGS.

000.3646 3.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 4.9853 3.000.000 tonne CO2 30.000.0557 0.9810 2. 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 0.1488 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.0582 0.2021 3.000.0542 0.000 20.0549 0.13: Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario Table 4.0175 3.0555 0.000 40.000.2889 3.0392 3.000 10.7: Generation Costs for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario.0640 2.000.0635 0.0543 0.4908 3.0553 0.0612 0.0598 0.0545 3. UPEEE Foundation page 62 .POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 60.000 50. Inc.0573 12% 3% 2% PhP/kWh* 3.

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

9 BCF of natural gas would have to be imported. 58. 64. 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. Details of this scenario is given in Appendix D.502.060 million.8 million barrels of oil. By 2012. Note also that wind power plants.279 tonnes of coal and 1. Of these amounts. For Mindanao.3. the reserve margin is quite higher at 42% to 48%. this scenario would require 58. 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%. which were used in the PEP scenarios. which were used in this option to address the additional power and energy demand. which cannot be addressed with the low dependable capacity of its existing plants. natural gas capacity would continue to increase until the end of the planning period. Also.554. respectively. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Inc.945. UPEEE Foundation page 64 . Total cost of fuel that need to be imported for this scenario is $ 3.4. The energy mix and share of clean energy for the option are shown in Figure 5.450 MW in 2003 to 8. natural gas and renewable energy plant capacities would amount to 69% of the total installed capacity.685 MW in 2012.1. have lower capacity factors compared to coal power plants.2 and 5.1 LEGS-MCPD Scenario In this scenario.228 tonnes of coal and 154. the Moderate Clean Power Development option is applied to the Low Economic Growth Scenario. Energy Mix The share of renewable energy for the LEGS-MCPD option would increase by 10% from the period 2003 to 2012. 73.8 million barrels of oil. This is because more power plants are required to meet Mindanao’s energy demand. Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 5. The share of coal and oil in the mix would reduce by about 28% at the end of the period.4 BCF of natural gas for the whole planning period. This is shown in Figure 5. renewable energy plant installed capacity is increased by 95% from 4. however. Installed Capacity As shown in Figure 5.

GHG emissions from the LEGS-MCPD are much lower than that from the LEGS-PEP.755. UPEEE Foundation page 65 .815 $ 0. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.1: Installed Generating Capacity for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario Environmental Emissions and Abatement Cost As would be expected.723.000 20.000 MW 10.508 $ 8.969. The LEGS-PEP abatement cost is $6.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25.000 5. Generation Cost For this LEGS-MCPD. achieving net reduction of 44.113.5 illustrates the CO2 emissions calculated from this option.053 $ 23. Inc.166 million higher than that of the LEGS-MCPD.592.955. Total CO2 emissions for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario is 264.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Oil-based Hydro Coal Biomass Natural Gas Wind Geothermal Demand (MW) Figure 5.507.254 $ 2.202 million.1235 The LEGS-MCPD will achieve a net savings of $ 236 million as compared with the LEGS-PEP.479. Total cost of abatement of other emissions for this option is $23. computed cost values for the planning period are as follows: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: Average generation cost: $ 12.6 million tonnes of CO2 as compared to the LEGS-PEP.000 15.7 million tonnes.0568 or PhP 3. Figure 5.

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 5.2: 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 5.3: Coal and Oil-Based vs. Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. UPEEE Foundation page 66 . Inc.

000 70. UPEEE Foundation page 67 .5: CO2 Emissions for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000.000 50.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Coal 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 5.000.000.000 5.000.000.000 60.000 15.000.000 30.000.000 25.000.000 20.000 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 5.000.000.000 10.000.000.000.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 80.000 (tonnes) 40.000 20.000.000 35.000 30.4: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario 40.000 10. Inc.000.000.

renewable energy capacity is increased from 4.450 MW in 2003 to 11.294. is 53%.2 million barrels and 139. while importation of oil and natural gas stand at 57.40% of the peak demand.7 BCF of natural gas and 57.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 5.34 tonnes/GWh.6 shows the installed capacities for the LEGS-ACPD option. respectively. Figure 5. UPEEE Foundation page 68 . Installed Capacity In this option.7 illustrates the energy mix resulting from the LEGS-ACPD option. brings the CO2 emission level at 321. in this option. Total cost of fuel that is needed to be imported for this scenario is $ 2. Reserve Margin For Luzon and Visayas.9 million tonnes less than the LEGS-PEP. respectively.4 million tonnes.9.520 MW in 2012.480 MW in 2012 and the further increase in the utilization of geothermal and biomass resources. Mindanao’s average reserve margin.2 million barrels of oil. Energy Mix Figure 5. In this option.4 BCF. brings the clean energy generation from 33.074.633. Inc.8 shows the increase in clean energy share in the mix.860 million.731 tonnes.10. The total CO2 emissions for each year are shown in Figure 5. wind power plants take 20. the average reserve margins are 33% and 26%. This 159% increase in renewable capacity is largely attributable to the increase in wind capacity from zero in 2003 to 3.523.2 LEGS-ACPD Scenario In this scenario.715. Coal importation for this option reaches 58. The mix of imported and indigenous fuel is shown in Figure 5. The average for the country is 34%. which is 60. The 30% increase in renewable energy share from 37% to 48% over the planning period. Total cost of abatement for this option is $ 21. Fuel Consumption Total fuel requirement for the LEGS-ACPD is 66.270 GWh in 2012.175 tonnes of coal. the Aggressive Clean Power Development Option is applied to the Low Economic Growth Scenario. 1471.794 GWh in 2003 to 84. Figure 5. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Environmental Emissions and Abatement Cost The increased utilization of renewable energy resources. for 2008 to 2012. The total CO2 emissions for the period is 248.

UPEEE Foundation page 69 .7: Energy Mix for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 20.000 5.000 MW 10.000 15.6: Installed Generating Capacity for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 5.000 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.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25. Inc.

000. UPEEE Foundation page 70 .000 10.000.000 80. Inc.000 60. Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario 90.000 20.000.000.9: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 30.000 40.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Coal and Oil-Based Renewable and Natural Gas Figure 5.000.000 70.8: Coal and Oil-Based vs.000 (tonnes) 50.000.000.000.000 0 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 5.000.

403.564 $ 2. Installed Capacity The installed capacity for this option is given in Figure 5.000 15.094 $ 8.603.3 HEGS-MCPD Scenario In this scenario.000.0576 or PhP 3.000 35.000.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 40. UPEEE Foundation page 71 .414.000 30. the Moderate Clean Power Development option is applied to the High Economic Growth Scenario. Renewable energy capacity accounts for 30% in 2003 and 39% in 2012.880. Inc.000 25. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.10: CO2 Emissions for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario Generation Cost For this LEGS-ACPD. 5.132.000.000 0 2003 2004 Oil-based 2005 Coal 2006 2007 2008 Geothermal 2009 Hydro 2010 Biomass 2011 Wind 2012 Natural Gas Figure 5.000 5.057. Natural gas capacities are increased throughout the period and would account for the biggest share in installed capacity by 2012.000.1698 This scenario would cost $52 million more than the LEGS-PEP.671 $ 0.000 10.000.11.000.661.816.012 $ 23.000.000. computed cost values for the planning period are as follows: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: Average generation cost: $ 12.000 20.

580. renewable energy and natural gas contribution to the energy mix increases from 61% to 74% for 2003 to 2012.8 BCF tonnes of natural gas would have to be imported.940. Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements.769. Figure 5.12 shows the corresponding energy mix for the HEGS-MCPD option. Of this mix. 73. 64.322 million.076.778.302 $ 24.13 illustrates the clean energy mix. Energy Mix With its installed capacities dominating.549. Total cost of fuel imports is $ 3. This difference is attributable to the inevitable higher reserve margin for Mindanao.781.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 2012.665.7 million barrels of oil. UPEEE Foundation page 72 . which is 63. Of these amounts.347. Total abatement cost for this option is $ 24. Environmental Emissions Figure 5. The total CO2 emissions is at 283.8 million tonnes. Generation Cost For this HEGS-MCPD. while Figure 5.0565 or PhP 3. computed cost values for the planning period are as follows: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: Average generation cost: $ 12.030 $ 2.807.7 million barrels of oil.124 $ 9.9 BCF of natural gas for the whole planning period.390.15 shows the CO2 emissions resulting from the HEGS-MCPD option.1065 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. 2% is contributed by wind power plants.857 tonnes of coal and 342.271 tonnes of coal and 1.718. 70. which falls within 35% to 48%. Inc.456 $ 0.349. this scenario would require 70.686.4 million tonnes lower than the HEGS-PEP.

POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25.000 15.000 20. UPEEE Foundation page 73 .000 5.000 MW 10.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Oil-based Hydro Coal Biomass Natural Gas Wind Geothermal Demand (MW) Figure 5. Inc.12: Energy Mix for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.11: Installed Generating Capacity for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 5.

000 50.000. UPEEE Foundation page 74 .000 (tonnes) 40. Inc.000.000.000.000 10.000 60.000.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Coal and Oil-Based Renewable and Natural Gas Figure 5.000 20.13: Coal and Oil-Based vs.000 70.000. Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario 80.000.000 30.14: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000.000 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 5.

000 10.000 20. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Inc.000.000 35. the country’s effective reserve margin ranges from 28% to 32%.16 illustrates this. Figure 5.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 40. clean energy share increased by 24% over the planning period. UPEEE Foundation page 75 .000. Energy Mix While oil-based and coal share in the energy mix decreased by 38%.000.15: CO2 Emissions for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario 5. Figure 5.000.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Coal 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 5.17 and Figure 5. Reserve Margin With the inevitably high reserve margin of 45% to 51% for Mindanao.000.4 HEGS-ACPD Scenario In this option.000 15. 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 2012.000.000.000 25.000 30.18 illustrate these changes in the energy mix.000. the Aggressive Clean Power Development option strategy is applied to the High Economic Growth Scenario.000 5.

NOx and particulates for this option is 23. along with 59.1 million tonnes.532.0575 or PhP 3.560.402.791.567 $ 9. Generation Cost For this HEGS-ACPD.271 $ 25. Total CO2 emissions is at 275.730 $ 2. Environmental Emissions and Abatement Cost Carbon dioxide generation for the HEGS-ACPD option is shown in Figure 5. Inc.568 $ 0.7 BCF of natural gas. Cost of fuel imports is $ 3.584.458.1647 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.824. computed cost values for the planning period are as follows: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: Average generation cost: $ 12.513 million. this scenario would require 90.139 tonnes of coal and 276.1 million tonnes lower than that for the HEGS-PEP.682 tonnes of coal and 1.842.19 shows the sharing of the imported and indigenous fossil fuels.20. 72. UPEEE Foundation page 76 . All of the oil would have to be imported.723. Figure 5. 67.199.638.182.0 million barrels of oil.288.583.5 BCF of natural gas for the whole planning period.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements. The cost of abatement for SOx .

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 5.17: Energy Mix for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Inc.000 5.000 MW 10.000 15.000 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. UPEEE Foundation page 77 .POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25.000 20.

19: Fuel Consumption for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 50.000 0 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 5.000 70.000.000.000. Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario 80. UPEEE Foundation page 78 .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 10.000 20.000 30.000.000.000.000.000 60.000.18: Coal and Oil-Based vs.000 (tonnes) 40. Inc.

000.000.000 20. Inc.000 5.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 40.000.000 10.000.20: CO2 Emissions for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000.000.000 25.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Coal 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 5.000.000 35.000 15.000 30.000. UPEEE Foundation page 79 .

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

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

particularly on the required technical analysis and compensating equipment. UPEEE Foundation page 82 . operation and control of nonconventional. 6. These plants must “feed-in” the Grid at minimum prices that will guarantee the returns of power developers. 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. Transmission facilities should deliberately be expanded toward locations of promising renewable energy sources. The Philippine Grid and Distribution Code (PGDC) must be clear on its requirements and procedures on the connection. most of which are site specific. This cost mechanism will ensure that all electricity consumers will share the cost of such a development. The cost of such an expansion should be borne by the transmission or distribution utility. renewable energy-based power plants.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. 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.2 Transmission and Distribution Development Transmission and distribution infrastructure should be developed to increase access to renewable energy sites. Inc.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines National Energy Plan National Level Centralized System Planning and Integration of Provincial Plans Figure 6.1: Recommended Bottom-Up Approach to Energy Planning 6. The Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) should allow such an expansion even if it does not initially show recovery of investment.

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

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

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

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

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.1: Locations of Practical Wind Resources in Luzon Province Abra Albay Aurora Bataan Batangas Benguet Bulacan Cagayan Camarines Norte Camarines Sur Cavite Ifugao Ilocos Norte Ilocos Sur Isabela Kalinga Laguna Mountain Province Nueva Ecija Nueva Vizcaya Pampanga Pangasinan Quezon Quirino Rizal Sorsogon Tarlac Zambales LUZON TOTAL Estimated Estimated Number of Sites Aggregate Capacity Aggregate Annual (MWe) Generation (GWh) 26 183 567 26 183 576 46 320 1.Appendix A POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table A. Inc. UPEEE Foundation page 1 of 4 .922 21 158 484 5 40 125 5 33 100 20 151 478 43 315 971 7 46 143 17 125 382 11 86 263 21 165 509 15 98 307 24 163 509 4 40 123 117 796 2.486 686 4906 15.

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. 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 1.065 75 229 259 795 2.738 Table A.113 169 519 347 1. Inc.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. UPEEE Foundation page 2 of 4 .170 6.

671 6 35 184 3 34 179 15 181 110 4 26 951 3 28 147 19 179 941 1 6 32 129 1.030 1 10 53 9 79 415 3 32 168 3 22 116 4 40 210 8 72 378 30 318 1.4.5.Appendix A POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table A.258 6.585 Table A. Inc. 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. Locations of Practical Small Hydro Potential Resources in Visayas Province Aklan Eastern Samar Negros Occidental Negros Oriental VISAYAS TOTAL Number of Sites Estimated Capacity Estimated Annual (MWe) Generation (GWh) 1 5 2 1 9 5 33 13 7 58 26 173 68 37 304 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. UPEEE Foundation page 3 of 4 .

209 7 37 11 58 7 37 826 4. Inc. 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. UPEEE Foundation page 4 of 4 .Appendix A POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table A.237 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.6.692 7 7 18 18 53 279 26 137 58 305 69 363 230 1.

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

730 11.196 5.667 6.191 957 2.927 Coal 405 405 441 550 850 1.791 2.452 1. 1991-2001 (MW) Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Fuel Type Oil-based 3.425 5.568 4.518 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 6.849 41.290 47.663 18.440 5.734 30.929 19.320 6.840 7.931 1.155 2.594 11.442 5.910 8.713 47.072 11.600 1.894 9.071 25.345 45.973 5.368 4.1: Installed Generating Capacity.069 5.862 6.536 5.870 26.399 4.471 6.259 2.626 10.649 25.067 1.700 5.086 3.223 6.335 5.116 18.987 3.030 6.789 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 20 16 17 848 5.167 1.150 7.432 45.301 2.725 9.901 12.936 8.132 4.348 2.543 934 1.185 9.534 7.104 Source: DOE Table B.931 Hydro 2.301 2.301 2.237 8.Appendix B POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table B.799 7.183 16.684 762 1.390 6.459 1995 8.288 19.707 39.799 9.395 721 1.578 1999 11.254 2.257 2.547 10.928 12.870 1993 6.417 1.301 2.819 1.267 1.959 9.844 5. UPEEE Foundation page 1 of 2 .340 6.037 39.579 1994 7.132 4.963 Natural Gas 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 1.282 5.851 1.567 13.914 10.2: 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 25.154 4.554 36.735 33.950 1.053 4.725 12.931 1.708 1997 10.128 36.804 13.353 10.942 1.249 4.190 11.839 4.042 2.066 7.050 12.212 9.049 Source: DOE University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.875 8.493 3.078 18.301 2.432 2000 12.030 5.135 6.856 1.013 12.859 823 1.176 25.847 9.696 11.301 2. 1991-2001 (GWh) Year Year 1991 Residential Commercial Industrial Others Utilities Own Use Power Losses Total 6.649 1992 6. Inc.754 41.949 7.363 9.477 8.073 1.512 13.162 11.867 16.339 952 1.459 33.200 3.554 1996 9.939 13.015 1.865 10.797 1998 11.797 41.226 5.600 2.963 3.145 4.789 6.578 41.531 1.590 5.063 Geothermal 888 888 963 1.758 5.444 921 1.154 1.388 11.232 7.238 26.341 3.867 1.290 2001 13.296 5.185 13.402 Source: DOE Table B.855 7.579 30.109 4.3: Energy Consumption by Sector.098 14.

848 164.414 162.232.273 1.185.076 2.029 36.184 5.808 Fuel Type Geothermal 261.036 4.428.282 286.471.345 2.119.704 18.611 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.245 41.813 3.552 135.530 15.351.585.491.702 7.902 2.962 751.705.411.049 19.649 Table B.566.352 1998 5.6: Environmental Emissions.566 3.781 24.725 117.222 Natural Gas 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.396 18.6: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Source.908 2000 5.206 3. 1991-2001 (MW) Year Luzon Visayas Mindanao Philippines Source: DOE 1991 3.351.131.081 1992 3.028 770 868 6.396 18.555 30.556 404.4: Peak Demand.311 10.403 1.238 106.745 4.644 13.990 99.789 3.727 29.970 527.780 257.067 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 10.5: Generation by Grid.903 21.580 27.687 1994 3.580.147 5.816 1997 4.633 130.413 258.763 25.704 18. tonne Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Environmental Emissions CO 2 10.283 15.678 117.797 1998 31.553.038 973 1.233 11.566.563 127.652 4.762 SOX 115.674 480.464 45.666 1999 5.773 727 852 6.362 14.075 N 2O 415 436 421 469 541 610 711 742 644 734 842 Particulates 10.236.733 24.835 893 954 7.682 Table B.579 1994 23.261 9.688 3.076 792 805 904 NMVOC 975 1. 1991-2001 (GWh) 1991 Luzon Visayas Mindanao Philippines Source: DOE 1992 19. Inc.250 473 573 4.649 812 939 7.964 114.991 5.376 3.004 906 1.062 1.348 2.175 5.486 20.920 591 780 5.580.644 328.311 20.175.428.411.530 15. tonne CO2 Year Oil-based 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 9.928 278.448 16.159 13.365 39.283 15.448 16.400 2001 5.164 19.082.473 523 691 4.703 47.808 1995 3.164 19.679 5.084 4.747 25.726 67.836 18.729 NOX 58.854 6.932 154.094.541 10.561 551 696 4.519.989 12.242 1.547.864 26.226 789 893 6.521 18.045 410 626 4.671 16.492 144.967 2.279 998.133 30.481 5.133 1.306 682 828 5.159 13.585.882 149.343 41.291 1.687.708 23.122.675 10.004 101.347 5.679 8.204 160.338. UPEEE Foundation page 2 of 2 .547.233 11.291 1996 4.671 16.820 474.870.578 1999 31.103.090 16.586 126.163 5.083 18.296 1993 3.755 4.794 13.131.582 11.290 2001 36.639 16.870 1993 19.286.290 3.109 23.807 CO 16.708 1997 30.695 33.359 1.521.131.521.896 136.509.Appendix B POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table B.582 11.432 2000 34.231.553.687.511 2.124 17.698 4.127 1.309 146.872 6.915 12.712.554 1996 27.459 1995 25.116 20.529 296.360 14.069 84.831 189.665 Coal 1.337 25.796 CH4 587 643 685 835 963 974 1.762 Table B.616 28.441 5.

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

377 1.477 1.91% 7.58% VISAYAS 1.95% 7.95% 6.752 7.592 1.007 1.360 1.829 1.149 13.275 7. Inc.563 1. UPEEE Foundation page 1 of 16 . G.2012) (2003 .519 10.833 9.074 1.67% MINDANAO 1.084 1.789 1.161 9.830 10.707 1. (2003 .2012) LUZON 6.912 2.254 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.813 14.139 11.2007) (2008 .814 15.168 1.869 13.033 7.503 9.034 7.31% 7.13% 7.159 1.548 11.855 8.041 7.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.26% 7.1b: System Peak Demand Forecasts for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (MW) YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual Ave.319 12.30% 7.997 12.889 17.93% 7.276 1.39% NATIONAL Non-Coincident Peak 8.673 1.459 1.R.57% Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.958 8.277 11.

154 59.024 85.072 49.057 98.420 11.274 7.30% 7.564 80.93% 7.675 46.016 9.411 9.57% Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.1c: Electricity Sales Forecasts for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (GWh) YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual Ave.31% 7. UPEEE Foundation page 2 of 16 .686 7.735 57.2007) (2008 .306 7.506 74.870 66.754 7.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.661 10.95% 6.95% 7.497 9. G.726 6.801 8.91% 7.660 61.135 11.58% VISAYAS 5.452 7.743 10. Inc.67% MINDANAO 6.182 55.103 9.R.170 6.604 42.320 5.13% 7.26% 7.391 71.260 76.258 6.740 7.827 92. (2003 .892 7.342 8.924 8.539 69.39% TOTAL 51.2012) LUZON 39.875 53.548 64.2012) (2003 .

607 616 - 1.308 2008 2443 3758 450 3.141 12.308 2012 1583 3758 450 3. UPEEE Foundation page 3 of 16 .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 - 1.308 2004 2443 3758 450 3.308 2005 2443 3758 450 3.267 2.207 616 200 200 - 2.017 2.308 2009 2233 3758 450 3.367 2.381 11.907 616 200 200 - 2.067 2.308 2006 2443 3758 450 3.796 12.031 15.308 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 11.441 13.807 616 200 200 - 1.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C. Inc.717 1.217 2.517 2.308 2007 2443 3758 450 3.141 12.308 2011 1583 3758 450 3.107 616 200 200 - 2.617 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.308 2010 1583 3758 450 3.647 1.707 616 200 200 - 1.208 616 200 200 - 2.657 616 - 1.131 13.817 2.308 616 200 200 - Natural Gas Mindanao Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 997 104 - 997 104 - 997 104 100 - 997 104 100 - 997 104 50 100 - 997 104 200 100 - 997 104 250 100 - 997 104 350 100 - 997 104 500 100 - 997 104 600 100 - Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking MINDANAO TOTAL 1.831 15.141 12.1d: DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (MW) Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Local Imported Year 2003 2443 3758 450 3.604 546 - 1.

163 600 3.970 65 400 650 - 2.650 750 2.763 3.763 2.340 4.505 18.381 4.970 65 300 - 2.363 2005 3.163 600 3.763 3.970 65 150 350 - 2.865 16.563 2012 2.970 65 550 1.970 65 2. Inc.457 3.363 2004 3.763 3.563 Philippines Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 2.214 1.763 3.763 3.490 3.563 2011 2.350 300 2.970 65 3.763 2.381 4.563 2008 3.120 15.214 1.214 1.340 3.963 600 3.340 4.970 65 1.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Local Imported Year 2003 3.970 65 350 - 2.565 17.563 2010 2.214 1.706 Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.163 600 3.163 600 3.869 1.500 1.300 1.763 3.632 15. UPEEE Foundation page 4 of 16 .950 900 Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking PHILIPPINES TOTAL 14.970 65 - 2.763 3.214 1.615 15.214 1.963 600 3.405 19.563 2009 3.214 1.163 600 3.963 600 3.340 4.130 4.756 20.363 2006 3.350 1.763 3.163 600 3.930 - 2.950 750 2.563 2007 3.163 600 3.214 1.519 1.480 4.015 16.

200 290 390 490 Mindanao Coal Baseload Plant Baseload Plant 200 50 150 370 420 570 1.150 Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.750 690 Baseload Plant 50 620 3.050 San Roque Hydro 2005 345 690 240 Diesel Plant from Luzon Midrange Plant 70 100 170 1.190 Cebu Baseload Panay Baseload 990 Baseload Plant 100 970 7.440 Cebu Baseload Negros Baseload 50 50 50 50 890 Baseload Plant 150 870 6.1e: 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 4.890 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 3.240 Cebu Baseload 4.200 5. Inc.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.500 2.100 2006 2007 Midrange 2008 Midrange 2009 Peaking 300 690 690 990 Panay Midrange Panay Baseload Cebu Baseload Negros Baseload 600 300 1.350 1. UPEEE Foundation page 5 of 16 .

812 32.453 Table C.249.776 3.568 115.521 36.870 225.669.936.687 16.855 133.660 169.452 685.188.939 Natural gas 21.869.760.782 13.086 8.866.304.464 Natural gas 104 125 134 143 152 157 159 158 156 157 1.982.993 46.809.203 265.422 335.491.531 14.803 103.1g: 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 137.937 148.988 213.534 8.060.289 28.229 8.635 582.171 29.764.265.816.076.307.918 Coal 10.828 345.676 6.876.125.410 89.445 Oil-based 21.577.158.491 97.528 31.251 128. Inc.519 TOTAL 18.284 24.493 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.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 641.279 28.093 679.897.908 32.185 32.095 Oil-based 2.011 2.894 22.897 189.820.611 309.821 2.460 34.264 8.965 83. UPEEE Foundation page 6 of 16 .324 28.829 222.188 139.975 14.435 81.820.177 685.091 57.449 685.609 10.710 128.941 384.939 26.792 8.951.317.163 437.991 33.429 181.631.963 15.103 21.045.051.833.402.177 92.114.388.865 683.958.624 7.633 164.220 8.316.840 51.019 TOTAL 112.599 168.844 147.352.032 392.981 303.927 8.450 295.600.802.020 289.113.821 2.317 211.340 238.297 33.644 7.785 39.797 3.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.462 27.465 5.922 Natural gas 5.030 2.573.962 16.416 21.788 1.985 42.275.887.770 25.100 8.676 685.837 18.571.242 75.536.330 25.113 283.532 39.827.303 265.712 117.289 159.921.762 94.138 38.927 8.497 195.997 Table C.722 685.151 243.536 Oil-based 12.855 246.1h: 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 78.061 35.477 203.410 40.495 685.313 685.928 31.778.849 7.850 20.803.808 40.086.088 TOTAL 159.680 489.652 182.896 9.201 30.273 7.503 1.

595 46.776 10.1j: 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 1.656 12.454 Oil-based 163 195 267 238 302 449 713 770 755 802 4.008 Oil-based 33 40 49 44 59 82 121 129 122 131 810 TOTAL 282 314 346 379 423 470 526 566 598 644 4.519 1.671 Table C.207 TOTAL 21.586 1.548 Table C.655 TOTAL 1.355 26.362 23.176 17.397 3.385 11.571 1.125 13.763 13.060 6.373 2.078 165.069 14.432 25. Inc.285 13.121 54.571 14.337 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.053 76.228 Natural gas 1.193 121.254 1.529 11.045 1.250 3.196 13.581 1.620 20.971 12.134 3.363 36.008 2.873 9.240 4.341 1. UPEEE Foundation page 7 of 16 .319 13.268 11.810 2.730 Natural gas 145 174 186 198 211 218 220 219 217 218 2.630 2.714 3.925 4.241 28.963 3.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.274 13.049 Natural gas 8.157 2.425 1.1i: 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 9.999 7.712 28.586 50.414 Oil-based 2.966 32.580 1.758 42.602 16.323 362.1k: Total NMVOC Emissions by Fuel Type for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total for period Geothermal Coal 373 362 399 493 551 610 665 783 933 1.586 10.562 1.554 12.758 24.575 13.

01 NMVOC 0.37 438.927 20.044 Natural gas 836 1.02 0.394 15.03 0.02 0.66 429.37 0.031 46.221 3.923 7.175 1.78 346.42 0.424 1.256 11.342 Natural gas 313 376 402 428 456 471 476 474 469 471 4.14 2.620 274.250 1.264 1.02 0.256 34.41 0.04 1.01 2.01 0.466 41.15 4.008 TOTAL 952 1.353 55.02 0.02 0.36 0.03 0.39 373.40 0.02 0.160 25.653 49.995 Table C.268 1.073 1.952 38.78 CO 0.89 4.39 0.50 0.03 0.50 SOX 2.140 1.41 4.257 1.979 29.35 0.917 17.39 410.387 TOTAL 19.97 2.89 2.647 338.1l: 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 1.55 338.003 1.139 4.35 2.684 7.514 5.02 Particulates 0.44 0.778 1.969 2.1n: Environmental Emissions per Unit Generation (tonne/kWh) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Environmental Emissions CO2 340.700 24.216 1.559 21.01 0.06 3. UPEEE Foundation page 8 of 16 .34 0.072 7.01 0.52 3.36 390.589 9.771 53.43 0.140 22.66 358.836 7.50 0.686 Table C.97 421.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.1m: Total Particulate Emissions by Fuel Type for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total for period Geothermal Coal 16.39 0. Inc.02 0.01 0.03 N2O 0.973 33.01 0.02 0.51 CH4 0.122 1.69 2.24 3.03 0.01 0.46 0.03 0.03 0.57 2.399 1.858 29.336 Oil-based 79 95 121 108 142 202 305 320 308 328 2.50 0.47 0.01 0.01 0.698 3.563 Oil-based 2.244 26.589 1.176 2.03 0.389 15.03 0.52 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.25 2.49 0.60 NOX 2.02 0.84 3.42 0.01 0.013 1.275 1.03 0.67 2.528 3.45 2.209 43.

281 1.2007) (2008 .994 8. (2003 .09% 8.60% 8.186 10.423 15. Inc.90% 8.992 11.2012) LUZON 6.2b: System Peak Demand Forecasts for the High Economic Growth Scenario (MW) YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual Ave.400 1.809 1.804 13.711 9.22% 8.176 1.675 1.106 MINDANAO 1.378 13.2a: 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.R.788 7.891 2.65% 7.357 7.081 1.13% 8.428 1.099 1.757 1.438 10.562 16.359 14.469 11.106 8.313 1.424 12.186 NATIONAL Non-Coincident Peak 8.94% 8. G.194 1.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.512 1.23% Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.59% 7.46% 8.73% 7.034 2.883 9.790 18.630 1.92% 8.953 2.014 1.633 10.543 1.862 12.2012) (2003 .815 VISAYAS 1. UPEEE Foundation page 9 of 16 .

938 7.015 11.094 55.124 8.2c: 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) 39.465 8.156 46.46% 6.746 64.807 6.13% 51.187 71.155 8.363 59. UPEEE Foundation page 10 of 16 . Inc.73% 7.805 9.23% Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.266 104.64% 7.658 66.305 6.355 5.497 10.148 97.469 55.104 81.09% 8.848 9.888 8.90% 8.711 77.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.542 8. (2003 .2007) (2008 .814 60.92% 8.851 7.R.22% 5.300 6.814 43.555 10.033 8.94% 8.149 8.847 12.59% 7.392 83.555 90.314 11. G.578 75.474 69.2012) (2003 .888 51.60% 8.233 11.

067 2.583 3.707 616 200 200 - 1.758 450 3.308 2012 1.141 12.604 546 - 1.443 3.763 1.317 2.510 907 - 2.700 1.817 2.205 907 65 2.763 2.443 3.308 2010 1.767 2.763 1.205 907 65 2.141 12.308 2004 2.308 2006 2.881 16.758 450 3.758 450 3.567 2. UPEEE Foundation page 11 of 16 .758 450 3.205 907 65 2.308 2005 2.500 900 2.205 907 65 2.443 3.658 616 200 200 - 2.657 616 - 1.381 11.205 907 65 2.357 616 200 200 - 2.233 3.857 616 200 200 - 2.583 3. Inc.763 2.860 907 65 2.758 450 3.205 907 65 2.867 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.800 3.300 1.2d: DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the High Economic Growth Scenario (MW) Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Local Imported Year 2003 2.758 450 3.763 2.583 3.431 14.758 450 3.647 1.758 450 3.758 450 3.758 616 200 200 - Natural Gas Mindanao Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 997 104 - 997 104 - 997 104 100 - 997 104 100 - 997 104 50 100 - 997 104 250 150 - 997 104 300 150 - 997 104 400 250 - 997 104 550 300 - 997 104 650 300 - Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking MINDANAO TOTAL 1.763 2.017 2.763 2.758 450 3.205 907 65 2.443 3.607 616 - 1.443 3.557 616 200 200 - 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 - 1.205 907 65 Luzon Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking 300 1.717 1.141 12.443 3.796 12.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.800 3.763 2.308 2011 1.367 2.763 2.300 750 LUZON TOTAL Oil-based Coal Local Imported 11.308 2007 2.308 2008 2.381 17.763 2.441 13.308 2009 2.007 616 200 200 - 2.308 Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 2.

563 2011 2.163 600 3.120 15.340 3.756 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.970 65 Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking 300 350 150 400 450 800 700 2.963 600 3.381 4.763 3. UPEEE Foundation page 12 of 16 .340 4.214 1.865 16.363 2005 3.163 600 3.480 4.163 600 3.763 3.970 65 2.214 1.970 65 2.563 2009 3.763 3.970 65 2.150 0 1.765 18. Inc.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Local Imported Year 2003 3.563 2007 3.930 - 2.065 16.963 600 3.763 2.155 20.363 2006 3.632 15.381 4.214 1.563 Philippines Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 2.163 600 3.490 3.763 3.340 4.763 3.763 3.563 2010 2.214 1.869 1.970 65 2.363 2004 3.163 600 3.130 4.563 2012 2.250 0 3.214 1.806 22.214 1.763 2.163 600 3.970 65 2.500 0 3.340 4.000 4.970 65 2.970 65 2.250 750 PHILIPPINES TOTAL 14.763 3.214 1.563 2008 3.214 1.200 4.457 3.615 15.850 3.970 65 2.763 3.519 1.163 600 3.005 21.963 600 3.

540 Cebu Baseload Panay Baseload 1.200 Peaking 2012 750 6.150 Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.170 9.290 Cebu Baseload Bohol Midrange Baseload Plant Midrange Plant 100 50 870 6.140 940 590 290 440 Midrange Plant 100 2006 2007 Midrange 2008 300 690 690 Panay Midrange Panay Baseload Panay Midrange Mindanao Coal Baseload Plant 200 50 370 420 1.200 2.070 8. UPEEE Foundation page 13 of 16 .340 Baseload Plant Midrange Plant 150 50 1.300 2010 Midrange Baseload Plant 2011 Midrange 900 600 5.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.250 Midrange 1.550 990 Cebu Baseload Cebu Midrange Negros Baseload Baseload Plant Midrange Plant 200 50 670 2. Inc.790 Cebu Baseload Negros Baseload Cebu Midrange 50 50 100 50 50 1.440 Baseload Plant 100 1.850 2009 Negros Baseload Cebu Midrange Bohol Midrange Baseload Plant 900 1.100 2005 150 50 50 100 50 50 50 50 100 50 50 50 100 150 50 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 1.190 Cebu Baseload Panay Baseload Baseload Plant 50 720 3.350 1.200 4.

534.879 Oil-based 2.014 42.909 224.897.941 30.017 30.862 11.609 28.897 409.233 33.824 13.351 79.922 383.267 121.294.708 137. UPEEE Foundation page 14 of 16 .033 8.042 17.198.2g: 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 139.106.064 118.921.625 1.498 130.887 197.198.812 6.897.399.863.808 243.864 2.172 22.710 546.070 305.722 685.582 40.021.630 162.293 82.300 Table C.806.912.490 157.701 Natural gas 5.639 34.585 685.793 3.934.060.450 685.812 33.784 157.839 182.383 326.488.185 32.198 192.2f: 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 641.891 11.173 56.877.822 23.722 685.808 139.706 153.645.211 173.234.722 685.533 32.620.653 27. Inc.888 232.636 Natural gas 104 126 136 145 155 158 159 158 156 157 1.677 174.437 242.221 109.226 7.300.989.052 418.744.785.320 681.774 12.456 Oil-based 27.849 7.220 8.434 28.258.735.297 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.820.178.297 33.565.734.529 5.859 7.322 12.792.299 33.585 685.124 11.683 61.465.828.890.316 257.435 2.704.317 3.843 20.035 TOTAL 19.673 35.073.970.000 684.939 26.473 51.499 TOTAL 167.125.840.965 19.664.208.829 347.264 8.767 685.194 TOTAL 111.2h: 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 79.689 Oil-based 9.094 104.167.207 14.686 Coal 10.590 Table C.572.170 89.518 77.526 33.415 Natural gas 21.877 20.537 16.862.051 8.002 321.688 221.787.206 180.296 1.239 10.202 74.253.254 191.124 8.661 30.912 293.180 42.951.945 479.866 288.945 1.686 347.796 44.396 154.895 12.927 8.055 2.743.518 214.779 15.741 631.634 149.043 41.498 264.341 26.250 284.370.713 217.891 8.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.050.873 49.

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

871 5.763 1.313 4.213 5.763 1.869 25 15.941 605 205 1.711 4.871 1.758 3.419 609 205 1.467 12 60 2.213 5.312 3.383 2. UPEEE Foundation Visayas page 2 of 16 .267 2.917 4.011 1.661 1.971 3.163 2.963 2.931 2.895 2.283 2.804 509 205 956 12 1.758 3.782 647 200 108 997 1.429 545 205 916 12 1.671 92 170 16.942 5.214 50 65 15.283 1.952 3.763 907 2.758 3.963 2.127 4.682 547 108 997 1.971 2.763 1.862 647 250 108 997 2.491 2.752 3.189 609 205 956 12 80 1.758 3.983 1.398 647 250 228 1.415 12 40 2.213 3.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.831 92 315 17.383 977 2.732 647 108 997 1.205 25 12.694 609 205 986 12 80 20 1.797 525 14.011 3.747 4.971 3.213 2.583 2.758 3.925 112 520 18.558 12 80 2.917 4.510 11.491 1.763 907 1.194 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.491 2.214 80 65 16.053 3.583 2.287 3.758 3.491 2.652 3.422 400 14.963 2.266 73 100 100 2.213 5.404 130 12.678 547 108 997 1.697 3.205 65 12. Inc.901 655 205 1.531 3.404 235 13.101 629 205 1.189 559 205 956 12 50 1.146 647 250 188 1.418 112 685 19.942 112 850 21.971 3.214 25 15.624 2.583 3.519 14.216 63 100 80 2.860 25 11.583 947 2.763 1.012 647 250 148 1.547 3.191 3.205 65 12.583 1.983 2.211 650 15.263 4.758 3.923 2.512 2.061 3.066 12 80 40 2.213 4.912 647 250 128 1.758 3.758 2.697 4.149 559 205 956 12 1.985 5.491 2.269 647 250 228 1.758 3.287 4.763 907 2.227 2.011 1.116 37 100 60 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 2.652 3.759 2.763 1.255 12 20 2.002 3.658 12 100 2.763 907 1.781 4.633 2.138 2.775 2.763 907 2.

778.763 0 0 0 0 0 820 800 900 300 400 1.797 3.896 9.571.915 Coal 18.148 1.125.215.820.235 1.133.784 15.654 29.275.916.210 19.100 18.975 14.086 11.928 7.415 20.948 80.943 27.577.101 Fuel Type Geothermal 641.936.943 7.263 14.757 846.333.093 679.951 31.519 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 1.653 821.001 16.931 0 40 0 0 0 90 130 340 180 70 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 2.893 7.857 27.1b: Annual Capacity Additions (MW) Year Oil-based Current Installed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3.968 8.623.388.659 27.249.641 6.360 92.760.776 3.247 3.430 Table D.579 1.687 16.982.894 22.783 15.271 21.833.151.528 31.706 1.060 33.906 27.869.576 14.462 27.098 15.074 24.609 10.850 20.1c: Power Generation (GWh) Year Oil-based 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.953 24.216 13.835 Natural Gas 13.313 1.901.764 6.324 6.477 12.229 8.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.979.629 18.523 4.141 18.652 1.927 8.011 2.884 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 0 645 785 785 785 Wind 0 153 153 153 153 153 843 1.289 106.596 1.849 7.438 86.113.534 8.589 27.349 16.952 3.174.297 Hydro Biomass Wind Total 18.550 30.121 14.908 Coal 10.495 639.092 15.374 30.821 2.085 16.054 15.061 27.573.816.383 Natural Gas 5.536.636 99.689 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.937 1.177 685.837 15.1d: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.624 7.391 1.710 18.402.097 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 14.865 683.114.087 19.113.076.372 64.782 13.757 30.831 2.343 16.152.213 1.143 59.897.644 1. UPEEE Foundation page 3 of 16 .813 19.580 74.020.094.521 27.284 24.099 14.045.720 3.456 758.209 Total Addition Table D.125.449 685.089. Inc.958.975 15.017 17.963 0 0 0 200 50 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 2.484 1.465 5.452 685.181 69.272 Total 55.583 0 0 300 0 50 0 0 20 75 50 Coal 3.281.590 1.158.

113.03 0.581 1.41 0.06 0.19 3.03 0.429 181.39 0.630 2.779 2.317 164.37 0.55 338.10 3.451 943.31 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.03 N2O 0.52 2.894 22.160 25.27 Table D.05 NOX 2.39 0.32 299.02 8.01 0.02 0.35 0.954 180.06 0.50 8.70 304.1e: Environmental Emissions (tonne) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 18.40 0.04 1.87 Particulates 0.289 159.982.901.599 168.52 2.528 31.424 1.66 358.01 2.36 0.06 PhP/kWh 3.137 171.249.952 27.810 2.30 0.839 27.916.462 27.840 217.152.927 20.35 2.650 218.008 2.013 1.06 0.01 0.36 390.43 0.758 32.17 2.397 943.01 0.147 943.589 775.46 0.06 0.02 0.88 SO X 2.02 0.06 0.936.42 0.73 1.355 26.677 28.20 3.04 3.14 2.36 0.044 CH 4 282 314 346 379 423 470 443 470 497 536 NMVOC 1.535 Particulates 19.542 Table D.778.97 2.01 0.110 35.89 2.39 373.362 23.654 29.42 0.03 0.24 3.06 0.241 28.84 3.37 0.69 Environmental Emissions CO CH 4 0.03 0.122 1.28 0.06 3.238 N 2O 952 1.32 0.39 323.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.061 27.251 128.06 0.03 0.06 0.01 NMVOC 0.275 Environmental Emissions CO 21.973 33.536 27.113 283.01 0.01 0.36 0.402.90 1.140 22.09 314.03 0.584 2.05 3.215.69 2.06 3.98 10.422 217.05 3.689 SOX 159.01 0.83 1.363 36.1g: Generation Cost Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Generation Cost US$/kWh 0.937 148.151 243.029 NOX 112. Inc.712 117.35 1.1f: Environmental Emission per Unit Generation (tonne/GWh) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 340.34 0.157 2.12 3.687 38.284 24.380 169.38 0.10 3.442 34.02 0.966 32.850 20.78 346.03 0.373 2.06 0. UPEEE Foundation page 4 of 16 .01 0.757 30.981 3.18 9.02 0.726 215.951 31.03 0.275 1.25 2.979 29.01 0.897 189.988 213.03 0.

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

782 647 200 108 997 1.871 1.346 63 80 80 2.369 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.747 4.325 3.138 907 2.491 2.758 3.671 102 718 16.862 647 250 108 997 2.149 559 205 956 12 1.422 25 1.763 1.042 647 250 148 1.267 4.952 3.491 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 2.865 14.968 5.583 3.763 2.480 23.778 2.411 18.465 16.146 37 80 60 2.758 3.758 3.213 4.697 4.213 2.213 4.287 3.163 2.735 1.807 21.561 3.404 10 665 12.415 12 106 2.491 2.548 4.476 63 80 80 2.804 509 205 956 12 1.265 13.255 12 33 2.214 50 65 15.488 1.763 1.168 4.404 25 1.168 4.291 510 205 1.991 4.763 1.071 3.718 609 205 996 12 80 20 1.682 547 108 997 1.283 647 250 228 1.002 3.213 3.758 3.860 25 11.189 559 205 956 12 50 1.957 2.136 647 250 188 1.468 907 1.211 25 3.214 80 65 16.531 1.869 25 15.964 977 2.011 3.758 3.548 2.558 12 262 2.856 609 205 1.923 907 2.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.267 2.205 25 12.763 2.011 1.868 609 205 1. Inc.467 12 179 2.491 2.678 547 108 997 1.652 3.963 2.578 2.963 2.547 3.917 4.825 510 205 1.931 2.758 3.971 3.752 3.519 14.413 647 250 228 1.227 2.096 12 80 40 2.831 117 1.214 25 15.697 3.759 907 1.763 2.510 11.130 2.971 3.065 17.763 1.797 25 2.213 5.205 65 12.841 4.743 2.429 545 205 916 12 1.053 947 2.468 2.922 647 250 128 1.968 2.763 2.758 3.658 12 335 3.963 2.763 3.633 907 2.063 2.661 1.221 3.213 3.732 647 108 997 1.778 4.104 19.127 4. UPEEE Foundation page 6 of 16 .189 609 205 956 12 80 1.758 3.652 3.758 2.971 2.491 1.011 1.763 1.758 3.932 117 3.063 3.925 117 2.418 117 2.205 65 12.971 3.

324 6.098 13.655 20.778.609 10.704 1.580 74.654 1.629 18.011 2.465 3.968 15.897.523 4. Inc.534 8.386 649.676.992.573.797 3.245 Natural Gas 13.849 7.125.138 26.919 3.121 14.746 23.931 0 40 0 0 0 100 150 340 280 150 2.132.647 13.896 9.181 69.557.172.865 683.113.247 3.770 5.943 7.177 685.891 26.815 19.345 16.821 2.720 3.833.045.136 2.104 20.856 14.2d: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type (tonne) Year Oil-based 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.545 16.158 14.103.178.908 Coal 10.636 99.2c: Power Generation (GWh) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.982.709 1.449 597.320.143 59.415 18.387 1.694 Fuel Type Geothermal 641.198 29.708 27.388.973 769.032.583 0 0 300 0 50 548 548 488 538 528 Coal 3.790 1. UPEEE Foundation page 7 of 16 .692 27.372 64.624 7.922 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 14.687 14.210 19.622 7.141 18.360 92.229 8.948 80.114.263 6.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.942 19.952 3.462 27.528 26.085 Total 55.157.651 1.333.760.963 0 0 0 200 50 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 2.737.433 2.158.270 21.820.289 106.953 24.082 Natural Gas 5.894 22.2b: Annual Capacity Additions (MW) Year Oil-based* Currently Installed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3.975 14.885 32.776 3.317 16.975 15.016.452 685.519 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 2.550 26.436.577.927 8.054 15.961.936.477 12.437 86.764 4.758.602 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.816.958.287 9.017 17.534 21.375 24.079 2.093 679.529 26.732 12.850 20.092 15.170 867.385 3.791.076.545.365 *includes capacities of diesel engines used as ancillary to wind power plants Table D.249.536.087 19.659 27.778.332 919.117 10.341 22.284 24.809 13.281 2.430 Table D.203.349 16.763 0 0 0 0 0 300 715 770 420 500 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 1.361 10.385 2.919 Hydro Biomass Wind Total 18.893 7.915 Coal 18.782 13.928 7.369 11.741 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 715 820 820 436 259 Wind 0 153 153 153 153 1.

529 26.69 2.39 373.75 1.849 3.113.01 0.675 146.48 2.03 0.906 CH 4 282 314 346 379 423 389 418 444 462 492 NMVOC 1.89 2.363 29.00 1.63 271.43 0.138 26.06 PhP/kWh 3.41 0.06 0.48 1.988 213.859 NOX 112.45 308. UPEEE Foundation page 8 of 16 .03 0.32 0.739 161.791.00 0.289 159.37 0.676.00 NMVOC 0.01 2.151 243.160 25.731 171.355 26.93 1.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.528 26.00 0.154 2.41 10.927 20.01 0.55 338.10 3.539 185.00 0.251 128.35 0.23 0.06 0.23 3.02 10.2g: Generation Cost Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Generation Cost US$/kWh 0.73 1.06 0. Inc.2e: Environmental Emissions (tonne) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 18.852 Table D.429 181.52 NOX 2.03 0.01 0.702 32.05 3.03 0.979 29.737.30 0.125 985.679 2.599 168.362 23.982.40 0.39 Environmental Emissions CO CH 4 0.020 22.04 1.29 2.34 0.140 22.06 3.778.02 0.284 24.68 11.013 1.36 0.35 0.150 312.54 261.897 155.12 3.03 0.06 0.38 3.25 1.936.97 2.737 148.546 150.04 3.15 3.073 N 2O 952 1.442 21.03 N2O 0.06 0.407 2.42 0.02 0.973 28.03 0.35 0.249.06 0.107 Environmental Emissions CO 21.05 0.37 0.02 0.301 985.376 30.462 27.14 2.94 Particulates 0.424 859.34 0.36 325.01 0.961.426 33.241 28.122 1.583 Particulates 19.84 3.113 232.01 0.157 2.66 358.2f: Environmental Emission per Unit Generation (tonne/GWh) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 340.06 0.937 148.78 346.00 0.05 3.475 31.39 0.065 214.581 1.894 22.373 2.891 26.26 0.63 1.275 1.33 0.692 27.311 525.966 32.008 2.602 SOX 159.02 0.810 2.24 2.178.54 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.90 288.850 20.13 SO X 2.03 0.712 117.64 5.03 0.21 Table D.086 24.06 0.39 0.010 26.01 3.89 2.03 0.223 151.

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

783 80 150 17.163 2.267 2.043 907 2.817 4.205 25 12.383 3.658 89 2.476 63 100 85 2.291 629 205 1.467 49 2.547 3.583 4.691 4.519 14.971 3.971 2.732 717 108 997 1.163 3.205 65 12.183 2.491 1.412 3.763 1.945 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.011 1.987 4.534 717 200 228 1.963 2.758 3.661 1.763 2.797 565 16.758 3.758 3.687 109 2.869 25 15.189 609 205 956 12 80 1.703 907 2.491 2.011 1.860 25 11.763 3.163 7.763 2.404 275 13.963 2.678 547 108 997 1.511 1.832 2.581 2.116 100 574 20.276 37 100 65 2.333 4.341 655 205 1.429 545 205 916 12 1.758 2.583 2.871 1.227 2.163 6.073 947 2.163 2.758 3.733 6.422 440 15.733 2.007 1.892 2.832 717 200 108 997 2.138 907 2.971 4.205 65 12.581 605 205 1.176 12 80 40 2.367 2.301 3.197 4.822 3.652 3.183 7. Inc. UPEEE Foundation page 10 of 16 .663 717 200 228 1.809 609 205 1.011 3.971 3.214 25 15.071 3.763 1.491 2.189 609 205 956 12 50 1.022 3.311 717 200 188 1.3a: Installed Capacity (MW) Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Natura Gas l Luzon Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind LUZON TOTAL Oil-based Coal Visayas Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind VISAYAS TOTAL Oil-based Coal Mindanao Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind MINDANAO TOTAL Oil-based Philippines Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind PHILIPPINES TOTAL Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.862 717 200 108 997 2.759 907 1.214 50 65 16.922 717 200 128 1.163 4.682 547 108 997 1.518 100 739 22.763 2.214 80 65 16.758 3.211 690 17.758 3.758 3.404 130 12.433 7.758 3.763 1.510 11.122 717 200 148 1.971 3.763 1.817 4.491 2.383 907 1.658 69 2.041 4.758 3.941 2.287 3.149 559 205 956 12 1.883 80 364 18.652 3.383 4.357 4.763 1.027 977 2.971 100 904 22.767 3.694 609 205 996 12 80 20 1.433 2.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.931 2.491 2.163 7.022 3.804 509 205 956 12 1.526 73 100 105 2.583 3.963 2.434 1.763 2.

065 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 14.033.756 31.739 26.3b: Annual Capacity Additions (MW) Year Oil-based Currently Installed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3.125.585.777 34.768 3.016 28.156.258.694 2.209 26.124 8.269 36.479 27.020 16.615 4.573 1.600 16.897.496 14.916.150 1.503 42.042 15.169 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.367 2.893 18.759 0 415 715 340 30 1.646 2.252.964 Natural Gas 13.807 93.448 Hydro Biomass Wind Total 19.931 0 40 0 0 0 100 230 390 280 70 2.874 109.3c: Power Generation (GWh) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.239 10.734.602 17.349 16.649 6.484.766 19.840.891 8.141.226 7.471 Table D.110 2.864 3.785.991 Coal 10.439 18.252 2. UPEEE Foundation page 11 of 16 .153 85.534.700 750 200 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 1.465 37.207 14.555.3d: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type (tonne) Year Oil-based 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.104 13.791 23.862.664.407.158 14.574 1.907 937.763 0 0 0 0 0 820 1.946 20.126 15.076 15.463 2.324 6.672.028 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 561 561 701 343 701 Wind 0 153 153 153 153 402 974 1.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.722 597.769 22.952 8.671 14.000 15.208 14.101 15.673 29.879 3.404 13.243 26.919 33.920.640.115 100.964 26.107 4.535 1.578 19.420 4.163 30.519 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 14.855.108 20.978 27.897.891 11.315 118.934 17.877 1.973 27.190 3. Inc.859 3.747 Coal 18.779 15.745 912.130 20.650 79.263 72.595 66.320 681.458 Natural Gas 5.084 17.640.019 814.928.051 10.773.234.828.103 16.208.585 685.885 23.450 685.569.672 938 Table D.188.556 60.146 29.963 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 2.000 684.272 Fuel Type Geothermal 641.317 Total 55.850 21.722 2.583 0 0 370 50 0 0 0 20 75 50 Coal 3.537 18.749 2.386 678.932 7.128.458 14.496 5.893 7.106.695.984 30.226.850 7.849 7.704.859.744.858 1.321 14.218.050.

01 0.344 45.024 N 2O 970 1.099 214.44 0.0549 0.377 1.885 23.024 3.18 2.0868 3.169 S OX 167.45 0.494 23.756 31.43 0.202 173.984 30.500 132.44 0.44 0.734 179.03 0.79 385.359 842.447 153.546 36.0542 0.32 2.01 0.03 3.062 118.43 0.274 3.268 674.506 45.269 36.101 CH 4 283 321 358 402 456 453 509 540 592 655 NMVOC 1.421 Environmental Emissions CO 21.39 2.389 NOX 111.03 0.343 31.750 24.0622 3. Inc.636 217.199 33.0555 0.3g: Generation Cost Generation Cost US$/kWh PhP/kWh 0.03 0.0603 0.50 0.733 174.828.44 2.684 207.156.02 0.0561 0.559 3.04 Particulates 0.04 0.065 2.711 48.0554 0.50 0.25 8.02 0.858 2.887 173.0544 0.3e: Environmental Emissions (tonne) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 19.01 0.02 0.04 0.139 288.617 413.04 0.430 43.3138 3.284 27.38 0.25 3.01 NMVOC 0.050.06 NOX 2.307 2.3f: Environmental Emission per Unit Generation (tonne/GWh) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 370.686 239.10 2.916.01 0.055 1.9744 3.0495 3. UPEEE Foundation page 12 of 16 .272 41.596 2.38 0.02 0.10 354.13 373.9785 2.01 1.266 191.41 SO X 3.845 Particulates 19.407.46 Table D.755 181.0578 0.9923 2.54 367.15 2.04 0.166 37.43 0.17 351.01 0.56 0.35 4.61 2.673 29.151 31.677 42.51 0.739 26.141.859.0536 2.02 8.4193 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.12 2.0541 0.71 8.48 0.90 406.099 Table D.16 2.591 216.24 2.096 27.37 0.428 38.91 376.163 30.777 34.03 0.41 0.30 3.39 0.01 0.01 0.0175 3.928.21 2.42 0.672.304 36.69 4.264 200.1790 3.01 0.97 1.862.130 20.07 9.186 1.03 0.04 N2O 0.98 Environmental Emissions CO CH 4 0.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.676 20.68 429.873 215.01 0.18 351.372 842.42 0.599 1.294 244.10 3.566 674.620 4.

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

741 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.238 4.758 3.011 1.765 95 609 205 1.804 509 205 956 12 1.540 152 2.758 3.978 2.971 3.063 2.703 2.758 3.163 5.180 2.817 4.205 65 12.759 2.122 717 200 148 1.146 47 100 230 2.860 25 11.797 25 2.583 3.238 4. Inc.163 3.841 4.983 2.548 665 1.605 5.124 18.519 14.661 1.763 1.333 1.163 2.510 11.822 3.404 15 4.476 73 100 314 2.963 2.465 16.758 2.422 25 1.4a: Installed Capacity (MW) Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Luzon Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind LUZON TOTAL Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind VISAYAS TOTAL Oil-based Coal Mindanao Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind MINDANAO TOTAL Oil-based Coal Philippines Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind PHILIPPINES TOTAL Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.763 907 1.865 15.758 3.548 717 200 228 1.966 95 Visayas 771 1.971 3.942 717 200 128 1.491 1.163 5.817 4.678 547 108 997 1.758 3.527 17.682 547 108 997 1.763 907 1.547 3.022 3.491 2.337 4.149 559 205 956 12 1.783 977 2.041 22.763 907 2.758 3.491 2.096 22 80 110 2.678 717 200 228 1.557 125 3.163 4.687 186 2.094 2.189 609 205 956 12 50 1.189 609 205 956 12 80 1.205 25 12.291 609 205 1.339 76 2.163 2.346 73 100 314 2.043 2.155 125 2.758 3.073 3.333 1.983 1.656 510 205 1.214 25 15.871 1.783 2.138 2.732 717 108 997 1.832 717 200 108 997 2.267 2.763 1.715 23.971 2.687 12 336 3.333 2.214 80 65 16.763 907 2.205 65 12.281 20.561 4.687 262 3.971 3.211 25 3.491 2.333 2.931 2.757 2.991 4.690 510 205 1.460 3.987 4.071 3.287 3.214 50 65 16.336 717 200 188 1.491 2.862 717 200 108 997 2.758 3.297 5.763 907 2.404 15 3.429 545 205 916 12 1.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.065 17.869 25 15. UPEEE Foundation page 14 of 16 .011 1.163 3.767 3.227 2.652 3.652 3.763 1.863 609 205 996 22 80 30 1.758 3.763 1.011 3.063 947 2.265 12.763 1.197 4.963 2.971 137 3.022 3.963 2.221 3.723 13.

595 66.864 3.763 0 0 0 0 0 300 720 1.650 79.439 18.095 7.639 Fuel Type Geothermal 641.897.768 3.993 Natural Gas 5.335.418 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.407.897.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.126 15.919 Hydro Biomass Wind Total 19.409 3.891 8.891 11.744.893 7.382 1.292 2.630.060 4.317 16.258.042 14.016 17.080 6.973 769.020 16.471 3.704.243 26.118 31.840.885 23.091 33.883 9.014 17.420 4.978 26.984 30.862.615 4.746.963 22.953 36.084 17.814.104 13.190 3.101 15.158 14.000 684.4b: Annual Capacity Additions (MW) Year Oil-based* Currently Installed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3.739 26.142 29. UPEEE Foundation page 15 of 16 .012 Natural Gas 13.050.443.644 34.332 919.828.234.963 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 2.850 7.874 109.932 7.239 10.030 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 666 666 876 876 960 Wind 0 153 153 153 153 2.125.583 0 0 370 50 0 621 582 549 595 529 Coal 3.115 13.045 26.791 21.109 8.479 10.298. Inc.779 Total Addition *includes capacities of diesel engines used as ancillary to wind power plants Table D.942 19.519 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 2.016 28.208.263 72.209.326.419 14.207 14.633.664.549 6.865.600 Coal 18.4c: Power Generation (GWh) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.952 8.153 85.130 20.263 Fuel Type Hydro 6.735 12.103 11.326.538 2.115 100.850 21.585 685.216 11.062 2.324 6.618.051 9.960 19.722 2.104 20.734.527.953 Geothermal 14.639 16.4d: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.859 4.538 4.867 Coal 10.320 681.484.106.315 24.349 16.000 15.386 649.290 36.076 15.036.450 685.931 0 40 0 0 0 100 150 340 280 150 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 2.226 7.708.916.807 93.398.288.534.849 7.200 350 0 1.893 18.556 60.578 19.508 29.673 28.387 1.722 597.650.653 Total 55.426 20.107 6.956.252.239 21.760 23.186 2.779 15.496 5.170 867.471 Table D.193 16.511.124 8.193 6.315 118.

050.54 Table D.139 288.447 153.01 0.739 26.53 0.1607 3.34 9.09 1.676 20.10 3.055 1.479 3.04 0.4e: Environmental Emissions (tonne) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 19.03 0.0550 0.777 Particulates 19.03 0.0549 0.196 3.03 3.418 SOX 167.68 429.377 1. UPEEE Foundation page 16 of 16 .294 38.04 0.01 0.355 Table D.465 36.44 0.258 34.263 44.106 170.90 406.97 319.13 373.062 118.956.0593 0.746.30 3.4g: Generation Cost Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Generation Cost US$/kWh 0.00 1.862.09 329.0555 0.343 31.248 42.04 0.858 2.51 0.212 174.0228 3.9923 2.4234 3.01 0.91 372.02 0.16 2.19 2.0622 0.02 10. Inc.31 358.0542 0.052.45 0.40 0.01 NMVOC 0.430 46.9785 3.814.654 Environmental Emissions CO 21.0575 0.02 0.750 24.79 385.03 SO X 3.096 27.47 0.0495 3.566 800.01 0.01 0.18 2.52 329.750 N 2O 970 1.374 800.485 45.199 32.75 2.01 0.644 34.41 0.03 Environmental Emissions CO CH 4 0.294 244.885 23.785 1.58 11.494 23.44 0.6854 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.48 0.511.25 3.118 31.284 27.500 132.69 4.32 2.997 56.03 0.0536 2.438 1.754 NOX 111.40 0.01 0.186 1.151 31.38 0.425 2.68 10.01 0.0544 0.073 174.153.02 0.264 200.79 1.202 173.508 29.130 20.596 2.00 Particulates 0.771 3.065 2.738 45.686 246.67 NOX 2.036.03 0.679 188.38 0.41 0.4f: Environmental Emission per Unit Generation (tonne/GWh) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 370.02 0.81 2.673 28.052.407.720 234.625 166.142 29.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.03 0.882 164.0670 PhP/kWh 3.2638 3.44 2.50 0.60 0.599 1.18 2.733 174.03 0.916.37 0.01 0.546 36.39 0.42 0.984 30.307 2.887 168.04 N2O 0.515 212.82 1.740 1.12 2.291 CH 4 283 321 358 402 456 439 479 517 559 634 NMVOC 1.42 0.0175 3.0554 0.82 11.828.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful