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

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

........... 1999-2001......................................................3 Figure 3..................4 Figure 3...................3 Figure 4..... UPEEE Foundation page iii ...........................39 Electricity Generation by Grid......5 Figure 3.............4 Figure 4.................................... Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario.56 Generation under the High Economic Growth Scenario...................................................41 Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type...... 1991-2001 ...................6 Figure 4................................... 19992001.....................8 Figure 4..7 Figure 3........................................................................... 19912001......................45 National Energy Planning Process .....................................2 Figure 3......23 Practical Small Hydro Resources in the Philippines.... 1999-2001 ...................................51 Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario...............................................................9 Figure 4................44 Share of Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy in the Energy Mix................. 1991-2001..................... 1999-2001 ..................6 Figure 3................40 Total Installed Generating Capacity by Source.................5 Practical Wind Resources in the Philippines ...........43 Energy Mix.....7 Figure 4................................................................57 DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the High Economic Growth Scenario .....................55 Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario..........1 Figure 2..............................................................9 Figure 4............45 Energy Mix and Carbon Dioxide Emissions................59 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas......27 Electricity Consumption by Sector..........POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2................................................................................................50 DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the Low Economic Growth Scenario..... 1991-2001 ........... 2001...................................................53 Fossil Fuel Consumption for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario........ Gross Domestic Product and Population........................................58 Figure 4..................49 Generation under the Low Economic Growth Scenario..........2 Figure 3..1 Figure 3....2 Figure 4..53 Coal and Oil-Based vs.........................................................1 Figure 4...........................................................................................10 Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario........................................................40 System Peak by Grid................39 Electricity Consumption............8 Figure 3....... Inc......

.................69 Coal and Oil-Based vs........67 Installed Generating Capacity for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario.........................................75 Figure 5.........................................................................73 Figure 5.........19 Fuel Consumption for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario................... Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario......13 Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario.............5 Figure 5....................66 Fossil Fuel Consumption for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario................................8 Figure 5.........73 Figure 5...............1 Figure 5..................................74 Figure 5...........4 Figure 5......................13 Coal and Oil-Based vs.....60 Figure 4...........................................................67 CO2 Emissions for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario....................... Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario ...............................16 Installed Generating Capacity for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario...................60 Figure 4.3 Figure 5....................18 Coal and Oil-Based vs...................................................................................................2 Figure 5........14 Fossil Fuel Consumption for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario.............17 Energy Mix for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario .......................79 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.........77 Figure 5...........................20 CO2 Emissions for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario...............................................................65 Energy Mix for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario .....................78 Figure 5....9 Installed Generating Capacity for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario.................................69 Energy Mix for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario ..............................................70 Fossil Fuel Consumption for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario................................. Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario .................................................................................................................................................................15 CO2 Emissions for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario............................74 Figure 5..................................................71 Figure 5........................................................ Inc.................. Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario ....................66 Coal and Oil-Based vs....................................................11 Share of Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy in the Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario ..........................78 Figure 5.77 Figure 5...7 Figure 5......................................POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Figure 4........6 Figure 5..............12 Energy Mix for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario.......................12 Fossil Fuel Consumption for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario..62 Figure 5.....11 Installed Generating Capacity for the HEGS-MWPP Scenario........70 Figure 5....10 CO2 Emissions for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario . UPEEE Foundation page iv ....

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

...55 Generation Costs for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario...4 Table 4....... Inc..............6 Table 4.............3 Table 4.................................................................................................... 2003-2012........................7 Low and High GDP Forecasts for 2003 to 2012 . UPEEE Foundation page vi .........................................................................58 Environmental Emissions for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario.................52 Environmental Emissions for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario..............................................61 Generation Costs for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario ........56 Percentage Reserve Margin for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario..........49 Percentage Reserve Margin for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario...POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 4....2 Table 4.....................1 Table 4............................5 Table 4.62 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.......

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

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

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 . Inc.

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

2282 2. UPEEE Foundation page 2 . University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.2277 1. (b) operation and maintenance cost.53 0 36. market risks.3644 6.750 – 1.56 73.000 – 3.7153 5.250 2.8236 4.5219 1 A discount rate of 12% was used to derive levelized generation costs. $/MWh 41.500 1. years 30 20 20 20 30 30 20 50 30 50 20 Investment Cost. (c) fuel cost.750 – 1.0602 2.12 0 0 3.1: 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 2.400 1.550 700 – 900 550 – 650 1.000 450 .0405 0.0405 0.0193 0.1059 0. Screening curves (costs per kWh vs.200 – 1.000 – 1.1 below shows the costs used in this study.4376 12.2: 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. regulatory risks.93 32. Table 1. Actual industry discount rates may be higher depending on the following factors: required equity return.10 11. capacity factor) were developed based on the life cycle of each power generation technology and the four economic factors mentioned above. and (d) the level of generation (also called capacity factor).0512 0.0794 0.0494 0. country risks and availability of financing.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.800 1.68 Table 1. $/kWa 850 – 1.8174 3.1101 0.150 – 1. Inc.40 9.500 700 – 900 Annual Fixed O & M Cost. Table 1.0625 0. including: (a) investment cost.800 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.2282 2.04 49.

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

local natural gas production would be supplemented by imported natural gas.935 GWh annually can be obtained from additional verified geothermal sites in the Philippines.. which generated a total of 10. If this pushes through.) of the Philippine power sector from the period beginning 1991 to 2001 was also assessed in this study.200 GWh of electricity per year. 1.200 MW that could generate about 8.323 MW. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. an estimated capacity of 1.731 billion cubic feet (BCF). storage. Additional screening criteria were imposed to determine practical and viable wind power sites. construction of transmission lines) will cost up to 25% of the total life-cycle cost were considered.771 to 4.. cost and environmental emissions.092 with an aggregate potential of 14. the UPSL identified 236 small hydro sites in the country with an aggregated capacity of about 2. This potential is spread all over the country where sugar centrals are situated. UPEEE Foundation page 4 .e. Inc.038 with 7. A re-analysis of the NREL small hydro resource assessment was also conducted. For the purposes of this study.308 MW. Selecting only the sites with capacities of 5 MW or more as criterion.442 GWh.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 195. A few natural gas finds in the Philippines have been made. the most significant of which is that found in Malampaya and San Martin in Palawan.7 MW.3 Historical Performance of the Philippine Power Sector The performance (in terms of reliability. a re-analysis of the NREL wind mapping data was conducted.e. This first criterion reduced the number of wind sites to 2. The Philippine government is considering plans to develop a local natural gas industry. This include considering only sites with power density of at least 500 W/m2. Only those sites whose connection (i.931 MW. and competing uses to be viable for large-scale power generation. Using the second screening criterion similar to that use in the wind resource assessment. limiting the transmission investment cost to 25% of total investment cost) resulted to the elimination of three sites from the small hydro resource pool. Other biomass resources are still facing problems or issues like collection.404 MW potential. The Philippines power sector largely depends on geothermal energy to meet the demand and energy requirements of the country. This accounts for 14% and 22% of the total installed capacity and total generation. total geothermal installed capacity amounted to 1. In addition to existing geothermal power facilities. Of all the biomass resources in the country. UPSL estimates the electric power potential of bagasse at 235. respectively in the country. UPSL considered only bagasse from sugarcane processing as practical resource for grid connection. The application of the second criterion further reduced the number of sites to 1. (i. 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. In 2001. with a combined estimated reserves of 2. A second criterion that relates to grid connection costs was also used.

3% annually from 1991 to 2001.5% while that of the residential sector grew by 11. In order to meet the growing demand for electricity. However.789 MW in 1991 to 13. The commercial sector accounts for 21% of the total consumption for 2001. accounting for 31% and 29% energy share for the year 2001. 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).A. Geographically. 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. are the biggest users of electricity. losses and miscellaneous uses.7% annually for the 11-year period. respectively. Historical Reliability Performance To analyze the reliability performance of the power system in the Philippines. the reserve margin (i. that the generating capacity of the power system in the Philippines can be considered highly reliable. UPEEE Foundation page 5 . It can be concluded.049 GWh energy generation which represents 77% of the requirements of the country.402 MW in 2001. the installed generating capacity in the country doubled in 11 years with 6. these rates were unbundled into 76% and 24% for generation and transmission. 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. respectively. It should be noted however. Inc. that the industrial sector demand grew only by 5. Visayas and Mindanao share the remaining balance almost equally. Visayas and Mindanao. the Philippines power sector performance went to the other extreme of having excessive capacity compared to the demand.e.184 GWh of the total 47. from mid 1990’s onward. The analysis has shown that the generating facilities in the early 1990’s were performing very badly from the point of view of reliability. generating capacity compared to the system peak) from 1991 to 2001 was determined from historical data. The interruptions that the country has been experiencing can be attributed to the unreliable transmission and distribution systems and their operations. It was noted that the rates of NPC is for its bundled generation and transmission services. Historical Cost Performance This study also assessed the power development in the Philippines by analyzing the cost of electricity. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.. therefore. The rates of NPC appear to be increasing annually except for the year 2001 when R. For purposes of this study.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. the Luzon Grid has a share of 36. the energy demand in the country was distributed among the three (3) main islands of Luzon. The rest are attributed to own use. The industrial and residential sectors. In 2001 for example. Bulk of the energy demand and consequently the generation comes from the main island of Luzon.

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. on the other hand. there is difference of PhP 1. The share of non-renewable sources in the energy mix even increased from 57.279 tons in 1991 to 10. decreased by 21 percent from its level of 9. This explains why the emissions of the power sector almost doubled in only 11 years.71% in 2001. Over the period considered. Accounting the changes in oil and coal.222 tons in 2001. particularly the NPC. It is also worthwhile to note that with the existence of the Non-NPC IPPs (permitted to operate through Executive Order 215). 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. 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.00 per kWh. Looking into the energy mix to link the environmental performance of the power sector.9% in 2001. the net increase in CO2 for the 11-year period is 73%. many power plants were installed even though there were already excess generation capacity in the system. the shift is only towards the use of coal.471.00 to PhP 6. For the CO2 emissions.00 per kWh. UPEEE Foundation page 6 . Its contribution increased almost ten times from 1. particularly those owned by electricity distributors like Manila Electric Company (MERALCO). Clearly. which range from PhP 4. 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.665 tons in 2001. renewable hydro share decreased from 20% to 5% over the same period.541 tons in 1991 to 7. Inc. This scenario allowed the continued dominance of non-renewable fuels. In addition. and not towards the utilization of renewable resources. CO2 emissions from oil-based power plants. coal power plants are the major contributors. coal contribution increased more than fivefold.49% in 1991 to 62.00 to PhP 3. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.082. 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.236. it can be concluded that that non-renewable energy have remained greatly dominant over renewable energy as source of fuel for power generation.338. Comparing the average rate of NPC with that paid by the consumers. 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. However. generation share from oil-based power plants declined from 49. which emits more greenhouse gases.9% in 1991 to 21. from 8% in 1991 to 40% in 2001.

SOx and other emissions.368 million in abatement cost. operations and maintenance and fuel would require a total cost $ 23. Total CO2 emissions for the DOE plan for the low economic growth scenario is 309. the reserve in 2003 will be 66%.775 MW). Reliability.4 Scenarios under the Philippine Energy Plan 2003 . Of these amounts. 24% and 4%. the planned capacity additions will result in high reserve margins. on the other hand will increase by 24%. UPEEE Foundation page 7 . Although this is expected to decline to 22% by 2012. renewable energy’s share will decrease to only 22% in 2012. with the continued dominance of coal plants.828 million (UPSL estimate at 2002 present value). 65 MW wind and a 40 MW geothermal capacity additions. environmental emissions and costs were calculated similar to that of the historical performance assessment. The contribution of non-renewable energy sources to the energy mix. Capacity additions. For example.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 1.142 GWh in 2003 to 106.2 million tonnes of coal would have to be imported. From a share of 37% in 2003.632 GW for 2003 will increase to 20. This scenario will require $ 29. The environmental emissions resulting from DOE’s generation plan for the low economic growth scenario would result in an increase in CO2. 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. this scenario would require 124.57% annually. natural gas and oil-based sources in the energy mix which is 34%. No additional capacity addition for natural gas is expected in the period.5 MMBFOE of oil and 80.9 million tonnes of coal and 1.2012 The prospective performance of the Philippine Power Sector was also assessed based on the Philippine Energy Plan 2003 – 2012 prepared published by the Department of Energy. The increase in demand will be met mostly by increases in coal power plants (3.263 billion cubic feet (BCF) of natural gas. Total installed capacity of 14. These emissions will be the direct result of the share of coal.16/kWh. 91.706 MW by 2012. Geothermal plants will contribute only 2%. The increase in the share of renewable energy generating capacity will come from a 795 MW large hydro. PDP for the Low Economic Growth Scenario The PEP. based on the low economic growth projections of NEDA. it is still unrealistic to expect that cost of electricity in the Philippines in the near term will decrease under this scenario. shows that energy generation will increase by 93% (55.3 million tonnes. Oil-based and natural gas plants will contribute 17% and 26% to the CO2 emissions. The increase in the use of coal will account to contributing 55% of the total CO2 emissions for the period. While the generation cost for this scenario is estimated at PhP 3. respectively.5 million barrels fuel oil equivalent (MMBFOE) of oil.500 MW) and oilbased plants (1. 124. To meet the energy requirements. Inc. respectively for year 2003.430 GWh in 2012) over the entire period at an average rate of 7. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. In terms of reliability.

37% in 2003 decrease to 20% in 2012 Natural gas .5 Clean Power Development Options for the Philippines Using the clean energy technologies and resources.632 MW in 2003 to 22.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. capacity addition and utilization of renewable energy (geothermal. UPEEE Foundation page 8 . Inc.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.995 million in abatement cost.5% in 2003 increase to 16% in 2012 . These strategies are the following: • Moderate Clean Power Development (CCPD) Plan In this plan. increasing by 195% from 2003 to 2012. 1. Total installed capacity of wind power plants is allowed to reach a maximum of 5% of the peak demand.24% in 2003 decrease to 17% in 2012 With the continuous decline in the share of renewable energy. within the planning period. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. 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. nor the scenario for the low economic growth. wind and hydro power) and natural gas plants are given priority over that of non-renewable plants for power generation. Analysis of the PEP under this scenario indicates that the plan is also a business-as-usual plan that will perform no better than the historical performance of the Philippine power sector. greenhouse emissions is expected to further soar. . two (2) alternative power development plans (or strategies) that will meet the demand of the Low Economic Growth Scenario and the High Economic Growth Scenario of the PEP were prepared by UPSL. and will require $ 32.16% in 2003 increase to 47% in 2012 .E. 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.556 GWh in 2003 to 118. Notably. biomass. PDP for the High Economic Growth Scenario The DOE also prepared a power development plan based on high economic growth projections of NEDA.

The plans that correspond to the High Economic Growth Scenario are detailed in Chapter 5. which serve as frequency regulating plants for the wind power plants. UPEEE Foundation page 9 . The share of renewable energy in the energy mix will increase from 37% to 41%. 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. The percentage installed reserve margin for the years 2008 onwards is kept as close as possible to the corresponding PEP reserve margins for comparison. Moderate Clean Power Development (MCPD) Plan To meet the demand of the Low Economic Growth Scenario.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines • Aggressive Clean Power Development (ACDP) Plan For this plan.16/kWh. Cost penalties for intermittent power plant capacity beyond 5% (based on peak demand) was also imposed to account for the additional ancillary services.000 GWh annually) for the next twenty years.800MW natural gas power plants (maximum generation of 23. This will translate to a 72% total share of clean energy in the energy mix by 2012.6 million tonnes.685 MW in 2012) and the natural gas plant capacity by 117% (from 2. this plan will save $235 million in the planning period. Inc. the capacity additions starts only in 2008. as compared with the PEP.983 MW in 2012). Total CO2 reduction as compared with the PEP is 44. It was assumed in these plans that the local natural gas industry will be able to supply fuel for up to 3. however. respectively. The share of coal and oil in the mix will be reduced by about 11% at the end of the period.763 MW in 2003 to 5. Considering the investment. this plan will increase the renewable energy plant installed capacity by 95% (from 4. from the period 2003 to 2012. This average generation cost is even cheaper than that of the PEP Low GDP scenario. the 2003 to 2007 capacity additions were based solely on the PEP list of committed projects. Assuming a five-year lead-time for the planning to commissioning of the additional power plants. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. The total cost calculated for this plan is $23. This plan will reduce the GHG emissions and abatement costs for the Low GDP Scenario by 14% and 21%. O&M and fuel costs.592 million and the average generation cost is PhP 3. that these reserve margins do not take into account the ancillary diesel engines. which is PhP 3. This translates to a 69% total installed capacity for the combined natural gas and renewable energy plants.12/kWh. In this summary. Note. the strategy is to utilize all the practical renewable energy resources where possible without caps. For all the plans.450 MW in 2003 to 8. only the power development plan to meet the Low Economic Growth Scenario of the PEP 2003 – 2012 is presented. The natural gas contribution will also increase from 24% to 31%.

67/tonne of CO2. as was done in this study. These alternative plans are comparable to the PEP in terms of costs. this plan will create an opportunity for the country in the carbon market.16/kWh but five centavos (PhP 0. Inc.17/kWh.881 million and the average generation cost is PhP 3. this plan will cost an additional $41M in the planning period compared to the PEP low GDP plan. respectively.$10 per tonne. This translates to a mitigation cost of $0. This will translate to a 79% total share of clean energy in the energy mix by 2012. the country has to resort to biomass. the ACPD plan will increase the renewable energy plant installed capacity by 159% (from 4. This study also offers two alternative paths (moderate and aggressive) through the alternative clean power development plans. natural gas importation may be pursued. new natural gas sites must be identified and developed. To support power switching. The total cost calculated for this plan is $23. This study has assessed the technologies and resources in the Philippines that could be tapped for clean power development. At the current CO2 prices ($5 per tonne) in the market.383 MW in 2012). This plan will reduce the GHG emissions and abatement costs under the PEP Low GDP Scenario by 18% and 27%. UPEEE Foundation page 10 . 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.763 MW in 2003 to 5. O&M and fuel costs. With the current price of CO2 at $2 . The share of coal and oil in the mix will be reduced by about 20% at the end of the period. To avoid significant amounts of GHG emissions in the future.520 MW in 2012) and the natural gas plant capacity by 95% (from 2. wind and natural gas technologies. Considering the investment. The natural gas contribution will also increase from 24% to 31%.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. the Moderate Clean Power Development Plans are viable greenhouse gas mitigation option for the Philippines offering so many University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. The share of renewables in the energy mix will increase from 37% to 48%. small hydro.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.450 MW in 2003 to 11. While the PEP has tried to address these problems. This translates to a 79% total installed capacity for the combined natural gas and renewable energy plants. 1. which is PhP 3. In addition.05) per kWh more expensive than the Moderate Clean Power Development Plan due to the additional ancillary services for the intermittent wind power supply. There are even opportunities that can create additional dollar income from carbon trading and local employment. from the period 2003 to 2012.

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

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

Oil TOTAL EQUIVALENT CO2 EMISSIONS * does not include emissions from biomass Source: The Philippines’ Initial National Communication on Climate Change CO2 47. the power sub-sector represents a large opportunity for carbon emissions reduction and sequestration.140 2. Agriculture B.157 CH4 1.2: 1994 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Philippine Energy Sector* (equivalent ktonne CO2) SECTOR A.330 954 245 14.509 9.094 7. of total net GHG emissions in the country.738 ktonnes. In 1994. Fugitive Emissions from Fuels 1. Coal Mining 2. as shown from Table 2. Residential 6.548 ktonnes of CO2 for the Energy Industries for the year 1994.094 100.811 15. The UPSL came up with 13. Commercial/Institutional 5. Table 2.738 Source: The Philippines’ Initial National Communication on Climate Change Table 2.190 226.544 1. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.72 9.890 3.985 7 20. accounts for more than thirty (30) percent as a result of the burning of fossil fuels.87 227 217 10 50.458 8. given that clean energy technologies and resources are available. Fuel Combustion Activities 1. the energy industries.529 2 N2O 717 40 347 43 0 285 3 Total 49.246 Total 50.335 10.759 11 170 45 1 1.1.603 33.800 6.038 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.130 7.774 55.038 ktonnes of the 100.59 216. Of the energy sector GHG emissions.368 2. mainly the power industry.369 4.038 10.1: 1994 Philippine Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector (equivalent ktonne CO2) SECTOR Energy Industry Agriculture Waste Land Use & Forestry TOTAL EQUIVALENT CO2 EMISSIONS CO2 47.185 3 CH4 1. Energy Industries 2.403 31. as shown in Table 2. Transport 4.801 3.497 15.335 15.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 2 ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES AND RESOURCES FOR CLEAN POWER An area that has great potential for greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction is the power sector.359 1. UPEEE Foundation page 13 . Inc. the energy sector accounted for 50.980 15. or roughly 47 percent. Although it ranks only second to the transport in terms of GHG emissions.596 0 -2. Manufacturing Industries 3.2.335 N2O 717 0 12.

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

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

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

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

integrated gasification combustion cycle (IGCC) systems and coal-fueled diesel engines. hydrocarbon fuels need to undergo a process of reforming to produce hydrogen. Clean coal technologies are costly. however.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 5.000 to $4. and thus. Photovoltaics. concentrates the power of the sun. as the name implies.000 per installed kilowatt. • 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. which. For most fuel cells. Solar thermal engines make use of solar concentration systems. with sizes ranging from a few kilowatts to a few megawatts. sometimes requiring around $3. But since this type of plant is normally used for peak load applications. UPEEE Foundation page 18 . Newer plants are actually achieving efficiencies greater than forty percent. • Gas turbines Current gas turbine plants have efficiencies of around thirty percent. These include fluidized bed systems such as pressurized fluidized bed combustion (PFBC) and circulating fluidized bed combustion (CFBC). • Distributed energy technologies Unlike centralized generating units. 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. convert solar energy directly to electricity in a solid-state device called the solar cell. on the other hand.000 per kilowatt of installed capacity. distributed energy technologies are small and modular. Greater local control of the system and waste heat utilization lead to higher energy efficiencies. Many such technologies have been demonstrated in various countries but still remain not widely used because its high investment costs are quite prohibitive. which is the form of fuel required for the electrochemical reaction to take place. Solar Energy. to generate high enough temperatures to heat and boil water to drive steam engines. ranging from $2. coal is still widely used around the world for power generation because it is abundant and cheap. Despite its unfavorable environmental reputation. Costs are prohibitive. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Inc. this would have a relatively low impact on emissions reduction. 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. 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. less GHG and air pollutant emissions. • Fuel cells Fuel cells are devices that convert fuel and oxygen to electricity and heat by means of an electrochemical reaction.

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

Palawan. Leyte. the northwest tip of Luzon (Ilocos Norte).equivalent to an annual average wind power of 300 W/m2 or greater12 (wind speeds of 6. the wind corridors between Luzon and Mindoro (including Lubang Island). Assessment of Technical. the Batanes and Babuyan islands of north Luzon. 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. 2.000 sites in the country. rotor diameter = 38 m. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. with good to excellent resource levels .4 m/s or greater).9 MW. between Mindoro and Panay (including the Semirara Islands and extending to the Cuyo Islands). The study. Including sites with moderate wind resource levels. Panay.600 MW bringing the total estimated power generation from wind to 361. amounting to 97.200 GWh/yr. however. and adjacent islands.34% of total Philippine land area. 4. In contrast to the optimistic estimate of the NREL. 6. Samar. The NREL study identified around 10. The following sections will quantify the amount of clean energy resources in the Philippines. Cebu. the higher interior terrain of Luzon. 12 In one of the NREL scenarios. was not able to include factors such as transmission and grid accessibility constraints in the assessment. 14 UNIDO. would more than double total installed capacity to 173. 5. capacity/km = 6. Inc.600 MW of installed capacity and generate 195.000 installed capacity. Mindoro. Negros. Financial and Economic Implications of Wind Energy Applications for Power Generation. (1994). UPEEE Foundation page 20 2 . turbine spacing = 10D by 5D. The NREL study identified six regions in the country where the best wind resource in the country are located. 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. 13 Assumptions used by NREL to come up with estimates are: 500 kW turbine size. 3. hub height = 40 2 m. these sites could support at least 76. well-exposed east-facing coastal locations from northern Luzon southward to Samar. According to the study13. 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. These are: 1.000 GWh/yr. which will then be subsequently used for the generation of power switching scenarios.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 2.2 Resource Assessment The technologies described above would be rendered useless without the energy resource required to run them. occupying a total area of 11. eastern Mindanao.055 km2 or roughly 3.

University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. 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. Two committed wind projects are expected to contribute a significant amount of electricity to grid. In tandem with a diesel generator. Batangas in Luzon. This is a pilot project of the National Power Corporation to electrify a number of households. which are scheduled for commissioning in 2006 and 2004. These wind facilities will both be located in Ilocos Norte. this system is used to power up a relay station of the Philippine Telegraph and Telecommunications Company (PT & T). A 10-kW system in Pagudpod. current utilization are mostly to run wind pumps and a few small-scale turbine generators. which they used to obtain financing. project proponents were able to obtain very lenient and attractive financing schemes. At present. A 3-kW system in Bantay. A 25-kW stand-alone system in Picnic Grove. First is the absence of site-specific wind assessment data. It is in operation since 1994. Ilocos Norte in Luzon. 3. Transmission facilities are quite far from the wind sites. 4. Further. 0. It was commissioned in 1996.95 percent for goods. All wind turbine installations are of the stand-alone type. 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. A 25-kW system in General Santos in Mindanao. respectively. 2. that for the NLWPP. Ilocos Sur in Luzon.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Despite the vastness of wind resources in the country. there are more than 500 wind pump and 9 wind turbine installations in the country. UPEEE Foundation page 21 .75 percent for consulting services) and a 40-year repayment period (inclusive of a 10-year grace period). It is significant to note two issues that developers of these two wind power projects had to address. which required the developers to collect at least two-years of wind speed measurements. Proponents of these projects were able to secure power purchase agreements with the local distribution utility. Tagaytay. Project proponents claim that they will be able to sell electricity at prices below that of the grid. among which are the following: 1. Second is the connection of the wind farms to the transmission grid. Inc. 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.

092 2.1.5 to adjust for topography and other factors that may affect the routing of the transmission system.092. Locations of these sites are shown in Figure 2.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines For the purposes of the present study. 2.699 Table 2. Appendix A identifies the provinces where these wind resources are located.3 and 2.363 MW. GWh/yr Luzon 1. km 2 Potential installed capacity.4 summarize the results of the re-analysis.038 with 7.168 6.3: Philippine Wind Electric Potential (with wind power density ≥ 500 W/m2) Number of sites Total area. The application of the second criteria further reduced the number of sites to 1.032 Philippines 1.038 1. Inc. MWe Estimated Annual Generation.755 11.527 7.400 MW potential.668 1.206 14. UPEEE Foundation page 22 .397 Philippines 2. To compute for transmission cost.900 15.381 35.404 23.738 Mindanao 47 49 336 1. 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.437 Visayas 360 385 2. GWh/yr University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. This distance was multiplied by a factor of 1. Tables 2.132 7. with an aggregate potential of 14. km 2 Potential installed capacity. The first criteria reduced the number of wind sites to 2. MWe Estimated Annual Generation. Power density of at least 500 W/m2. as well as its corresponding estimated electric capacity and annual generation. the UPSL computed for the linear distance between the wind site and the nearest existing substation.277 Visayas 305 330 2.363 44.047 Number of sites Total area. a re-analysis of the NREL data was conducted by the UPSL using the following criteria to screen for viable wind power sites: 1.865 Mindanao 64 66 455 1.4: Practical Wind Resources in the Philippines (with wind power density ≥ 500 W/m2 and transmission cost constraint) Luzon 686 753 4. Table 2.

032 GWh Figure 2.1: Practical Wind Resources in the Philippines (with wind power density ≥ 500 W/m2 and transmission cost constraint) University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.168 MWe Estimated Annual Generation: 6.900 MWe Estimated Annual Generation: 15.277 GWh Visayas Number of sites: 305 Potential Installed Capacity: 2.738 GWh Mindanao Number of sites: 47 Potential Installed Capacity: 336 MWe Estimated Annual Generation: 1. UPEEE Foundation page 23 . Inc.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Luzon Number of sites: 686 Potential Installed Capacity: 4.

Tables 2. 15 Impoundment dams involve the impounding of a large volume of water in or upstream of power plants by use of reservoirs or dams. make use of the natural flow of a rivers as head. UPEEE Foundation page 24 . These hydro power facilities range in size from 1 to 360 MW and includes reservoir type (dams) and run-of-river systems15.8. Using this criterion. Kalayaan and San Roque. selecting sites with capacities of 5 MW or more.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.327 MW. Inc.5 lists down identified sites for large hydro16.6 and 2. 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. are committed projects.104 GWh.. Table 2. This water may then be used to augment supply during low flow periods and thus ensure a relatively constant supply of power. while Figure 2. 16 Two of these sites. 17 As per WEC definition. a number of large hydro sites in country to be used as candidate power plants for energy planning. An additional screening criterion was used. 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. the UPSL identified 239 small hydro sites in the country with an aggregated capacity of about 2. as listed in Table 2. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. i.2 shows the location of the sites selected.e. a total of 2.7 shows the results of the application of the criteria mentioned above. Run-of-river systems. on the other hand. By the end of 2001.518 MW of hydro power is installed in the Philippines. In addition to the existing hydro power generation facilities. The DOE has verified a number of these small hydro sites. with an annual production of 7.

6 to 2.3 to 3.5: Available Large Hydro Resources Site LUZON Abuan Addalam Agbulo Aglubang Amburayan Bakun A/B Binongan Catuiran Diduyun Kalayaan PS Kanan Lamut Matuno Nalatang Pasil B/C Saltan A/B San Roque Tanudan D Tinglayan B Total Luzon VISAYAS Pacuan Sicopong Timbaban Villasiga Total Visayas MINDANAO Agus III Bulanog-Batang Lanon Hydro Lake Mainit Liangan Pugo D/BA Pulangi V Tagoloan Total Mindanao Lanao del Norte Bukidnon South Cotabato Agusan del Norte Lanao del Norte Agusan North Cotabato Bukidnon 225 150 21 22 11.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2.6 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.338. Inc.9 44 300 68 841. UPEEE Foundation page 25 .387.8 29 29 108.6 93 45 175 24 332 350 113 12 52 to 250 45 42 34 345 27 21 2.3 Negros Oriental Negros Oriental Aklan Antique 33 17.9 3.189.140.8 Province Estimated Capacity (MW) 60 46 360 13.

0 1.0 4.308 12.231 Number of sites Potential installed capacity.4 3.140 Philippines 236 2.131 Number of sites Potential installed capacity.0 4.686 Visayas 9 58 305 Mindanao 96 978 5. UPEEE Foundation page 26 .140 Philippines 239 2.8: 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) 1.327 12.0 4.272 6.6: Philippine Small Hydro Electric Potential (sites with power capacity ≥ 5 MW) Luzon 134 1.2 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.8 44. Inc. MWe Estimated Annual Generation.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2.4 10.291 6. GWh/yr Table 2.0 1.0 3.8 7. MWe Estimated Annual Generation.0 5.4 14. GWh/yr Table 2.6 28.786 Visayas 9 58 305 Mindanao 96 978 5.7: Practical Small Hydro Resources in the Philippines (sites with power capacity ≥ 5 MW and transmission cost constraint) Luzon 131 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

page 27

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

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

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

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

18

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

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

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

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

total geothermal installed capacity amounted to 1. Despite sugar mills’ own use of bagasse for fuel.7 TOTAL PHILIPPINES Geothermal Power The Philippines power sector largely depends on geothermal energy to meet the demand and energy requirements of the country. respectively. bagasse has traditionally been used in large quantities.931 MW and geothermal generation was 10.6 127. there usually remains a considerable amount of this waste material.200 MW and energy of 8.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Because of problems with such issues like collection. In addition to existing geothermal power facilities. Very small. particularly to fuel boilers in sugar mills. accounting for 14% and 22% of the total installed capacity and total generation. and 120 MW come from Luzon. an estimated capacity of 1. Unlike other biomass fuels.8 235.11. this study only looks on the potential of bagasse for grid-connected electricity generation. if any. which are like associated with the use of biomass fuels for large scale power generation. additional geothermal resources could be expected in the future as the Philippines has nearly used most of its geothermal resource sites. which the mills have to dispose. Of the total estimated capacity. 380 MW.935 GWh can be obtained from the verified geothermal source candidates in the Philippines.2 3.8 32. 700 MW.0 22. Visayas and Mindanao respectively.0 4. storage and competing uses. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.1 14.6 17. UPEEE Foundation page 30 .9 5.442 GWh. as listed in Table 2. Table 2.7 7.10: 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 2001. Inc.

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 Palawan26.771 to 4. If this pushes through.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. 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.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2. UPEEE Foundation . Table 2.12 lists down identified natural gas fields in the country and their corresponding resource sizes. page 31 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Source: PEP 2002-2011. Cabalian Leyte Optimization Biliran Mt. 26 These are proven fields.11: Available Geothermal Resources for Power Generation Name LUZON Bacman I Rangas Tanawon Manito Montelago Daklan Mt. The Philippine government is considering plans to develop a local natural gas industry.731 billion cubic feet (BCF). with a combined estimated reserves of 2. 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. local natural gas production would be supplemented by imported natural gas that would come from the Trans ASEAN Gas Pipeline to meet demand. Inc.

594 2. Inc.760 hours University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. UPEEE Foundation page 32 .e. For fossil-fuel-based power plants. the total investment costs vary with site preparation and the required transmission lines to enable the plants to deliver power to the grid. one year).12: Philippine Natural Gas Resources Gas Field PROVEN Camago-Malampaya San Martin San Antonio POTENTIAL Mindoro-Cuyo Cotabato Cagayan Central Luzon Source: Philippine Natural Gas Plan Minimum 2. Using these curves. Wind and hydro plants do not require fuel but do not run at full capacity due to availability of resources. Being site-specific. (c) fuel cost. namely: (a) investment cost. renewable energy-based power plants have to address these issues that will ultimately determine the viability of the power projects.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2. renewable energy-based plants have high investment costs. 29 Capacity Factor (CF) refers to the percentage of the rated capacity of the power plant used for 8. the prices of fuel are likely to differ at the time this study is released.3 Cost Comparison of Power Generation Technologies The investment. 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. In general. 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. (b) operation and maintenance (O&M) cost.277 454 2.060 1. O & M27 and fuel costs28 comparison of the different types of power plants are shown in Table 2. Furthermore. The costs shown in Table 2. 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. and (d) the level of generation (also called capacity factor29).210 1.538 243 Resource Size (BCF) Prospective 3.720 60 176 78 11. Renewable energy technologies. The fuel costs in Table 2. The fuel costs used in this study do no include import duties. it is notable that the technologies that require low investment normally require fuel with high cost. Clearly. Mathematically..158 322 637 Maximum 4. Screening curves can be developed to determine the optimum power generation plan considering these four factors.340 359 4 7.13 lists for different fuels used for power generation are based on typical power plant efficiencies.760 518 2.13 include only the costs of the technologies but not the associated site-specific costs that could be more expensive than the plant itself. in general entail high investment costs. For example.760 hours (i. energy production (kWh) CF = × 100 plant capacity(k W) × 8. the economics of power generation technologies depends on several factors. In addition.13.

04 49.68 From “ The Environmental Manual for Power Development”. $/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. Deutsche Gessellschaft für technishe.500 1.000 450 .14 to satisfy the minimum offtake character of the IPP contracts.12 0 0 3. UPEEE Foundation page 33 .500 700 – 900 Annual Fixed O & M Cost.750 – 1. is competitive in comparison with conventional fossil fuel-based generation. years 30 20 20 20 30 30 20 50 30 50 20 Investment Cost. These values show that electricity generation from renewable sources. the prices of fuel are likely to differ by the time this study is released.200 – 1. depending on the site/environment. O&M and fuel costs31 of the different power plant technologies.750 – 1.56 73.250 2. 31 Fuel costs for oil. Table 2. Table 2. Furthermore. transmission line and transformer costs.14 shows the typical capacity factors based on the investment30. $/MWh 41.000 – 3. These figures are intended only for relative comparison of the different power plant technologies. on a life-cycle basis.150 – 1. 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.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..93 32. 30 Investment costs used in this study do not include site preparation. except for Clean Coal Technologies Considering the availability of the resource and reliability of the technologies.10 11. Geothermal steam and biomass fuel costs also vary. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.14 also shows the corresponding levelized cost of generation for each power plant type using the typical capacity factors.550 700 – 900 550 – 650 1. which will operate at high.800 1.000 – 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. medium or low capacity factor) could be determined/selected.40 9. “intermediate” or “peaking” plants (i. $/kWa 850 – 1.e.400 1.800 1. Table 2. They are however useful in evaluating and developing energy plans. Inc.53 0 36. coal and natural gas do not include import duties.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines operate as “baseload”.

UPEEE Foundation page 34 .1101 0.4376 12.3644 6.8174 3.0193 0.2282 2. meaning it will be used for load following and/or peaking applications.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 0.5219 32 A discount rate of 12% was used to derive levelized generation costs.1059 0.0794 0.2277 1. market risks.0494 0.0512 0.0405 0.8236 4.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2.0602 2. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.0557 2. Actual industry discount rates may be higher depending on the following factors: required equity return.0405 0.2282 2. 33 The low capacity factor computed for diesel plant is 9%.0625 0. country risks and availability of financing. Inc. regulatory risks.7153 5.

Except for particulate matter. there is a pronounced difference between damage cost and pollutant cost values. are directly associated with effects that affect people’s welfare. natural ecosystems. emissions reduction policy. however. “Power Generation Choice in the Presence of Environmental Externalities. which has the lowest abatement costs among the districts. externality costs differ among different districts. Söderholm. In this study. The abatement cost approach uses the cost of pollution control as a proxy to the true externality cost35. Inc. externalities include various pollutants that cause damage to receptors such as human health. Other air pollutant emissions for different power plants are listed in Table 2. 3. By definition. 35 Jonathan Koomey and Florentin Krause. On the other hand. These effects are called externalities. According to Koomey and Krause (1997). were used to compute for the cost of externalities of the different scenarios.g. p. population density.15 shows the value of various air emissions in California. The values were calculated based on the generic data recommended for power development analysis. currently a leader in externality policy. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. UPEEE Foundation page 35 . “Pricing Power Generation Externalities: Ethical Limits and Implications for Social Choice” (one of the six self-contained papers included in Sundqvist’s Doctoral Thesis. a number of things could be noted. as published in the CRC Handbook on Energy Efficiency (1997). as determined by the California Energy Commission using both the abatement and damage cost approaches.17. scope of analysis. abatement cost values for the North Coast of California. Table 2.4 Environmental Externalities In the previous section. the damage cost approach puts a value on the damages that may be directly attributable to a particular pollutant. including site specificity (e.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 2. Second.” 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. among others. It should be noted that even though coal seem to have a lower CO2 emission level than conventional power plant types. Power generation technologies. Table 2. In the case of electricity generation.. abatement costs are normally higher that damage cost estimates. 2002). First. Luleá University of Technology.16 shows the factors used in this study to arrive at the CO2 emissions of each type of power plant in tonne CO2/GWh. 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. an externality is “an unpriced benefit or cost directly bestowed or imposed upon one agent by the actions of another agent”34. geographical and climatological conditions). “Pollution represents an external cost because damages associated with it are borne by society as a whole and are not reflected in market transactions. Studies vary in their estimation of externality costs because of a number of factors. These costs are what normally dictate an energy planner’s choice of which power generation technology to use. costs associated directly with the production of electricity from various technologies and resources were discussed. Sundqvist and P. 34 T. “Introduction to Environmental Externality Costs”. From the values given. crops and property.

03 0.66 0.34 1.76 3.01 North Coast DC 0.75 11.00 0.01 0. one of the six selfcontained papers included in Sundqvist’s Doctoral Thesis.03 0.85 I 13.85 0.07 AC 2.75 16.45 AC 11.08 0.03 NOx 4.88 Bay Area DC 2.10 8.05 0.01 3.52 0.53 0.01 9.30 6.61 763.02 0.57 1. Sundqvist cites the 1992 Electricity Report by the California Energy Commission as the source of these data.04 0.87 0.17: 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. Deutsche Gessellschaft für technishe 36 Lifted from “What Causes the Disparity of Electricity Externality Estimates?”.31 PM 31.00 2.03 0.53 0.37 12.00 4.28 4.84 1.18 15. 2002).85 6.55 AC 13. NOx – Nitrogen Oxide. 10.96 I 2.74 2.04 0.35 0.05 0.47 3.37 0.40 7.04 Source: Computed from data give in “The GHG Indicator: UNEP Guidelines for Calculating Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Business and Non-Commercial Organizations.52 1.15: Value of Air Emissions Reductions in California 36 ($/pound of pollutant) District Pollutant South Coast DC SOx NOx CO ROG 4.71 San Diego DC 1.75 0.02 0.59 DC – damage cost.12 12.99 1.99 0.02 Source: The Environmental Manual for Power Development.03 0.45 6. CO – Carbon Monoxide.00 2.31 AC 1.20 2.16: 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. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. p.78 1.06 0.83 441.72 AC 5.64 2.03 0.00 3. AC – abatement cost. except for geothermal which was computed from DOE data Table 2.55 0. ROG – Reactive organic gases.98 3.02 0.73 Environmental Emissions CO CH4 NMVOC N2O 0. UPEEE Foundation page 36 .05 Particulates 0. Inc.99 4.00 0.10 867.71 5.18 AC 4.98 Sacramento Valley DC 0.71 9. SOx – Sulfur Oxide.06 0.10 0.43 Ventura County DC 0.83 0.65 0.01 0.51 San Joaquin Valley DC 0.07 AC 5.42 1. I – internalized.88 0.00 0.88 9.08 10.66 0.82 713.32 3.08 0.4 6.03 0.72 11.39 6.99 565.72 0.98 2.10 5.26 0.02 0.00 0.02 17.40 726.05 1.44 1. Luleá University of Technology.02 1.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2.99 4. and PM – particulate matter Table 2.66 2. “Power Generation Choice in the Presence of Environmental Externalities.

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

it also had the highest peak demand (5.042 2.3.6%. It should be noted however.590 5. This is almost twice of the 4.536 5.339 952 1.859 823 1.452 1.2. with 31% and 29% share respectively. With most of the industrial and commercial activities centered in Luzon.531 1. Performance is assessed in terms of reliability. and the whole of the Philippines.013 12. Bulk of the energy demand and consequently the generation comes from the main island of Luzon.543 934 1.471 6.3% annually from 1991 to 2001 as shown in Table 3. or at an average annual growth rate of 7.345 45. environmental emissions.223 6. Table 3. that the industrial sector demand grew only by 5.128 36. Visayas and Mindanao lag far behind with only 893 and 954 MW peak demand.459 1995 8.579 1994 7. the gross domestic product and the population growth from 1991 to 2001 demonstrate a strong correlation with the consumption of electricity.682 MW in 2001.267 1.154 4. Visayas and Mindanao as shown in Figure 3. Inc.4 shows system peak demand of the power supply system from 1991 to 2001 for the Luzon.870 1993 6.708 1997 10.554 1996 9.353 10.797 1998 11.395 721 1. and cost. Both the economic performance and population growth remain as the main factors driving the consumption pattern of energy of the country.282 5. the Luzon Grid consumed 36.390 6.901 12.176 25.1 Historical Energy Demand and Installed Generating Capacity The Philippines electricity consumption posted a moderate growth rate of 8.1: Energy Consumption by Sector.1).754 41.081 MW peak demand in 1991.049 Geographically.226 5. respectively.184 GWh of the total 47.053 4.7% annually for the 11-year period.072 11. Figure 3.049 GWh energy generation which represents 77% of the requirements of the country.098 14. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.340 6.196 5.865 10.910 8.1.512 13. Visayas and Mindanao share the balance energy almost equally.037 39.432 2000 12.290 2001 13.713 47. whose demand grew by 108% from 1991 to 2001.191 957 2.734 30.725 9.071 25.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 2001.167 1.477 8.684 762 1.132 4.894 9.847 9. The system peak for the whole Philippines reached 7.649 1992 6.835 MW in 2001).547 10.444 921 1.735 33. are the biggest users of electricity (Figure 3.368 4. Visayas and Mindanao grids.5% while that of the residential sector grew by 11.950 1. The industrial and residential sectors.249 4.132 4. In 2001 for example.150 7. Significant also was the growth in the consumption of the commercial sector. As shown in Figure 3. UPEEE Foundation page 38 .875 8.851 1. 1991-2001 (GWh) SECTOR Residential Commercial Industrial Others Own Use Losses Total 1991 6.067 1.725 12. the energy demand in the country was distributed among the three (3) main islands of Luzon.238 26.849 41. 3.578 1999 11.086 3. Data for the historical performance of the Philippine Power Sector is given in Appendix B.936 8.

789 MW in 1991 to 13.2: Electricity Consumption.402 MW in 2001 (Figure 3.5) This corresponds to the growth in demand that also doubled in the same period. Gross Domestic Product and Population.1: Electricity Consumption by Sector. 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. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. 1991-2001 In order to meet the growing demand for electricity. the installed generating capacity in the country doubled from 6. UPEEE Foundation page 39 . Inc.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.

3: Electricity Generation by Grid.000 5. Inc.4: System Peak by Grid. UPEEE Foundation page 40 . 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. 1991-2001 (MW) University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 40.000 GWH 25.000 45.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 50.000 15.000 35.000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 Luzon 1995 Visayas 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Mindanao Philippines Figure 3.000 20.000 10.000 30.

The reserve margin based on dependable capacity shows that there is indeed a large excess generating capacity in the Philippines. the National Power Corporation since the power crisis has adopted 1day/year LOLP. Hence. Table 3. This validates the clamor of the people regarding high electricity rates which is due to oversupply since most of the generating facilities are operating under the take-or-pay contract with NPC and other distribution utilities.2 presents the reserve margin of the power system from 1991 to 2001.2 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.000 12.S. 1991-2001 (MW) 3. UPEEE Foundation page 41 .000 6. In the Philippines. people complain of high cost of electricity allegedly due to over supply as there is “too much” installed 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. Today. There was not enough generating capacity. the reliability criterion is very much lower compared to that in developed countries.000 14.5: Total Installed Generating Capacity by Source.. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. It may be recalled that the Philippines experienced a power crisis that started in the late 1980’s and persisted in the mid 1990’s that almost crippled the national economy due to supply deficiency.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 16.000 2. This criterion is considered high but is needed to support their industries.A.000 4. Inc. To analyze further the generating capacity vis-à-vis the system peak.000 0 1991 1992 1993 Oil-Based 1994 Coal 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Hydro 2000 2001 Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 3.000 MW 8.000 10. In developing countries. the National Power Corporation has to resort to rotating “brownouts”. In other countries such as the U.

209 35.682 13.666 11.450 9.45 85.352 11.729 146.185 2001 7. The interruptions that the country has been experiencing can be attributed to the unreliable transmission and distribution systems. therefore.363 11.725 58.76 70.93 92. The CO2 emissions increased by 74 percent while the rest of the air emissions increased by 10 to 169 percent.075 842 29.611 % Increase 74 64 150 29 54 10 103 169 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.789 1992 4.497 11. This part of the study has quantified the environmental emissions of the power plants in the country.762 1998 6.98 91.431 2000 7.580.402 66.193 1997 6.931 1999 6. A complete list of emissions for each year from 1991 to 2001 is provided in Appendix B.816 11.411. The environmental performance of the Philippine power sector from 1991 to 2001 is summarized in Table 3.3 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.621 7.60 83. Table 3.212 1995 5.296 6.291 9.48 53.762 189.2: Reserve Margin.796 904 1. Historical Environmental Emissions for the Philippine Power Sector (tonne) Environmental Emissions CO2 SO2 NOx CO CH4 NMVOC N2O Particulates 1991 Level 10. Table 3. UPEEE Foundation page 42 .989 2001 Level 18.76 37.808 9.55 45.726 16.91 3.687 8.3.18 74.3.233 115.17 78.400 13.46 8.908 12.96 78.081 6.807 20. Inc.72 11.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines It can be concluded. that the generating capacity of the power system in the Philippines can be considered highly reliable.732 1996 5.36 61.014 1994 4. 1991-2001 (%) 1991 Peak (MW) Installed Capacity (MW) Percentage Reserve Margin (installed) Dependable Capacity (MW) Percentage Reserve Margin (dependable) 4.949 1993 4.99 79.124 587 975 415 10.

it is necessary to look at the power development as measured by the energy mix. Figures 3.000.000. 1991-2001 (tonne) The share of non-renewable sources in the energy mix even increased from 57.000 4.000 tonne CO2 12. on the other hand.000. 20.338.000. the share of coal-based generation increased by 427%.236.6 shows that the coal power plants are the major contributors in greenhouse gases. The energy mix indicates the intensity of contribution of renewable energy resources as fuel for power generation.279 tons in 1991 to 10.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines For the CO2 emissions. Inc.000.222 tons in 2001. Figure 3.000.000 18.51% to 37.082. The share of renewable sources.000.71% in 2001.665 tons in 2001. However.29% during the same period.000. Figure 3. The CO2 emissions however from oil-based power plants decreased by 21 percent from its level of 9. the percentage share of oil-based power generation declined by 58%.49% in 1991 to 62.000 10. In order to analyze the factors that brought about the environmental performance of the power sector.471.8 show that nonrenewable energy have remained greatly dominant over renewable energy as source of fuel for power generation. The net increase in CO2 due to the changes in oil and coal is 74%. Note from this figure how much the CO2 emissions decreased and increased with the generation from oil-based and coal power plants.000.541 tons in 1991 to 7.9 shows how carbon dioxide emissions varied with the energy mix within the 1991 to 2001 period. decreased from 42.000 8.000.000 2. Over the period considered.000 14.6: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type.7 and 3. Its contribution increased almost ten times from 1. UPEEE Foundation page 43 .000 16. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. This scenario allowed the continued dominance of non-renewable fuels.000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Figure 3.000 6.

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

000 15.000.000. 1991-2001 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro CO2 20. 1999-2001 (%) 50.000 0 Figure 3.000 6.000 45.000.000 tonne CO2 12.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 35.000 18.000.000 16.000 GWh 25.000 5.8: Share of Coal and Oil-Based vs. Inc.000 40.000. Renewable Energy and Natural Gas in the Energy Mix.000. UPEEE Foundation page 45 .000 10.000 14.000.000 8.000.9: Energy Mix and Carbon Dioxide Emissions.000 4.000 20.000 30.000 2.000.000 10.000.

25 2.00 to PhP 6.4.28 1. For purposes of this study.43 1996 2.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 3. many power plants were installed without the benefit of proper coordination through the centralized planning of the NPC or the government.25 1.96 0. In addition.77 2.4: NPC Average Electricity Rates.00 per kWh.92 3.14 1.85 1.47 1997 2. Comparing the average rate of NPC with that paid by the consumers. 9136 (Electric Power Industry Reform Act) was enacted.58 1. and the cost of which has to be paid off through the Purchased Power Adjustment (PPA).34 3. Table 2.02 0. respectively.A.52 1.02 1.65 2.12 2.37 0. The increase in rates is attributed to the economic performance of the country as measured the exchange rates and allegedly due to the take-or-pay contracts of NPC with Independent Power Producers (IPPs). particularly that of the electricity distributors like MERALCO. many power plants were installed in excess of what was actually needed. respectively.70 Luzon Visayas Mindanao Philippines Generation Transmission Note: Generation and Transmission Rates assumed 76% and 24% of the average rate.23 1.15 1.90 2. It was noted that the average rates of NPC is for its bundled generation and transmission services. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. UPEEE Foundation page 46 . As a result. respectively The average rates of NPC increased annually from 1991 to 2001.08 2. The average rates and the estimated unbundled generation and transmission rates of NPC from 1995 to 2001 are shown in Table 3.02 2. Interestingly. except for the year 2001 when R.20 0. 1991-2001 (PhP/kWh) 1995 1.49 0.77 1. there is difference of PhP 1.62 1999 2. for the years 1995 to 2001 by fuel type.75 2001 3.35 0.64 2000 3.08 2.4 Cost of Electricity This study also assessed the power development in the Philippines by analyzing the cost of electricity.93 1.68 2.44 1.00 per kWh.5 show the production cost of NPC and IPPs. IPP costs were always higher than NPC rates.52 Year 1998 2. the average rates consist of the actual operating expenses and the financing charges of NPC. It is worthwhile to note that with the existence of the Non-NPC IPP’s (permitted to operate through Executive Order 215).01 3. This considerable difference can be attributed to the cost of distribution and to the IPP’s that sell electricity directly to the distributors.96 1.29 2. Inc.84 2.63 0.67 2. which range from PhP 4. the rates of NPC were unbundled into 76% and 24% for generation and transmission.00 to PhP 3. the law has mandates to reduce the rates of electricity in the Philippines. Table 3.

0092 0.0109 0.0366 0.0360 0.0110 0.0125 0.0265 0.0302 0.0195 0.0203 * Lifted from “Renewable Energy Prospects for Supplying Electricity in the Deregulated Market in the Philippines” by J.0358 0.0167 0.0230 0.0683 Geothermal NPC IPP 0.0329 0.0233 Coal NPC 0. Inc.0212 0. Estiva and M.0038 0.0270 0.0284 0.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 3.0232 0.0100 IPP --0.0394 0.0303 0.0047 0.0326 0.0067 0.0462 Hydro NPC IPP 0.0252 0.0137 0.0236 0.0369 0. N. Guzman University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.0450 0.0367 0.0150 0.0294 --0.0111 0.0267 0.0244 0.0281 0.0431 0.0331 0.0284 0.0428 0. G.0198 0.0662 0.0538 0.0281 0.0276 0.0254 0.5: NPC and IPP Production Cost at 1990 Constant Prices (US$/kWh)* Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Oil-based NPC IPP 0.0177 0.0349 0. UPEEE Foundation page 47 .0386 0.0276 0.

Interestingly. These projections are then used by the National Transmission Corporation (TRANSCO) to plan the transmission requirements of the country. market risks.1. As illustrated in Figure 4. historical sales. are considered through the electrification program only. it is only until the DOE puts in specific goals for the renewable energy sector can it be factored in to the PDP. In the PDP. 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. DU’s and EC’s. country risks and availability of financing University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. in particular. in which all the main inputs and arguments to the plan are based on the national macroeconomic and the energy sector goals. O&M and fuel) indicated in Tables 2.14 in Chapter 2 were used. the plans formulated by the DOE. Hinging electricity demand on the country’s economic activity. 37 For the scenarios in this chapter as well as in Chapter 5.13 and 2. Small renewable energy projects. the “least cost” criterion is the primary factor in determining the power plant projects and line-up for the planning period. 37 4. which in turn. such as MERALCO and the electric cooperatives (EC’s). allows limited public and local government participation that espouses their interests.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. A discount rate of 12 percent was used. The current top-down approach. Actual industry discount rates may be higher depending on the following: required equity return. on the other hand. TRANSO. as shown in the above figure. particularly in local environmental protection and power development. power plant costs (investment. Costs computed are for comparative purposes only and may not be e qual to the actual costs. which aims to bring electricity to the un-electrified areas. Note that the program pertains to the rural electrification program. renewable energy and other energy resources project planning do not directly form part of the PDP. where the power plant type and capacity additions and retirement are indicated. Relating this type of approach to the historical performance (as discussed in the previous section) of the renewable energy. serve as primary inputs to the Power Development Plan (PDP).1 National Energy Planning Process In coming up with an energy plan. 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). Distribution utilities (DU’s). while it is very effective in supporting the national goals. and projected increase in customers. regulatory risks. With the existing approach. make their own demand and expansion plans based land-use. Inc. UPEEE Foundation page 48 . the national government through the DOE employs a top-down approach. is a critical part of the Philippine Energy Plan.

138.23 5.1.23 5.156.80 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2010 Note: GDP values for 2003 to 2006 are actual NEDA forecasts.24 1.737.23 5. Oil. Table 4.11 1.62 1.04 5.203.80 5.23 High GDP GDP Growth Rate (billion PhP) (%) 1.57 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. as well as the its corresponding growth rates are shown in Table 4. Coal.276.552.29 6.413.64 5.1: National Energy Planning Process 4.44 5.642.10 1.311.70 1. The GDP projections for the two scenarios.09 1.343.91 1.27 1.2 Gross Domestic Product Projections In the Philippine Energy Plan for the period 2003-2012. the DOE uses two economic scenarios from which to forecast future energy requirement of the country.387.564.646. UPEEE Foundation page 49 .732.1: Low and High GDP Forecasts for 2003 to 2012 Year Low GDP GDP Growth Rate (billion PhP) (%) 1.80 5.487. etc.69 1.48 1.80 5.51 6.51 1. 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). Inc.85 4.229.467.70 6.091.838.01 1. In this report.079.23 5.80 5. Philippine Energy Plan Top-Down Approach Figure 4. Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. For 2007 to 2012.80 5.23 5.96 5.82 1.95 1.74 1.14 1.01 6. the DOE estimated GDP values based on the average growth rates forecasted by NEDA.60 1.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Generation Planning (DOE) Transmission Planning (TRANSCO) Distribution Planning (PUs & Ecs) Small Renewable Energy Projects Power Development Program Electrification Program Other Energy Sectors Planning NRE.59 1.

transmission and distribution costs.2 shows the energy generation projected by the DOE that would meet the future energy requirements in 2003 to 201239. UPEEE Foundation page 50 . For this period. 120000 100000 80000 60000 GWh 40000 20000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4. the DOE formulates generation plans for the two economic scenarios. Costs calculated do not include ancillary. These plans will be discussed in the following sections. energy generation is projected to increase at an average rate of 7. 39 Details of the calculations made for this section are provided in Appendix C. generation would almost double to 106.2: Generation under the Low Economic Growth Scenario 38 Generation costs were calculated using generic data for investment.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines In the PEP. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. 4. In addition.430 GWh in 2012. the UPSL computed the amount of emissions that would be generated and the cost of electricity generation38 for both plans of the DOE for 2003 to 2012.3 DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario Energy Generation Figure 4.57% annually and 93% over the entire period.142 GWh in 2003. O & M and fuel costs. From 55. Inc.

Notable are the considerably high reserve margins for 2003 to 2009. 25. 65 MW wind capacity and a 40 MW geothermal capacity additions.000 MW 10. respectively40.775 MW and 3.3: DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the Low Economic Growth Scenario 40 In the PEP. As shown in Figure 4. the increase in demand requirement will be met mostly by increases in oil-based and coal plant capacities of 1.000 15. committed and indicative capacity additions for each year in the planning period are given. For indicative plant additions. These high reserve margins would translate to higher electricity prices during the period. Inc. amounting to 800 MW. and renewable energy plants. will be due to a 795 MW hydro capacity. Notably. UPEEE Foundation page 51 .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. which are more capital intensive.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Installed Generating Capacity Total installed capacity for 2003 is 14.3.000 20. The increase in the share of renewable energy generating capacity. No additional capacity addition for natural gas is expected in the period. The table also computes the capacity that would be required if the percentage reserve margin was kept at 20%.706 MW by 2012. These figures just show the continued preference on the use coal over natural gas.632 GW and will increase to 20. Reserve Margin and Reliability Table 4.500 MW. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 5. which is a more expensive fuel. this scenario is very similar to how the Philippine power sector performed historically. the UPSL assumed that indicative base load capacity will be coal plants while intermediate and peaking plants corresponds to oil-based plants.2 summarizes the results of the UPSL’s calculation for the DOE’s plan for the LEGS.

324 million.263 billion cubic feed (BCF) of natural gas for the whole planning period. respectively.6.3% of total consumption.997 12.066 tonnes of coal and 1.615 15.813 14. Of these amounts.396 15. A look at the energy mix (Figures 4.393 tonnes of coal would have to be imported41.332 13. this scenario would require 124. UPEEE Foundation page 52 .277 11. as it was in 2001. The combined contribution of coal and oil to the energy mix. respectively. will supply 26% and 11%.869 13.367 14. Renewable energy sources.033 Installed Capacity (MW) 14. Inc.5 tonnes of oil and 80. The breakdown of the fossil fuel that would be consumed in the LEGS-PEP scenario is shown in Figure 4.120 15. Clean fuels’ (renewable energy and natural gas) share in the energy mix decreases from 61% to 41% by 2012. particularly geothermal and hydro.208 GWh energy production annually. Contribution from wind sources stays insignificant for the whole period. natural gas and oilbased sources will supply 34%.576 16.833 9.706 Percentage Reserve Margin (%) 66 59 52 42 33 29 27 24 24 22 Capacity Required for 20% Reserve Margin 10.576 17. and.139 11.5) for the planning period indicates minimal thrust towards more use of renewable energy sources and cleaner fuels. Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements.5 million barrels of oil. 2003-2012 Peak Demand (MW) 8. 24% and 5%. 41 This assumes that: local natural gas production can support 3. 124.224.565 17.814 15. 91.600 11.440 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Energy Mix For the LEGS.405 19. Imported fuel would cost $4.756 20. • share of imported coal is 87.4 and 4.895.889 17. on the other hand will increase to 59% in 2012 to from a value of 38% in 2003. of the total 55.519 10. • University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.143 GWh generation.777 20. the PEP expects that for the year 2003.2: Percentage Reserve Margin for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario. From a share of 37% in 2003.505 18. of the total generation.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 4.015 16.865 16. coal.423 12. renewable energy’s share decreases to 22% in 2012.632 15.800 MW capacity of 23.443 16.

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

Total cost of abatement for this scenario is $ 29. Coal contributes 55% of the CO2 emissions for the period.292 $ 23. Average generation cost for the period is PhP 3.828. Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: $ 11. UPEEE Foundation page 54 . Total CO2 emissions for the period amounts to 309. Generation Cost The present value of the costs calculated for the PEP-LEGS is given below.707.368. These generation costs were computed from the values for investment.71642. Geothermal plants contribute only 2%.479. the increase in the use of coal would result in an increase in CO2.454. and operations and maintenance costs involved in the operation of the different plants to meet demand and energy requirements for the scenario.1592 per kWh.3 shows the values for the years 2003 and 2012 and Figure 4.434 $ 9. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Inc. Oil-based and natural gas plants contribute 17% and 26% to the CO2 emissions.324. NOx and particulates for the North Coast of California. along with the assumptions used.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Environmental Emissions and Abatement Costs The environmental emissions resulting from DOE’s generation plan for LEGS are calculated in this report. fuel.916 42 Abatement costs values in this chapter and the chapters that follow were computed using abatement costs for SOx . Table 4. Table 3.3 million tonnes. respectively. These do not take into account the effect on the generation cost by deals made with independent power producers.189 $ 2. Appendix C shows the amount of emissions for the whole planning period.391. as given in Chapter 1. SOx and other emissions.4 lists down the generation costs calculated for each year of the planning period.744.7 shows the contribution of each type to the CO2 emissions.137. As would be expected.376.

000 0 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 4.669.000.778.000 40.712 21.000.788 54.432 2.647 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 60.000.323 644 3. UPEEE Foundation page 55 .000.6: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario Table 4.000.000.000.000.000 20.000 (tonnes) 50.000.611 489.927 Year 2012 46. Inc.000 80.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100.850 159.821 295.581 952 19.000 70.289 112.000 30.389 55.000 10.362 282 1.000.000 90.3: 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 40.000 10.0554 0.000.000 15.000 35.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 50.1229 3.2123 3.7: Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario Table 4.000 45.000.000.0409 3.0997 3.000 20. UPEEE Foundation page 56 .0612 0.000.0564 0.0574 12% 3% 2% PhP/kWh* 3.0564 0.000.1592 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 5.000 25.0584 0.000.1026 3.0592 0.0601 0.3072 3.000.000.2548 3.0447 3.4: Generation Costs for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario.3636 3.000 tonne CO2 30. Inc.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4.000.0568 0.0553 0.0553 0. 2003-2012 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average Assumptions: Discount rate Inflation rate Fuel escalation rate * $1 = PhP 55 Generation Cost $/kWh 0.0429 3.000.

556 GWh in 2003 to 118. increasing more than 200 percent within the ten-year planning period.632 MW in 2003 to 22. Figure 4.8: Generation under the High Economic Growth Scenario Installed Generating Capacity Installed generating capacity would increase from 14. Inc. the percentage reserve margin in the HEGS is considerably high. UPEEE Foundation page 57 . generation is expected to increase from 55. Figure 4. Reserve Margin and Reliability Similar to LEGS. with a minimum value of 26% and a maximum of 65%. Table 4.756 MW in 2012.8 shows the expected generation under the HEGS. 140000 120000 100000 80000 GWh 60000 40000 20000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 4. A large part of this increase is due to the addition of coal plants. corresponding to a 56% increase within the ten-year planning period.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.9 shows how the installed generating capacity would change from 2003 to 2012.5 lists down the percentage reserve margins for the PEP Plan for the HEGS.470 GWh in 2012.

005 21.106 Installed Capacity (MW) 14.560 12.562 16.615 15.120 15.563 13.674 20.000 15.5: Percentage Reserve Margin for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario.469 11.756 Percentage Reserve Margin (%) 65 57 49 39 30 25 26 29 30 26 Capacity Required for 20% Reserve Margin 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 4.359 14.000 MW 10. 2003-2012 Peak Demand (MW) 8.883 9.000 20.660 11.709 14.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25.148 21.854 16.633 10.865 16.308 18.9: DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the High Economic Growth Scenario Table 4. Inc.727 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.765 18.790 18.424 12.155 20.632 15.000 5. UPEEE Foundation page 58 .065 16.806 22.378 13.423 15.031 17.

5 million barrels of oil. 184. 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 4.835.127 million.5 million barrels of oil 85. Coal share remains very significant at 47% in 2012. Of these amounts. it is quite evident that dependence on non-renewable energy for power generation remains strong.120 tonnes of coal and 1.322. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.10 and 4. While the share of renewable energy declines to 20% by 2012 from 37% in 2003. The breakdown of fossil fuels that will be used in the HEGS-PEP scenario is shown in Figure 4.11. and natural gas whose contribution ranges from 24% to 17% for the period considered. UPEEE Foundation page 59 .12. 98. the share of non-renewable energy increases to 80%. 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 4.10: Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements. Inc. Much of the increase in the share of non-renewable energy may be attributed to oil whose shares increase from 5% to 17%. Total cost of imported fuel is $5.272 BCF of natural gas for the whole planning period.

UPEEE Foundation page 60 .000. Inc.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Non-Renewable Energy (w/o Nat Gas) Renewable Energy with Nat Gas Figure 4.000 (tonnes) 50.000.000.000 70.000.000 20.000 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 4.000.000 30.12: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.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 80.000 40.000 60.000.000.000.000.000 90.000 10.

225 $ 10.779.764.751 283 1. Total CO2 emissions for the period is 347. the UPSL obtained the following shown in Table 4.829 631.2 million tonnes.059.896 Based on the installed capacities and energy generation indicated in the PEP for the HEGS.211 111.843 167.064 21.6: Environmental Emissions for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario (tonnes) Emission Type CO2 SOx NOx CO CH4 NMVOC N2O Particulates Year 2003 19. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Inc.076.945 70.059.680.236.317 326. greenhouse has emissions is to further soar.568.165. Total abatement cost for the HEG-PEP Scenario is $32. Table 4.13 illustrates the contribution of each energy source to CO2 emissions resulting from the DOE plan for the HEGS.409 2. An estimate of the environmental emissions is provided in Table 4.599 970 19.995. UPEEE Foundation page 61 .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.7 for energy generation cost for 2003 to 2012.050.913 $ 2.820 61.610 778 4.294.758 $ 25.677 Year 2012 565. Figure 4.132 Generation Cost The PEP-HEGS Scenario will require the following costs: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: $ 12.6.022.

Inc. UPEEE Foundation page 62 .0542 0.3646 3.0573 12% 3% 2% PhP/kWh* 3.7: Generation Costs for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario.0582 0.0543 0.9810 2.0392 3.000.0555 0.4908 3.000 tonne CO2 30. 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 0.13: Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario Table 4.000.000.000 40.0175 3.000 10.0553 0.0640 2.000.000.2889 3.2021 3.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 4.0635 0.0549 0.0612 0.1488 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 60.0545 3.000 20.0557 0.0598 0.000 50.000.9853 3.

The following sections discuss the resulting energy mix. which were used as basis for the above options. that these reserve margins do not take into account the ancillary diesel engines. The capital costs of the ancillary diesel engines are. The candidate and practical renewable resources. lifted from the PEP. UPEEE Foundation .208 GWh) natural gas power plants for the next twenty years. For all the options. which will serve as back up to the wind power plants. Total installed capacity of wind power plants is allowed to reach a maximum of 5% of the peak demand. capacity addition and utilization of renewable energy (geothermal. • Aggressive Clean Power Development Option For this option. are given Appendix A. on the other hand. UPSL capacity additions start in 2008 assuming a five-year lead-time for the planning and commissioning of the additional power plants. considered in the investment cost of the plants. and emissions for the abovementioned options. fuel usage. Inc. h These strategies are the following: • Moderate Clean Power Development (CCPD) Option In this option. however.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 5 CLEAN POWER DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS Using the mitigation options identified in Section 2.800MW43 (equivalent to 23. The projected generation for each fuel type for 2003 to 2007 is. 43 Natural Gas Plan. The annual installed capacities per fuel type for each grid are provided in Appendix D. likewise. The additional requirement will be supplemented by imports from the neighboring Asian countries and other natural gas producers until new local resources are developed. wind and hydro power) and natural gas plants are given priority over that of non-renewable plants for power generation. 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. It is assumed in these options that the local natural gas industry will be able to supply fuel for up to 3. the strategy is to utilize all the practical renewable energy resources where possible while keeping the appropriate reserve margins and diversity of resources. biomass. DOE page 63 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Note. the percentage installed reserve margin for the years 2008 onwards is kept as close as possible to the corresponding PEP reserve margins for comparison. The 2003 to 2007 capacity additions were based solely on the PEP list of committed projects.

945. By 2012. This is shown in Figure 5. Also. 58. the Moderate Clean Power Development option is applied to the Low Economic Growth Scenario. Installed Capacity As shown in Figure 5. natural gas capacity would continue to increase until the end of the planning period. this scenario would require 58.228 tonnes of coal and 154. For Mindanao.450 MW in 2003 to 8.4. Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements. the reserve margin is quite higher at 42% to 48%. respectively.060 million. Energy Mix The share of renewable energy for the LEGS-MCPD option would increase by 10% from the period 2003 to 2012. renewable energy plant installed capacity is increased by 95% from 4.4 BCF of natural gas for the whole planning period. The energy mix and share of clean energy for the option are shown in Figure 5.9 BCF of natural gas would have to be imported.502.8 million barrels of oil. natural gas and renewable energy plant capacities would amount to 69% of the total installed capacity. Inc. 73. Total cost of fuel that need to be imported for this scenario is $ 3. Details of this scenario is given in Appendix D.279 tonnes of coal and 1. The share of coal and oil in the mix would reduce by about 28% at the end of the period. however. which were used in the PEP scenarios. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. 64.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 5.3. This is because more power plants are required to meet Mindanao’s energy demand. 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.1. 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%.2 and 5. have lower capacity factors compared to coal power plants. Note also that wind power plants. which were used in this option to address the additional power and energy demand. Of these amounts.554.8 million barrels of oil. which cannot be addressed with the low dependable capacity of its existing plants. UPEEE Foundation page 64 .685 MW in 2012.1 LEGS-MCPD Scenario In this scenario.

000 15.955.0568 or PhP 3. Generation Cost For this LEGS-MCPD.592. computed cost values for the planning period are as follows: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: Average generation cost: $ 12. Inc.7 million tonnes.113.053 $ 23.5 illustrates the CO2 emissions calculated from this option. achieving net reduction of 44.202 million.479.000 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. GHG emissions from the LEGS-MCPD are much lower than that from the LEGS-PEP.254 $ 2.815 $ 0.000 MW 10.723.507. The LEGS-PEP abatement cost is $6. UPEEE Foundation page 65 .166 million higher than that of the LEGS-MCPD.6 million tonnes of CO2 as compared to the LEGS-PEP.000 20. Figure 5.1235 The LEGS-MCPD will achieve a net savings of $ 236 million as compared with the LEGS-PEP. Total cost of abatement of other emissions for this option is $23. Total CO2 emissions for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario is 264.969. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 5.755.1: Installed Generating Capacity for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario Environmental Emissions and Abatement Cost As would be expected.508 $ 8.

2: Energy Mix for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Coal and Oil-Based Renewable and Natural Gas Figure 5. Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Inc.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 5.3: Coal and Oil-Based vs. UPEEE Foundation page 66 .

Inc.000.000.000.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 80.000.000 30.000.000 10.000.000 (tonnes) 40.000.000 20.000 30.000.000 50.000 35.000.5: CO2 Emissions for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 70.000.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Coal 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 5.000.000 20.000.4: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario 40.000 10. UPEEE Foundation page 67 .000.000.000 25.000 60.000 5.000.000.000 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 5.000 15.

brings the clean energy generation from 33. while importation of oil and natural gas stand at 57. Installed Capacity In this option. The total CO2 emissions for the period is 248.270 GWh in 2012. 1471. is 53%. Energy Mix Figure 5.480 MW in 2012 and the further increase in the utilization of geothermal and biomass resources.9. in this option.633. Total cost of abatement for this option is $ 21. the Aggressive Clean Power Development Option is applied to the Low Economic Growth Scenario. In this option.34 tonnes/GWh.2 LEGS-ACPD Scenario In this scenario.2 million barrels of oil. for 2008 to 2012. Inc. Total cost of fuel that is needed to be imported for this scenario is $ 2. The mix of imported and indigenous fuel is shown in Figure 5. UPEEE Foundation page 68 . This 159% increase in renewable capacity is largely attributable to the increase in wind capacity from zero in 2003 to 3.294.7 illustrates the energy mix resulting from the LEGS-ACPD option. the average reserve margins are 33% and 26%. Mindanao’s average reserve margin. Figure 5.523.6 shows the installed capacities for the LEGS-ACPD option.520 MW in 2012. respectively.8 shows the increase in clean energy share in the mix. which is 60.175 tonnes of coal. brings the CO2 emission level at 321.4 BCF. Coal importation for this option reaches 58.40% of the peak demand. wind power plants take 20.074.2 million barrels and 139.731 tonnes.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 5. The total CO2 emissions for each year are shown in Figure 5. The average for the country is 34%. The 30% increase in renewable energy share from 37% to 48% over the planning period. renewable energy capacity is increased from 4.9 million tonnes less than the LEGS-PEP. Figure 5. Reserve Margin For Luzon and Visayas.450 MW in 2003 to 11.10.7 BCF of natural gas and 57. Fuel Consumption Total fuel requirement for the LEGS-ACPD is 66. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.860 million. respectively.4 million tonnes. Environmental Emissions and Abatement Cost The increased utilization of renewable energy resources.794 GWh in 2003 to 84.715.

UPEEE Foundation page 69 .000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Oil-based Hydro Coal Biomass Natural Gas Wind Geothermal Demand (MW) Figure 5.7: Energy Mix for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25.000 15. Inc.000 5.6: Installed Generating Capacity for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 5.000 MW 10.000 20.

000 60.000.000 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 Coal and Oil-Based Renewable and Natural Gas Figure 5.9: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000.8: Coal and Oil-Based vs. Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario 90.000.000.000 30.000 0 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 5.000 80.000 (tonnes) 50.000 70.000. UPEEE Foundation page 70 .000.000 10.000.000 40.000.000. Inc.

816.414.603. UPEEE Foundation page 71 .1698 This scenario would cost $52 million more than the LEGS-PEP.094 $ 8.000 15.000.000 25.000.012 $ 23.564 $ 2.000.11. Installed Capacity The installed capacity for this option is given in Figure 5.000. 5.000 10.000.0576 or PhP 3.132.000 0 2003 2004 Oil-based 2005 Coal 2006 2007 2008 Geothermal 2009 Hydro 2010 Biomass 2011 Wind 2012 Natural Gas Figure 5.661.403.000.3 HEGS-MCPD Scenario In this scenario.880. computed cost values for the planning period are as follows: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: Average generation cost: $ 12.000. the Moderate Clean Power Development option is applied to the High Economic Growth Scenario. Natural gas capacities are increased throughout the period and would account for the biggest share in installed capacity by 2012.057.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 40.000 5. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.10: CO2 Emissions for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario Generation Cost For this LEGS-ACPD.000.000 20.000 30.000 35. Renewable energy capacity accounts for 30% in 2003 and 39% in 2012. Inc.671 $ 0.

Energy Mix With its installed capacities dominating.8 million tonnes.769.15 shows the CO2 emissions resulting from the HEGS-MCPD option.7 million barrels of oil. This difference is attributable to the inevitable higher reserve margin for Mindanao. Total cost of fuel imports is $ 3.12 shows the corresponding energy mix for the HEGS-MCPD option.390. Generation Cost For this HEGS-MCPD.665. while Figure 5.349.718.13 illustrates the clean energy mix.9 BCF of natural gas for the whole planning period. Of these amounts. Total abatement cost for this option is $ 24.781. this scenario would require 70.124 $ 9.302 $ 24. 70.807.8 BCF tonnes of natural gas would have to be imported. Figure 5. 2% is contributed by wind power plants.076.4 million tonnes lower than the HEGS-PEP. Environmental Emissions Figure 5. renewable energy and natural gas contribution to the energy mix increases from 61% to 74% for 2003 to 2012.456 $ 0.030 $ 2.0565 or PhP 3. Of this mix.940.686.857 tonnes of coal and 342. UPEEE Foundation page 72 .322 million.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 2012.7 million barrels of oil. Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements.1065 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. The total CO2 emissions is at 283.347. Inc. 73. which is 63.778. which falls within 35% to 48%. 64.271 tonnes of coal and 1.580. computed cost values for the planning period are as follows: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: Average generation cost: $ 12.549.

UPEEE Foundation page 73 .12: Energy Mix for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Inc.000 20.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Oil-based Hydro Coal Biomass Natural Gas Wind Geothermal Demand (MW) Figure 5.11: 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.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25.000 MW 10.000 15.000 5.

000.000 60.14: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000. Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario 80.000. Inc.000.000.000 10.000 (tonnes) 40.000 30. UPEEE Foundation page 74 .000 50.000 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 5.000.000.13: Coal and Oil-Based vs.000 70.000 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 Coal and Oil-Based Renewable and Natural Gas Figure 5.000.

000.000.000.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 40.000 30.17 and Figure 5.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Coal 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 5.000.15: CO2 Emissions for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario 5. Energy Mix While oil-based and coal share in the energy mix decreased by 38%.000.18 illustrate these changes in the energy mix.000 15.000 35. UPEEE Foundation page 75 . Reserve Margin With the inevitably high reserve margin of 45% to 51% for Mindanao. clean energy share increased by 24% over the planning period. Figure 5.000 20.4 HEGS-ACPD Scenario In this option.000 25. the Aggressive Clean Power Development option strategy is applied to the High Economic Growth Scenario.000 10.000 5. the country’s effective reserve margin ranges from 28% to 32%. Figure 5. Inc.000.000. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Installed Capacity The more aggressive use of renewable energy resources for this option results to a 50% contribution of renewable energy to the total installed capacity in 2012.16 illustrates this.000.

139 tonnes of coal and 276. UPEEE Foundation page 76 .402.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements. 67. Environmental Emissions and Abatement Cost Carbon dioxide generation for the HEGS-ACPD option is shown in Figure 5.584. Total CO2 emissions is at 275. 72. along with 59. NOx and particulates for this option is 23. Figure 5.288. Generation Cost For this HEGS-ACPD.723.0 million barrels of oil.199.7 BCF of natural gas. this scenario would require 90.458. All of the oil would have to be imported.0575 or PhP 3.19 shows the sharing of the imported and indigenous fossil fuels. The cost of abatement for SOx .513 million.560.568 $ 0. Inc.1647 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.182.271 $ 25. computed cost values for the planning period are as follows: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: Average generation cost: $ 12.730 $ 2.824. Cost of fuel imports is $ 3.1 million tonnes lower than that for the HEGS-PEP.583.682 tonnes of coal and 1.1 million tonnes.5 BCF of natural gas for the whole planning period.532.20.567 $ 9.638.842.791.

000 MW 10.16: Installed Generating Capacity for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 5.000 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 15.000 20. Inc.000 5.17: Energy Mix for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.

000. UPEEE Foundation page 78 .000 70. Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario 80.000.000 50.000.000.19: Fuel Consumption for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 60.000 30.000 10.000 0 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 5.000. Inc.000.000 (tonnes) 40.000.000 20.000.18: Coal and Oil-Based vs.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Coal and Oil-Based Renewable and Natural Gas Figure 5.

000.000.000.000 15.000 25.000.000.000 30.000 35. Inc.000.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 40.000 5.000 10. UPEEE Foundation page 79 .20: CO2 Emissions for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Coal 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 5.000.000 20.000.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

280 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.486 686 4906 15.1: 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. UPEEE Foundation page 1 of 4 .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. Inc.922 21 158 484 5 40 125 5 33 100 20 151 478 43 315 971 7 46 143 17 125 382 11 86 263 21 165 509 15 98 307 24 163 509 4 40 123 117 796 2.Appendix A POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table A.

UPEEE Foundation page 2 of 4 .170 6.031 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.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.Appendix A POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table A. 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.738 Table A. of Sites 19 6 4 14 4 47 Estimated Capacity Estimated Annual (MWe) Generation (GWh) 133 408 42 129 28 86 105 322 28 86 336 1.065 75 229 259 795 2.113 169 519 347 1.

5.4.Appendix A POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table A.258 6. UPEEE Foundation page 3 of 4 .671 6 35 184 3 34 179 15 181 110 4 26 951 3 28 147 19 179 941 1 6 32 129 1.585 Table A.030 1 10 53 9 79 415 3 32 168 3 22 116 4 40 210 8 72 378 30 318 1. Locations of Practical Small Hydro Potential Resources in Luzon Province Abra Aurora Benguet Ifugao Ilocos No rte Ilocos Sur Isabela Kalinga La Union Mountain Province Nueva Vizcaya Pangasinan Quezon Quirino Tarlac LUZON TOTAL Number of Sites Estimated Capacity Estimated Annual (MWe) Generation (GWhr) 20 196 1. Inc. 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.

209 7 37 11 58 7 37 826 4.237 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.6. UPEEE Foundation page 4 of 4 .Appendix A POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table A.692 7 7 18 18 53 279 26 137 58 305 69 363 230 1. 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. Inc.

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

949 7.819 1.567 13.154 4.942 1.335 5.345 45.936 8.013 12.257 2.799 9.684 762 1.388 11.840 7.534 7.320 6.402 Source: DOE Table B.176 25.554 36.030 6.870 1993 6.128 36.797 1998 11.547 10.554 1996 9.862 6.754 41.042 2.200 3.875 8.301 2.758 5.098 14.132 4.973 5.493 3.078 18.399 4.050 12.086 3.543 934 1.477 8.870 26.368 4.452 1.066 7.847 9.735 33.856 1. 1991-2001 (GWh) Year Year 1991 Residential Commercial Industrial Others Utilities Own Use Power Losses Total 6.425 5.963 Natural Gas 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 1.929 19.865 10.237 8.363 9.155 2.432 2000 12.440 5.789 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 20 16 17 848 5. UPEEE Foundation page 1 of 2 .799 7.939 13.183 16.167 1.3: Energy Consumption by Sector.282 5.707 39.600 2.340 6.067 1.185 13.132 4.789 6.348 2.390 6.931 Hydro 2.259 2.512 13. Inc.600 1.109 4.442 5.725 9. 1991-2001 (MW) Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Fuel Type Oil-based 3.190 11.578 41.030 5.725 12.444 921 1.531 1.894 9.290 2001 13.301 2.696 11.959 9.791 2.150 7.353 10.1: Installed Generating Capacity.267 1.049 Source: DOE University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.734 30.135 6.063 Geothermal 888 888 963 1.844 5.191 957 2.797 41.700 5.839 4.471 6.073 1.238 26.296 5.590 5.226 5.851 1.804 13.910 8.301 2.667 6.196 5.301 2.212 9.649 1992 6.072 11.341 3.254 2.232 7.859 823 1.145 4.867 1.663 18.594 11.Appendix B POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table B.849 41.2: 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 25.459 33.104 Source: DOE Table B.730 11.855 7.154 1.649 25.518 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wind 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 6.578 1999 11.568 4.116 18.417 1.867 16.579 1994 7.037 39.963 3.069 5.626 10.713 47.223 6.579 30.290 47.162 11.931 1.395 721 1.301 2.927 Coal 405 405 441 550 850 1.015 1.185 9.536 5.339 952 1.053 4.288 19.931 1.950 1.301 2.249 4.914 10.708 1997 10.928 12.071 25.987 3.432 45.459 1995 8.901 12.

727 29.580.561 551 696 4.521.747 25.306 682 828 5.563 127.616 28.964 114.671 16.233 11. 1991-2001 (GWh) 1991 Luzon Visayas Mindanao Philippines Source: DOE 1992 19.649 Table B.075 N 2O 415 436 421 469 541 610 711 742 644 734 842 Particulates 10.491.428.238 106.4: Peak Demand.807 CO 16.908 2000 5.062 1.283 15.290 3.797 1998 31.291 1996 4.808 Fuel Type Geothermal 261.665 Coal 1.400 2001 5.360 14.816 1997 4.103.566 3.705.652 4.762 SOX 115.835 893 954 7.131.413 258.067 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 10.038 973 1.309 146.755 4.521.704 18.529 296.029 36.492 144.611 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.049 19.687 1994 3.703 47.232.666 1999 5.473 523 691 4.365 39.932 154. 1991-2001 (MW) Year Luzon Visayas Mindanao Philippines Source: DOE 1991 3.566.233 11.245 41.674 480.726 67.585.159 13.471.122.036 4.896 136.704 18.311 10.127 1.967 2.708 23.585.848 164.273 1.175 5.864 26.083 18.222 Natural Gas 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.928 278.345 2.459 1995 25.679 8.970 527.780 257.580.448 16.185.290 2001 36.509.236.206 3.854 6.688 3.403 1.076 2.836 18.159 13.362 14.226 789 893 6.530 15.133 30.679 5.920 591 780 5.283 15.486 20.376 3.347 5.763 25.553.084 4.119.882 149.250 473 573 4.990 99.396 18.789 3.796 CH4 587 643 685 835 963 974 1.820 474.338.808 1995 3.675 10.773 727 852 6.708 1997 30.175. Inc.566.184 5.578 1999 31.870.702 7.547.725 117.164 19.547.586 126.553. tonne CO2 Year Oil-based 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 9.555 30.432 2000 34.870 1993 19.414 162.348 2.552 135.464 45.076 792 805 904 NMVOC 975 1.204 160.813 3.124 17.903 21.291 1.678 117.6: Environmental Emissions.296 1993 3.831 189.133 1.411.164 19.131.069 84.519.671 16.991 5.147 5.639 16.649 812 939 7.794 13.644 13.762 Table B.695 33.411.337 25.915 12.441 5.311 20.530 15.351.962 751.541 10.279 998.Appendix B POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table B.028 770 868 6.090 16.359 1.131. tonne Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Environmental Emissions CO 2 10.733 24.633 130.004 101.580 27.511 2.687.163 5.582 11.745 4.286.698 4.556 404.109 23.554 1996 27.712.448 16.781 24.396 18.902 2.428.5: Generation by Grid.231.282 286.045 410 626 4.481 5.644 328.352 1998 5.351.082.729 NOX 58.6: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Source.687. UPEEE Foundation page 2 of 2 .261 9.081 1992 3.872 6.343 41.116 20.579 1994 23.989 12.521 18.094.242 1.582 11.682 Table B.004 906 1.

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

30% 7. (2003 .592 1. Inc.2007) (2008 .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.833 9.2012) (2003 .254 1.93% 7.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.855 8.034 7.548 11.830 10.277 11.168 1.R.159 1.869 13.563 1.58% VISAYAS 1.912 2.39% NATIONAL Non-Coincident Peak 8.041 7.074 1.95% 6.813 14.2012) LUZON 6.707 1.360 1.033 7.477 1.26% 7.673 1.31% 7.161 9.1a: 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.377 1.139 11.95% 7.276 1.91% 7.319 12.829 1.814 15.149 13.084 1.67% MINDANAO 1.889 17.007 1.275 7. UPEEE Foundation page 1 of 16 .789 1.57% Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.519 10.958 8. G.752 7.13% 7.997 12.503 9.459 1.

274 7.875 53.924 8.726 6.103 9.93% 7.735 57.135 11.539 69.024 85.13% 7.320 5.57% Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.39% TOTAL 51.452 7.827 92.67% MINDANAO 6.675 46.30% 7.26% 7.91% 7.R.258 6.154 59. Inc.548 64.260 76.1c: Electricity Sales Forecasts for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (GWh) YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual Ave.564 80.182 55.016 9.057 98.95% 7.2012) LUZON 39.743 10.420 11.2007) (2008 .497 9.754 7.892 7. UPEEE Foundation page 2 of 16 .870 66.801 8.306 7.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.661 10. G.342 8.740 7.660 61.95% 6.31% 7.411 9.2012) (2003 .58% VISAYAS 5.604 42.506 74.686 7.391 71. (2003 .072 49.170 6.

308 2005 2443 3758 450 3.1d: DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (MW) Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Local Imported Year 2003 2443 3758 450 3.617 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.796 12.647 1.604 546 - 1.207 616 200 200 - 2.441 13.141 12.267 2.308 Luzon Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 2763 1510 907 - 2763 1860 907 65 - 2763 2205 907 65 - 2763 2205 907 65 - 2763 2205 907 65 - 2763 2205 907 65 - 2763 2205 907 65 2763 2205 907 65 2763 2205 907 65 2763 2205 907 65 Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking LUZON TOTAL Oil-based Coal Local Imported 600 1500 2100 900 1200 1500 1500 300 750 750 900 11.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.607 616 - 1.308 2010 1583 3758 450 3.308 2011 1583 3758 450 3. UPEEE Foundation page 3 of 16 .067 2. Inc.308 2006 2443 3758 450 3.031 15.657 616 - 1.217 2.141 12.308 616 200 200 - 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 1.208 616 200 200 - 2.781 468 431 281 281 281 281 281 281 182 182 300 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - Visayas Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 12 919 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking VISAYAS TOTAL Oil-based Coal Local Imported 200 - 250 - 100 250 - 200 250 - 300 350 - 400 350 - 500 350 - 600 350 - 1.807 616 200 200 - 1.107 616 200 200 - 2.017 2.308 2007 2443 3758 450 3.308 2012 1583 3758 450 3.131 13.141 12.367 2.817 2.308 2009 2233 3758 450 3.308 2004 2443 3758 450 3.381 11.517 2.707 616 200 200 - 1.831 15.308 2008 2443 3758 450 3.717 1.907 616 200 200 - 2.

563 2011 2.163 600 3.457 3.763 3.214 1.214 1.563 2010 2.163 600 3.763 2.756 20.763 3.519 1.650 750 2.381 4.563 2007 3.563 2008 3.015 16.214 1.363 2005 3.214 1.563 2009 3.970 65 2.763 3.214 1.565 17.130 4.763 3.300 1.214 1.340 4.163 600 3.350 1.970 65 350 - 2.763 3.706 Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.963 600 3.214 1.120 15.480 4.363 2006 3.340 4.340 3.950 900 Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking PHILIPPINES TOTAL 14.763 3.632 15.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Local Imported Year 2003 3.930 - 2.500 1.350 300 2.163 600 3. UPEEE Foundation page 4 of 16 .970 65 - 2.505 18.970 65 1.970 65 400 650 - 2.163 600 3.763 3.970 65 3.865 16.363 2004 3.763 2.950 750 2.970 65 550 1.340 4.490 3.763 3.615 15.163 600 3.563 Philippines Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 2.970 65 300 - 2.869 1.163 600 3.963 600 3.563 2012 2.214 1.970 65 150 350 - 2.381 4. Inc.405 19.963 600 3.

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. Inc.200 290 390 490 Mindanao Coal Baseload Plant Baseload Plant 200 50 150 370 420 570 1.350 1.100 2006 2007 Midrange 2008 Midrange 2009 Peaking 300 690 690 990 Panay Midrange Panay Baseload Cebu Baseload Negros Baseload 600 300 1.890 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 3.200 5.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.050 San Roque Hydro 2005 345 690 240 Diesel Plant from Luzon Midrange Plant 70 100 170 1.240 Cebu Baseload 4.1e: DOE Plan for Power Plant Line-Up for the Low Economic Growth Scenario LUZON YEAR PLANT ADDITION VISAYAS MINDANAO PHILIPPINES MW installed MW installed MW installed PLANT ADDITION PLANT ADDITION cumulative total capacity MW capacity MW capacity MW Uprating of LeyteBohol Interconnection from 35 MW to 100 MW Mambucal Geo 40 Kalayaan 3&4 350 2004 PNOC_EDC Wind Transfer of a Diesel Plant to Mindanao (70 MW) Northwind 40 345 40 385 -70 25 Uprating of LeyteCebu Interconnection from 200 MW to 400 MW Panay Midrange Negros Midrange 150 50 50 100 50 50 50 50 100 100 790 Baseload Plant 100 720 4.750 690 Baseload Plant 50 620 3.150 Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.500 2. UPEEE Foundation page 5 of 16 .

760.865 683.927 8.722 685.803 103.828 345.962 16.449 685.045.095 Oil-based 2.897 189.812 32.855 133.982.764.975 14.1g: 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 137.958.939 Natural gas 21.091 57.177 92.633 164.837 18.870 225.273 7.086.908 32.113.712 117. UPEEE Foundation page 6 of 16 .568 115.939 26.464 Natural gas 104 125 134 143 152 157 159 158 156 157 1.669.631.624 7.816.571.827.918 Coal 10.792 8.534 8.896 9.088 TOTAL 159.680 489.687 16.927 8.808 40.265.829 222.352.532 39.491 97.941 384.840 51.093 679.151 243.324 28.452 685.866.284 24.229 8.785 39.600.993 46.676 685.528 31.495 685.279 28.203 265.936.981 303.177 685.803.185 32.422 335.303 265.330 25.289 159.251 128.991 33.928 31.536.158.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.963 15.599 168. Inc.249.609 10.201 30.519 TOTAL 18.762 94.388.809.802.453 Table C.536 Oil-based 12.445 Oil-based 21.770 25.450 295.402.019 TOTAL 112.951.410 89.921.188 139.264 8.493 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.060.275.922 Natural gas 5.410 40.644 7.833.477 203.297 33.317 211.011 2.163 437.611 309.782 13.103 21.313 685.988 213.797 3.778.897.855 246.937 148.497 195.460 34.289 28.416 21.1f: 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 641.220 8.820.076.491.844 147.531 14.125.188.652 182.821 2.776 3.086 8.020 289.997 Table C.435 81.821 2.429 181.316.676 6.849 7.304.887.894 22.032 392.820.061 35.100 8.965 83.850 20.340 238.465 5.171 29.788 1.660 169.573.462 27.242 75.113 283.869.317.635 582.710 128.114.876.307.030 2.577.521 36.503 1.138 38.1h: 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 78.985 42.051.

432 25.999 7.196 13.758 42.268 11.193 121.586 10.060 6. Inc.554 12.1j: 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 1.125 13.454 Oil-based 163 195 267 238 302 449 713 770 755 802 4.656 12.240 4.363 36.053 76.519 1.176 17.414 Oil-based 2.319 13.562 1.655 TOTAL 1.373 2.810 2.763 13.586 50.963 3.250 3.571 14.355 26.121 54.620 20.758 24.630 2.337 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.714 3.323 362.341 1. UPEEE Foundation page 7 of 16 .971 12.069 14.134 3.1k: 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 1.776 10.1i: 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 9.254 1.580 1.385 11.425 1.575 13.241 28.548 Table C.157 2.966 32.586 1.529 11.274 13.207 TOTAL 21.925 4.581 1.397 3.049 Natural gas 8.078 165.008 2.730 Natural gas 145 174 186 198 211 218 220 219 217 218 2.712 28.285 13.595 46.045 1.873 9.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.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 4.362 23.228 Natural gas 1.671 Table C.571 1.602 16.

02 0.03 0.01 2.24 3.78 CO 0.40 0.01 NMVOC 0.139 4.03 0.04 1.01 0.89 4.122 1.1m: 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 16.466 41.52 3.52 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.221 3.003 1.216 1.66 429.250 1.03 0.969 2.528 3.02 0.244 26.35 0.84 3.256 11.923 7.424 1.67 2.653 49.771 53.78 346.36 0.39 373.50 0.41 4.698 3.02 0.44 0.044 Natural gas 836 1.50 0.387 TOTAL 19.01 0.15 4.03 0.03 0.559 21.97 421.013 1.03 N2O 0.336 Oil-based 79 95 121 108 142 202 305 320 308 328 2.01 0.209 43.42 0.69 2.01 0. Inc.02 Particulates 0.389 15.03 0.39 410.02 0.25 2.175 1.03 0.42 0.1n: Environmental Emissions per Unit Generation (tonne/kWh) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Environmental Emissions CO2 340.02 0.589 1.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.140 22.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.275 1.50 0.589 9.700 24.927 20.563 Oil-based 2.39 0.51 CH4 0.03 0.49 0.14 2.072 7.684 7.973 33.979 29.41 0.66 358.47 0.342 Natural gas 313 376 402 428 456 471 476 474 469 471 4.55 338.778 1.620 274.995 Table C.399 1.39 0.35 2.647 338.01 0.43 0.01 0.176 2.1l: Total N 2O Emissions by Fuel Type for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total for period Geothermal Coal 559 543 599 740 827 916 997 1.353 55.257 1.57 2.50 SOX 2.37 438.256 34.686 Table C.02 0.06 3.37 0.34 0.03 0.36 390.836 7.858 29.45 2.97 2.394 15. UPEEE Foundation page 8 of 16 .264 1.140 1.514 5.268 1.031 46.952 38.917 17.073 1.60 NOX 2.160 25.89 2.02 0.01 0.46 0.008 TOTAL 952 1.

313 1.469 11.423 15.512 1.953 2.630 1.994 8.106 8.014 1.862 12.2b: System Peak Demand Forecasts for the High Economic Growth Scenario (MW) YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual Ave.60% 8.809 1. Inc.359 14.R.438 10.099 1.186 10.428 1.633 10.675 1.424 12.46% 8.757 1.815 VISAYAS 1.186 NATIONAL Non-Coincident Peak 8.22% 8. UPEEE Foundation page 9 of 16 .59% 7.2012) LUZON 6.804 13. (2003 .23% Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.891 2.992 11.357 7.883 9.790 18.788 7.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.2007) (2008 .13% 8.400 1.562 16.194 1.73% 7.543 1.281 1. G.378 13.081 1.176 1.09% 8.90% 8.106 MINDANAO 1.034 2.65% 7.2a: 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.92% 8.2012) (2003 .94% 8.711 9.

2007) (2008 .094 55.355 5.2012) 39.807 6.148 97.711 77.015 11.59% 7.156 46. UPEEE Foundation page 10 of 16 .2c: Electricity Sales Forecasts for the High Economic Growth Scenario (GWh) YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual Ave.851 7.555 10.746 64.888 8.124 8.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.848 9.033 8.938 7.658 66. Inc.2012) (2003 .542 8.363 59.474 69. (2003 .73% 7.578 75.233 11.23% Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.497 10.155 8.92% 8.305 6.149 8.R.60% 8.300 6.888 51.314 11.104 81.392 83.90% 8.94% 8.187 71.465 8.22% 5.469 55.732 8.814 43.555 90.64% 7.09% 8.805 9. G.814 60.46% 6.847 12.266 104.13% 51.

763 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 - 1.763 2.357 616 200 200 - 2.308 2006 2.205 907 65 2.443 3.763 1.2d: DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the High Economic Growth Scenario (MW) Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Local Imported Year 2003 2.017 2.141 12.881 16.443 3.141 12.205 907 65 Luzon Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking 300 1.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.700 1.443 3.758 450 3.767 2.763 2.308 2009 2.758 450 3.308 2012 1.308 2004 2.817 2.867 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.758 450 3.583 3.381 17.758 450 3.758 450 3.657 616 - 1.763 2.510 907 - 2.758 450 3.857 616 200 200 - 2.367 2.233 3.300 750 LUZON TOTAL Oil-based Coal Local Imported 11.308 2005 2.308 2007 2.381 11.717 1.141 12.308 Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 2.607 616 - 1.205 907 65 2.658 616 200 200 - 2.205 907 65 2.758 616 200 200 - Natural Gas Mindanao Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 997 104 - 997 104 - 997 104 100 - 997 104 100 - 997 104 50 100 - 997 104 250 150 - 997 104 300 150 - 997 104 400 250 - 997 104 550 300 - 997 104 650 300 - Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking MINDANAO TOTAL 1.205 907 65 2. UPEEE Foundation page 11 of 16 .500 900 2. Inc.007 616 200 200 - 2.604 546 - 1.800 3.067 2.317 2.758 450 3.441 13.763 2.763 2.763 2.583 3.647 1.763 2.205 907 65 2.308 2008 2.205 907 65 2.443 3.205 907 65 2.860 907 65 2.707 616 200 200 - 1.796 12.308 2011 1.758 450 3.567 2.758 450 3.763 1.800 3.443 3.431 14.300 1.758 450 3.557 616 200 200 - 2.443 3.583 3.308 2010 1.

970 65 2.763 3.763 3.763 2.563 2012 2.763 3.563 2010 2.163 600 3.340 3.214 1.340 4.363 2005 3.865 16.763 3.563 2007 3.214 1.250 0 3.163 600 3.970 65 2.563 Philippines Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 2.970 65 2.214 1.120 15.763 3.480 4.763 3.970 65 2.763 3.490 3.150 0 1.563 2011 2.200 4.214 1.519 1.000 4.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Local Imported Year 2003 3.963 600 3.163 600 3.970 65 2.214 1.763 3.163 600 3.065 16.155 20.963 600 3.930 - 2.963 600 3.765 18.632 15.500 0 3.615 15.970 65 2.363 2006 3.381 4.756 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.970 65 2.250 750 PHILIPPINES TOTAL 14.763 2.214 1.214 1.381 4.457 3.163 600 3.340 4.563 2008 3.163 600 3.563 2009 3.970 65 2.869 1.005 21.163 600 3.130 4.363 2004 3.850 3.214 1.340 4. UPEEE Foundation page 12 of 16 . Inc.806 22.970 65 Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking 300 350 150 400 450 800 700 2.

200 Peaking 2012 750 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 1.190 Cebu Baseload Panay Baseload Baseload Plant 50 720 3. Inc. UPEEE Foundation page 13 of 16 .440 Baseload Plant 100 1.790 Cebu Baseload Negros Baseload Cebu Midrange 50 50 100 50 50 1.170 9.2e: 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 1.350 1.540 Cebu Baseload Panay Baseload 1.100 2005 150 50 50 100 50 50 50 50 100 50 50 50 100 150 50 1.550 990 Cebu Baseload Cebu Midrange Negros Baseload Baseload Plant Midrange Plant 200 50 670 2.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.340 Baseload Plant Midrange Plant 150 50 1.850 2009 Negros Baseload Cebu Midrange Bohol Midrange Baseload Plant 900 1.290 Cebu Baseload Bohol Midrange Baseload Plant Midrange Plant 100 50 870 6.300 2010 Midrange Baseload Plant 2011 Midrange 900 600 5.200 2.250 Midrange 1.150 Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.200 4.070 8.

939 26.014 42.965 19.498 130.202 74.609 28.185 32.895 12.488.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.383 326.221 109.873 49.706 153.465.722 685.735.043 41.267 121.927 8.645.793 3.198.211 173.226 7.2f: 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. Inc.035 TOTAL 19.437 242.565.106.254 191.890.434 28.534.713 217.220 8.572.686 Coal 10.021.891 11.734.299 33.863.839 182.828.722 685.537 16.710 546.888 232.767 685.233 33.787.708 137.207 14.518 77.636 Natural gas 104 126 136 145 155 158 159 158 156 157 1.296 1.864 2.661 30.052 418.796 44.167.529 5.253.033 8.625 1.704.866 288.620.945 1.206 180.891 8.862 11.473 51.456 Oil-based 27.320 681.673 35.073.897.634 149.743.822 23.820.396 154.909 224.897 409.921.741 631.250 284.970.125.415 Natural gas 21.945 479.722 685.812 6.194 TOTAL 111.639 34.490 157.070 305.435 2.239 10.370.518 214.124 8.688 221.934.172 22.808 243.877 20.2g: 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 139.879 Oil-based 2.293 82.630 162.055 2.686 347.316 257.922 383.840.297 33.829 347.912.862.849 7.585 685.060.499 TOTAL 167.170 89.208.582 40.450 685.294.843 20.689 Oil-based 9.180 42.351 79.774 12.779 15.701 Natural gas 5.017 30.322 12.941 30.653 27.064 118.806.051 8.824 13.198.744.264 8.050.677 174.808 139.094 104.173 56.234.399.785.198 192.300 Table C.000 684.297 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.887 197.042 17.498 264.002 321.859 7.124 11.664.792.317 3.300.877.585 685.812 33. UPEEE Foundation page 14 of 16 .989.178.897.2h: 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 79.526 33.590 Table C.784 157.951.258.533 32.912 293.341 26.683 61.

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

398 647 250 228 1.985 5.491 2.205 65 12.758 3.491 1.860 25 11.583 1.418 112 685 19.138 2.053 3.697 4.012 647 250 148 1.871 1.066 12 80 40 2.002 3.429 545 205 916 12 1.419 609 205 1.512 2.255 12 20 2.758 3.763 1.971 3.901 655 205 1.931 2.214 80 65 16.917 4.213 4.758 3.658 12 100 2.952 3.758 3.415 12 40 2.758 3.216 63 100 80 2.694 609 205 986 12 80 20 1.759 2.971 3.404 235 13.752 3.763 907 1.652 3.510 11.519 14.917 4.971 3.383 2.116 37 100 60 2.558 12 80 2.732 647 108 997 1.163 2.467 12 60 2.266 73 100 100 2.869 25 15.747 4.661 1.547 3.583 3.763 907 2.763 1.383 977 2.923 2.763 1.758 2.682 547 108 997 1.189 609 205 956 12 80 1.422 400 14.061 3.925 112 520 18.227 2.758 3.213 2.831 92 315 17.775 2.491 2.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.583 2.633 2.624 2.214 25 15.942 112 850 21.1a: 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 2.313 4.287 3.862 647 250 108 997 2.711 4.763 1.758 3.895 2.211 650 15.758 3.194 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. UPEEE Foundation Visayas page 2 of 16 .963 2.283 2. Inc.011 1.871 5.213 5.491 2.763 1.678 547 108 997 1.781 4.758 3.011 3.283 1.149 559 205 956 12 1.963 2.127 4.797 525 14.763 907 2.267 2.983 1.189 559 205 956 12 50 1.971 2.205 25 12.287 4.531 3.312 3.942 5.269 647 250 228 1.671 92 170 16.941 605 205 1.912 647 250 128 1.782 647 200 108 997 1.983 2.101 629 205 1.213 3.963 2.583 2.763 907 2.213 5.011 1.205 65 12.191 3.583 947 2.697 3.263 4.214 50 65 15.146 647 250 188 1.652 3.763 907 1.213 5.804 509 205 956 12 1.404 130 12.491 2.

349 16.778.297 Hydro Biomass Wind Total 18.215.089.098 15. Inc.659 27.151.388.797 3.979.534 8.438 86.590 1.054 15.927 8.1c: Power Generation (GWh) Year Oil-based 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.415 20.143 59.313 1.462 27.121 14.958.884 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 0 645 785 785 785 Wind 0 153 153 153 153 153 843 1.085 16.975 14.495 639.623.528 31.1b: Annual Capacity Additions (MW) Year Oil-based Current Installed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3.452 685.948 80.652 1.760.915 Coal 18.833.764 6.086 11.687 16.272 Total 55.519 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 1.449 685.963 0 0 0 200 50 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 2.011 2.097 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 14.125.953 24.982.653 821.100 18.020.813 19.952 3.324 6.092 15.577.901.133.181 69.644 1.060 33.456 758.850 20.001 16.114.229 8.213 1.928 7.074 24.360 92.045.897.430 Table D.125.249.281.893 7.284 24.869.174.820.857 27.093 679.689 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.776 3.235 1.573.017 17.247 3.087 19.094.641 6.216 13.576 14.1d: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.061 27.589 27.916.763 0 0 0 0 0 820 800 900 300 400 1.550 30.374 30.943 7.536.906 27.757 846.523 4.837 15.521 27.710 18.343 16.152.571.596 1.654 29.275.209 Total Addition Table D.372 64.894 22.210 19.936.624 7.908 Coal 10.263 14.141 18.076.484 1.402.099 14.975 15.821 2.816.177 685.706 1. UPEEE Foundation page 3 of 16 .391 1.113.951 31.931 0 40 0 0 0 90 130 340 180 70 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 2.849 7.757 30.148 1.720 3.609 10.831 2.383 Natural Gas 5.865 683.333.896 9.784 15.636 99.583 0 0 300 0 50 0 0 20 75 50 Coal 3.579 1.113.835 Natural Gas 13.943 27.580 74.783 15.465 5.101 Fuel Type Geothermal 641.937 1.629 18.782 13.477 12.271 21.158.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.289 106.968 8.

04 3.01 0.42 0.05 3.954 180.06 3.06 0.03 0.84 3.83 1.317 164.01 0.06 0.687 38.40 0.69 Environmental Emissions CO CH 4 0.952 27.10 3.03 0.147 943.901.373 2.02 0.36 390.542 Table D.89 2.429 181.02 0.380 169.122 1.02 0.01 0.151 243.06 0.02 8.810 2. Inc.712 117.03 0.32 0.850 20.39 323.03 0.238 N 2O 952 1.897 189.535 Particulates 19.251 128.01 0.581 1.584 2.355 26.06 PhP/kWh 3.30 0.689 SOX 159.05 3.044 CH 4 282 314 346 379 423 470 443 470 497 536 NMVOC 1.06 0.03 0.90 1.03 0.70 304.462 27.09 314.979 29.779 2.630 2.37 0.01 0.1f: Environmental Emission per Unit Generation (tonne/GWh) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 340.73 1.1e: Environmental Emissions (tonne) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 18.37 0.650 218.916.988 213.25 2.677 28.41 0.424 1.50 8.249.55 338.01 0.28 0.05 NOX 2.39 0.757 30.758 32.973 33.31 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.18 9.422 217.35 1.442 34.894 22.36 0.39 0.061 27.397 943.654 29.008 2.03 0.01 0.951 31.03 0.52 2.35 2.110 35.78 346.937 148.241 28.36 0.839 27.451 943.01 0.06 0.029 NOX 112.02 0.03 0.140 22.362 23.98 10.19 3.36 0.402.12 3.52 2.01 0.06 0.1g: Generation Cost Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Generation Cost US$/kWh 0.840 217.39 373.589 775.982.38 0.06 0.275 1.936.363 36.113 283.42 0.01 NMVOC 0.35 0.536 27. UPEEE Foundation page 4 of 16 .32 299.20 3.03 N2O 0.981 3.289 159.013 1.284 24.04 1.69 2.113.157 2.06 0.10 3.27 Table D.88 SO X 2.966 32.17 2.24 3.43 0.02 0.726 215.152.528 31.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.927 20.275 Environmental Emissions CO 21.01 2.97 2.87 Particulates 0.66 358.599 168.14 2.160 25.215.06 3.137 171.778.46 0.06 0.34 0.

Inc.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines APPENDIX D. 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.

763 1.758 2.011 1.718 609 205 996 12 80 20 1.747 4.146 37 80 60 2.213 2.752 3.778 4.2a: 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 2.063 3.205 25 12.168 4.211 25 3.697 3.404 10 665 12.138 907 2.346 63 80 80 2.002 3.652 3.763 1.633 907 2.214 25 15.932 117 3.467 12 179 2.415 12 106 2.778 2.205 65 12.011 3.661 1.732 647 108 997 1.758 3.758 3.758 3.491 2.255 12 33 2.214 50 65 15.510 11.917 4.931 2.468 2.291 510 205 1.971 3.856 609 205 1.758 3.213 3.488 1.491 1.558 12 262 2.763 2.168 4.163 2.758 3.127 4.136 647 250 188 1.759 907 1.130 2.265 13.104 19.011 1.763 1.743 2.758 3.468 907 1.071 3.561 3.053 947 2.283 647 250 228 1.991 4.065 17.758 3.963 2.213 4. UPEEE Foundation page 6 of 16 .411 18.971 2.531 1.871 1.404 25 1.797 25 2.213 3.548 2.325 3.807 21.205 65 12. Inc.922 647 250 128 1.491 2.735 1.763 3.213 4.221 3.841 4.865 14.227 2.957 2.860 25 11.763 2.678 547 108 997 1.952 3.042 647 250 148 1.491 2.831 117 1.862 647 250 108 997 2.763 2.763 1.763 2.578 2.480 23.465 16.267 2.429 545 205 916 12 1.213 5.923 907 2.825 510 205 1.149 559 205 956 12 1.287 3.476 63 80 80 2.758 3.968 5.189 559 205 956 12 50 1.583 3.267 4.963 2.491 2.519 14.758 3.418 117 2.925 117 2.763 1.652 3.189 609 205 956 12 80 1.413 647 250 228 1.682 547 108 997 1.971 3.804 509 205 956 12 1.671 102 718 16.548 4.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.369 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.869 25 15.963 2.096 12 80 40 2.868 609 205 1.547 3.658 12 335 3.964 977 2.063 2.214 80 65 16.422 25 1.782 647 200 108 997 1.968 2.697 4.971 3.

132.782 13.289 106.141 18.676.821 2.385 3.790 1.577.557.324 6.114.636 99.659 27.032.437 86.545 16.317 16.281 2.573.763 0 0 0 0 0 300 715 770 420 500 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 1.519 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 2.387 1.365 *includes capacities of diesel engines used as ancillary to wind power plants Table D.534 21.654 1.523 4.345 16.158.583 0 0 300 0 50 548 548 488 538 528 Coal 3.550 26.975 15.893 7.121 14.477 12.770 5.820.885 32.092 15.385 2.922 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 14.919 3.136 2.708 27.462 27.992.776 3.045.865 683.797 3.372 64.694 Fuel Type Geothermal 641.778.809 13.449 597.746 23.436.082 Natural Gas 5.011 2.117 10.963 0 0 0 200 50 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 2.936.961.975 14.647 13.953 24.815 19.958.948 80.249. Inc.125.270 21.247 3.709 1.210 19.263 6.349 16.534 8.931 0 40 0 0 0 100 150 340 280 150 2.816.891 26.245 Natural Gas 13.897.320.622 7.529 26.158 14.361 10.528 26.778.849 7.580 74.360 92.341 22.284 24.758.737.833.369 11.850 20.076.973 769.430 Table D.927 8.157.952 3.085 Total 55.545.452 685.098 13.2c: Power Generation (GWh) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.287 9.651 1.2b: Annual Capacity Additions (MW) Year Oil-based* Currently Installed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3.016. UPEEE Foundation page 7 of 16 .087 19.760.942 19.704 1.602 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.113.170 867.181 69.138 26.732 12.609 10.203.2d: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type (tonne) Year Oil-based 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.104 20.655 20.079 2.433 2.177 685.536.692 27.896 9.375 24.915 Coal 18.968 15.856 14.928 7.229 8.332 919.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.894 22.198 29.415 18.919 Hydro Biomass Wind Total 18.465 3.388.943 7.624 7.054 15.103.687 14.908 Coal 10.333.093 679.791.178.386 649.017 17.629 18.172.982.720 3.143 59.764 4.741 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 715 820 820 436 259 Wind 0 153 153 153 153 1.

138 26.42 0.113.961.06 PhP/kWh 3.66 358.23 3.897 155.539 185.35 0.37 0.01 0.00 1.2g: Generation Cost Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Generation Cost US$/kWh 0. Inc.178.00 0.69 2.301 985.29 2.05 3.68 11.122 1.702 32.05 3.2f: Environmental Emission per Unit Generation (tonne/GWh) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 340.39 0.160 25.35 0.599 168.475 31.06 0.275 1.34 0.45 308.979 29.602 SOX 159.01 0.363 29.731 171.38 3.40 0.737.05 0.06 0.02 0.442 21.151 243.48 2.107 Environmental Emissions CO 21.020 22.63 271.34 0.25 1.849 3.03 0.06 3.97 2.36 0.36 325.00 0.02 0.010 26.02 0.37 0.739 161.426 33.06 0.03 0.583 Particulates 19.424 859.48 1.90 288.39 Environmental Emissions CO CH 4 0.065 214.89 2.03 0.859 NOX 112.03 0.26 0.737 148.75 1.251 128.675 146.04 1.01 3.39 0.679 2.712 117.43 0.891 26.01 0.850 20.894 22.791.936.140 22.94 Particulates 0.00 0.013 1.241 28.06 0.546 150.529 26.06 0.24 2.00 NMVOC 0.02 0.93 1.64 5.154 2.02 10.01 0.12 3.988 213.03 0.06 0.362 23.937 148.810 2.54 261.55 338.927 20.778.462 27.54 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.125 985.03 0.03 N2O 0.84 3.06 0.008 2.13 SO X 2.89 2.289 159.407 2.982.52 NOX 2.41 10.33 0.150 312.073 N 2O 952 1.355 26.376 30.04 3.284 24.14 2.01 0.086 24.39 373.32 0.73 1.429 181.906 CH 4 282 314 346 379 423 389 418 444 462 492 NMVOC 1.581 1.528 26.41 0. UPEEE Foundation page 8 of 16 .2e: Environmental Emissions (tonne) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 18.223 151.676.311 525.00 0.06 0.01 2.373 2.973 28.249.692 27.03 0.157 2.852 Table D.10 3.15 3.03 0.35 0.78 346.30 0.21 Table D.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.03 0.966 32.113 232.63 1.23 0.

Inc. 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.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines APPENDIX D.

733 2.652 3.011 1.071 3.301 3.367 2.041 4.758 3.043 907 2.832 717 200 108 997 2.922 717 200 128 1.412 3.763 1.022 3.027 977 2.971 3.205 25 12.817 4.758 3.822 3.429 545 205 916 12 1.763 2.783 80 150 17.860 25 11.422 440 15.971 100 904 22.797 565 16.291 629 205 1.694 609 205 996 12 80 20 1.971 3.862 717 200 108 997 2.176 12 80 40 2.809 609 205 1.663 717 200 228 1.963 2.534 717 200 228 1.763 1. Inc.073 947 2.311 717 200 188 1.383 907 1.163 2.211 690 17.467 49 2.758 3.883 80 364 18.491 2.163 3.433 7.163 7.189 609 205 956 12 80 1.832 2.491 2.971 2.383 4.963 2.767 3.547 3.758 3.763 2.763 1.687 109 2.871 1.661 1.011 3.214 25 15.383 3.804 509 205 956 12 1.583 2.941 2.758 3.758 3.817 4.276 37 100 65 2.138 907 2.205 65 12.758 3.116 100 574 20.733 6.971 3.963 2.732 717 108 997 1.287 3.491 2.763 3.197 4.214 50 65 16.476 63 100 85 2.581 2.163 7.682 547 108 997 1.869 25 15.678 547 108 997 1.758 2.691 4.267 2.189 609 205 956 12 50 1.341 655 205 1.149 559 205 956 12 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 2.433 2.122 717 200 148 1.758 3.945 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.581 605 205 1.763 1.658 89 2.163 6.510 11.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.583 3.163 2.763 1.931 2.758 3.519 14.163 4.227 2.205 65 12.404 275 13.214 80 65 16.987 4.183 2.022 3.511 1.333 4.892 2.583 4.491 2.491 1.434 1.763 2.518 100 739 22.357 4.971 4.011 1.007 1.703 907 2. UPEEE Foundation page 10 of 16 .183 7.658 69 2.763 2.404 130 12.526 73 100 105 2.759 907 1.652 3.

324 6.650 79.106.258.484.907 937.465 37.649 6.585. UPEEE Foundation page 11 of 16 .110 2.519 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 14.893 7.704.263 72.640.963 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 2.315 118.664.672 938 Table D.891 11.722 2.107 4.065 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 14.471 Table D.694 2.146 29.033.458 14.585 685.108 20.695.859 3.745 912.163 30.084 17.218.749 2.000 684.964 26.458 Natural Gas 5.791 23.768 3.051 10.785.855.317 Total 55.496 5.859.602 17.252.578 19.891 8.407.252 2.000 15.858 1.320 681.226 7.3b: Annual Capacity Additions (MW) Year Oil-based Currently Installed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3.3c: Power Generation (GWh) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.130 20.916.932 7.672.964 Natural Gas 13.190 3.535 1.763 0 0 0 0 0 820 1.766 19.3d: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type (tonne) Year Oil-based 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.156.207 14.893 18.934 17.404 13.973 27.920.448 Hydro Biomass Wind Total 19.503 42.850 21.595 66.042 15.673 29.016 28. Inc.269 36.573 1.615 4.779 15.020 16.076 15.978 27.115 100.777 34.734.739 26.722 597.759 0 415 715 340 30 1.640.496 14.849 7.450 685.556 60.850 7.208 14.239 10.840.349 16.188.226.208.897.386 678.420 4.700 750 200 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 1.128.931 0 40 0 0 0 100 230 390 280 70 2.671 14.126 15.141.272 Fuel Type Geothermal 641.877 1.984 30.828.574 1.158 14.019 814.169 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.583 0 0 370 50 0 0 0 20 75 50 Coal 3.125.104 13.600 16.769 22.050.103 16.744.897.756 31.321 14.537 18.150 1.534.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.439 18.928.879 3.747 Coal 18.807 93.028 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 561 561 701 343 701 Wind 0 153 153 153 153 402 974 1.124 8.243 26.946 20.479 27.874 109.773.952 8.862.463 2.555.919 33.885 23.991 Coal 10.646 2.234.864 3.209 26.569.367 2.153 85.101 15.

03 0.885 23.04 0.428 38.169 S OX 167.90 406.494 23.03 0.01 0.45 0.0175 3.156.264 200.294 244.02 0.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.03 0. UPEEE Foundation page 12 of 16 .21 2.13 373.024 N 2O 970 1.12 2.141.71 8.546 36.755 181.04 0.620 4.268 674.51 0.269 36.430 43.01 0.151 31.672.596 2.0622 3.677 42.024 3.928.02 0.24 2.3f: Environmental Emission per Unit Generation (tonne/GWh) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 370.139 288.734 179.04 0.407.887 173.04 N2O 0.50 0.02 0.684 207.01 0.17 351.050.0555 0.559 3.186 1.506 45.617 413.862.421 Environmental Emissions CO 21.676 20.68 429.266 191.46 Table D.0549 0.97 1.01 0.16 2.1790 3.636 217.37 0.673 29.98 Environmental Emissions CO CH 4 0.099 Table D.344 45.3138 3.56 0.0554 0.06 NOX 2.343 31.44 0.50 0.10 2.07 9.30 3.0495 3.10 3.202 173.79 385.42 0.03 0.199 33.845 Particulates 19.54 367.166 37.15 2.359 842.44 0.274 3.733 174.0544 0.0541 0.3e: Environmental Emissions (tonne) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 19.4193 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.39 0.372 842.04 0.03 3.0542 0.0868 3.25 3.01 0.739 26.01 0.61 2.828.44 0.065 2.10 354.500 132.18 2.130 20.711 48.44 2.566 674.01 0.25 8.858 2.01 NMVOC 0.01 0.0561 0.447 153.686 239.43 0. Inc.41 0.38 0.859.163 30.984 30.307 2.0578 0.750 24.43 0.39 2.01 1.35 4.03 0.43 0.91 376.01 0.02 0.096 27.591 216.284 27.9785 2.377 1.9923 2.3g: Generation Cost Generation Cost US$/kWh PhP/kWh 0.055 1.02 8.0603 0.04 Particulates 0.32 2.18 351.69 4.304 36.42 0.756 31.272 41.873 215.916.38 0.777 34.101 CH 4 283 321 358 402 456 453 509 540 592 655 NMVOC 1.062 118.48 0.9744 3.599 1.0536 2.41 SO X 3.389 NOX 111.099 214.

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

022 3.832 717 200 108 997 2.860 25 11.540 152 2.871 1.214 50 65 16.491 2.863 609 205 996 22 80 30 1.265 12.682 547 108 997 1.741 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.333 1.971 3.180 2.491 1.652 3.763 907 1.460 3.758 3.189 609 205 956 12 80 1.519 14.687 12 336 3.163 2.063 2.205 65 12.759 2.983 2.205 65 12.561 4.869 25 15.758 2.197 4. UPEEE Foundation page 14 of 16 .063 947 2.758 3.783 977 2. Inc.022 3.155 125 2.763 1.163 3.122 717 200 148 1.765 95 609 205 1.346 73 100 314 2.214 80 65 16.073 3.758 3.214 25 15.404 15 3.687 262 3.547 3.971 3.656 510 205 1.211 25 3.527 17.491 2.291 609 205 1.661 1.163 4.763 1.267 2.763 907 2.687 186 2.758 3.510 11.991 4.124 18.865 15.163 5.011 3.041 22.163 2.862 717 200 108 997 2.971 137 3.971 2.763 1.238 4.966 95 Visayas 771 1.297 5.096 22 80 110 2.652 3.942 717 200 128 1.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.221 3.715 23.429 545 205 916 12 1.583 3.931 2.817 4.205 25 12.605 5.336 717 200 188 1.491 2.978 2.404 15 4.557 125 3.822 3.797 25 2.757 2.767 3.163 5.333 2.963 2.189 609 205 956 12 50 1.011 1.723 13.841 4.163 3.703 2.758 3.763 907 2.817 4.337 4.963 2.758 3.094 2.476 73 100 314 2.987 4.149 559 205 956 12 1.491 2.227 2.333 2.690 510 205 1.963 2.4a: Installed Capacity (MW) Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Luzon Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind LUZON TOTAL Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind VISAYAS TOTAL Oil-based Coal Mindanao Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind MINDANAO TOTAL Oil-based Coal Philippines Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind PHILIPPINES TOTAL Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.804 509 205 956 12 1.971 3.011 1.146 47 100 230 2.548 665 1.763 1.281 20.043 2.238 4.422 25 1.763 907 2.763 907 1.763 1.548 717 200 228 1.333 1.287 3.339 76 2.758 3.983 1.465 16.071 3.758 3.678 717 200 228 1.783 2.758 3.138 2.678 547 108 997 1.732 717 108 997 1.065 17.

407.585 685.288.104 20.850 7.012 Natural Gas 13.538 4.4b: Annual Capacity Additions (MW) Year Oil-based* Currently Installed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3.124 8.332 919.443.045 26.234.030 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 666 666 876 876 960 Wind 0 153 153 153 153 2.479 10.883 9.216 11.874 109.101 15.243 26.126 15.746.862.193 6.739 26.193 16.326.859 4.549 6.644 34.419 14.239 10.315 24.142 29.326.932 7.290 36.519 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 2.209.897.496 5.931 0 40 0 0 0 100 150 340 280 150 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 2.973 769.000 15.978 26.650 79.639 Fuel Type Geothermal 641.084 17.595 66.000 684.556 60.106.207 14.062 2.484.578 19.315 118.020 16.398.450 685.867 Coal 10.349 16.511.016 17.317 16.200 350 0 1.960 19.080 6.722 2.130 20.840.953 Geothermal 14.104 13.893 7.036.956.418 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.534.095 7.226 7.885 23.292 2.919 Hydro Biomass Wind Total 19.768 3.916.426 20.109 8.527.722 597.153 85.125.051 9.953 36.583 0 0 370 50 0 621 582 549 595 529 Coal 3.263 72.409 3.471 Table D.600 Coal 18.387 1.984 30.891 11.891 8.4d: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.508 29.779 Total Addition *includes capacities of diesel engines used as ancillary to wind power plants Table D.704.186 2.439 18.650.897.633.744.865.320 681.791 21.942 19.993 Natural Gas 5.639 16.076 15.239 21.060 4.963 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 2.630.382 1.807 93.760 23. UPEEE Foundation page 15 of 16 .252. Inc.471 3.814.952 8.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.664.849 7.050.828.014 17.734.615 4.735 12.091 33.779 15.016 28.118 31.850 21.763 0 0 0 0 0 300 720 1.653 Total 55.258.4c: Power Generation (GWh) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.335.708.673 28.107 6.618.103 11.538 2.115 13.190 3.158 14.324 6.298.115 100.170 867.420 4.208.386 649.893 18.963 22.263 Fuel Type Hydro 6.042 14.864 3.

294 38.679 188.42 0. Inc.0542 0.02 0.596 2.44 2.02 10.096 27.13 373.60 0.03 0.686 246.48 0.447 153.0536 2.79 1.0544 0.984 30.25 3.676 20.4g: Generation Cost Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Generation Cost US$/kWh 0.69 4.45 0.355 Table D.54 Table D.01 0.738 45.500 132.03 SO X 3.644 34.0555 0.511.062 118.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.0593 0.32 2.118 31.785 1.38 0.79 385.073 174.508 29.377 1.52 329.03 0.2638 3.04 0.887 168.01 0.212 174.740 1.42 0.750 24.81 2.739 26.0670 PhP/kWh 3.68 429.199 32.343 31.50 0.0549 0.18 2.264 200.01 0.485 45.151 31.566 800.9923 2.0554 0.374 800.052.47 0.30 3.248 42.0175 3.055 1.90 406.44 0.418 SOX 167.065 2.03 0.479 3.916.546 36.03 3.34 9.0495 3.51 0.40 0.814.771 3.41 0.186 1.03 0.673 28.02 0.6854 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.68 10.01 0.91 372.263 44.997 56.04 0.16 2.599 1.465 36.720 234.53 0.438 1.862.01 0.052.39 0.97 319.02 0.9785 3.153.31 358.294 244.19 2.036.733 174.654 Environmental Emissions CO 21.58 11. UPEEE Foundation page 16 of 16 .777 Particulates 19.4f: Environmental Emission per Unit Generation (tonne/GWh) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 370.885 23.0575 0.38 0.746.430 46.515 212.01 0.284 27.754 NOX 111.407.03 0.4234 3.882 164.858 2.10 3.750 N 2O 970 1.494 23.258 34.01 0.4e: Environmental Emissions (tonne) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 19.09 329.09 1.82 1.1607 3.828.00 1.196 3.202 173.37 0.40 0.142 29.01 NMVOC 0.0550 0.04 N2O 0.82 11.00 Particulates 0.03 Environmental Emissions CO CH 4 0.956.02 0.04 0.106 170.03 0.050.139 288.307 2.0228 3.75 2.01 0.12 2.425 2.41 0.18 2.67 NOX 2.291 CH 4 283 321 358 402 456 439 479 517 559 634 NMVOC 1.625 166.130 20.44 0.01 0.0622 0.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful