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

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

....4 Figure 4.......................................7 Figure 4..........................1 Figure 4.......................1 Figure 3.3 Figure 3................53 Fossil Fuel Consumption for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario........................................................................................39 Electricity Generation by Grid...................45 Energy Mix and Carbon Dioxide Emissions.......................49 Generation under the Low Economic Growth Scenario...................6 Figure 3..27 Electricity Consumption by Sector................2 Figure 4........................................................................................4 Figure 3.......................9 Figure 4............................................................................... 1999-2001 ................................................... 19912001......................................8 Figure 4.........39 Electricity Consumption......................................56 Generation under the High Economic Growth Scenario.......................................5 Figure 3...................55 Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario...40 System Peak by Grid......... Inc........................................44 Share of Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy in the Energy Mix..................3 Figure 4............................................... 1991-2001 ..................................................................58 Figure 4........... 1999-2001 .............. 1991-2001.................................................43 Energy Mix..................9 Figure 4......................................45 National Energy Planning Process .........57 DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the High Economic Growth Scenario ...........................23 Practical Small Hydro Resources in the Philippines................. Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario...........1 Figure 2..... 19992001....................2 Figure 3................... 1991-2001 ...............................50 DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the Low Economic Growth Scenario.................POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.....................53 Coal and Oil-Based vs.....................5 Practical Wind Resources in the Philippines ... 2001........2 Figure 3........................ UPEEE Foundation page iii ......................41 Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type...................51 Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario..............40 Total Installed Generating Capacity by Source.............7 Figure 3..........................59 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.............8 Figure 3... 1999-2001...... Gross Domestic Product and Population..........................................6 Figure 4.........10 Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario.......

................................................67 CO2 Emissions for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario.......... Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario................................12 Energy Mix for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario.....................................................................................................POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Figure 4.........................................4 Figure 5.......................................................................................... Inc........................60 Figure 4....................................60 Figure 4.......73 Figure 5...........70 Figure 5....................................................................20 CO2 Emissions for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario..............................67 Installed Generating Capacity for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario........... UPEEE Foundation page iv .................3 Figure 5.............77 Figure 5.................74 Figure 5......13 Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario..8 Figure 5................................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......12 Fossil Fuel Consumption for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario.....................................77 Figure 5............66 Coal and Oil-Based vs..2 Figure 5................................................................74 Figure 5......................................78 Figure 5...........11 Installed Generating Capacity for the HEGS-MWPP Scenario.............75 Figure 5.79 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas....................6 Figure 5....................................................................19 Fuel Consumption for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario.......... Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario ......15 CO2 Emissions for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario...............................................14 Fossil Fuel Consumption for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario...10 CO2 Emissions for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario ..................66 Fossil Fuel Consumption for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario........17 Energy Mix for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario .13 Coal and Oil-Based vs....69 Coal and Oil-Based vs......................................65 Energy Mix for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario .......................... Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario ...........7 Figure 5.....................9 Installed Generating Capacity for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario....................18 Coal and Oil-Based vs........5 Figure 5.............................................73 Figure 5.........................................16 Installed Generating Capacity for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario......62 Figure 5...............70 Fossil Fuel Consumption for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario......71 Figure 5.............69 Energy Mix for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario ........................................................... Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario ..........1 Figure 5..............................

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

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

UPEEE Foundation page vii . 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.

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

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

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

Screening curves (costs per kWh vs.550 700 – 900 550 – 650 1.500 1. $/MWh 41.68 Table 1.04 49.8174 3.250 2.1: 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.0625 0. capacity factor) were developed based on the life cycle of each power generation technology and the four economic factors mentioned above.8236 4.500 700 – 900 Annual Fixed O & M Cost. $/kWa 850 – 1.2: 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 0.1 below shows the costs used in this study.000 – 3.0512 0. and (d) the level of generation (also called capacity factor). Table 1.10 11.000 – 1.200 – 1. market risks. (c) fuel cost.0405 0. UPEEE Foundation page 2 .3644 6. Actual industry discount rates may be higher depending on the following factors: required equity return.0794 0.56 73.750 – 1.000 450 .5219 1 A discount rate of 12% was used to derive levelized generation costs.1101 0.2277 1.0405 0.0602 2.800 1.750 – 1. regulatory risks.2282 2. Inc.93 32.12 0 0 3. $/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.40 9.150 – 1. (b) operation and maintenance cost.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.1059 0.0193 0.400 1.0557 2. years 30 20 20 20 30 30 20 50 30 50 20 Investment Cost. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. including: (a) investment cost.2282 2. Table 1.4376 12.53 0 36.800 1.7153 5.0494 0. country risks and availability of financing.

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

308 MW. UPEEE Foundation page 4 . local natural gas production would be supplemented by imported natural gas. Of all the biomass resources in the country. This include considering only sites with power density of at least 500 W/m2. with a combined estimated reserves of 2.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 195. The application of the second criterion further reduced the number of sites to 1. This potential is spread all over the country where sugar centrals are situated. Only those sites whose connection (i. construction of transmission lines) will cost up to 25% of the total life-cycle cost were considered.731 billion cubic feet (BCF). the UPSL identified 236 small hydro sites in the country with an aggregated capacity of about 2. the most significant of which is that found in Malampaya and San Martin in Palawan. an estimated capacity of 1. If this pushes through. Other biomass resources are still facing problems or issues like collection. Additional screening criteria were imposed to determine practical and viable wind power sites. A re-analysis of the NREL small hydro resource assessment was also conducted.038 with 7. In addition to existing geothermal power facilities. limiting the transmission investment cost to 25% of total investment cost) resulted to the elimination of three sites from the small hydro resource pool.935 GWh annually can be obtained from additional verified geothermal sites in the Philippines. which generated a total of 10..442 GWh. For the purposes of this study.404 MW potential. total geothermal installed capacity amounted to 1.931 MW.e.200 GWh of electricity per year. This accounts for 14% and 22% of the total installed capacity and total generation. The Philippines power sector largely depends on geothermal energy to meet the demand and energy requirements of the country. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Inc.200 MW that could generate about 8. This first criterion reduced the number of wind sites to 2. storage. and competing uses to be viable for large-scale power generation. cost and environmental emissions. 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.092 with an aggregate potential of 14. respectively in the country.3 Historical Performance of the Philippine Power Sector The performance (in terms of reliability. Using the second screening criterion similar to that use in the wind resource assessment. A few natural gas finds in the Philippines have been made. (i. UPSL considered only bagasse from sugarcane processing as practical resource for grid connection.. UPSL estimates the electric power potential of bagasse at 235. A second criterion that relates to grid connection costs was also used. The Philippine government is considering plans to develop a local natural gas industry.771 to 4.) of the Philippine power sector from the period beginning 1991 to 2001 was also assessed in this study.323 MW.e. In 2001. 1.7 MW. Selecting only the sites with capacities of 5 MW or more as criterion. a re-analysis of the NREL wind mapping data was conducted.

In order to meet the growing demand for electricity. The analysis has shown that the generating facilities in the early 1990’s were performing very badly from the point of view of reliability. The industrial and residential sectors.. are the biggest users of electricity. For purposes of this study. The interruptions that the country has been experiencing can be attributed to the unreliable transmission and distribution systems and their operations. the reserve margin (i. 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. the installed generating capacity in the country doubled in 11 years with 6. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Historical Cost Performance This study also assessed the power development in the Philippines by analyzing the cost of electricity.7% annually for the 11-year period. the Luzon Grid has a share of 36. that the industrial sector demand grew only by 5. Bulk of the energy demand and consequently the generation comes from the main island of Luzon. the energy demand in the country was distributed among the three (3) main islands of Luzon. accounting for 31% and 29% energy share for the year 2001. The rest are attributed to own use. Historical Reliability Performance To analyze the reliability performance of the power system in the Philippines. losses and miscellaneous uses.5% while that of the residential sector grew by 11. It should be noted however. that the generating capacity of the power system in the Philippines can be considered highly reliable.e. from mid 1990’s onward. respectively.3% annually from 1991 to 2001. these rates were unbundled into 76% and 24% for generation and transmission.402 MW in 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).184 GWh of the total 47. Geographically. UPEEE Foundation page 5 .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 8.789 MW in 1991 to 13.A. 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. In 2001 for example. Inc. The commercial sector accounts for 21% of the total consumption for 2001. It can be concluded. However. therefore. Visayas and Mindanao share the remaining balance almost equally. respectively. Visayas and Mindanao. generating capacity compared to the system peak) from 1991 to 2001 was determined from historical data. the Philippines power sector performance went to the other extreme of having excessive capacity compared to the demand. It was noted that the rates of NPC is for its bundled generation and transmission services.049 GWh energy generation which represents 77% of the requirements of the country. The rates of NPC appear to be increasing annually except for the year 2001 when R.

00 per kWh. particularly those owned by electricity distributors like Manila Electric Company (MERALCO). coal contribution increased more than fivefold. there is difference of PhP 1.00 per kWh. For the CO2 emissions.9% in 1991 to 21. Looking into the energy mix to link the environmental performance of the power sector. In addition. which emits more greenhouse gases. it can be concluded that that non-renewable energy have remained greatly dominant over renewable energy as source of fuel for power generation. Accounting the changes in oil and coal. This scenario allowed the continued dominance of non-renewable fuels.279 tons in 1991 to 10. 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. which range from PhP 4.471. 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. coal power plants are the major contributors.082. the shift is only towards the use of coal.665 tons in 2001. decreased by 21 percent from its level of 9. the net increase in CO2 for the 11-year period is 73%.338. Inc. Clearly. and not towards the utilization of renewable resources. The share of non-renewable sources in the energy mix even increased from 57.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.00 to PhP 3.541 tons in 1991 to 7.9% in 2001.00 to PhP 6. many power plants were installed even though there were already excess generation capacity in the system. renewable hydro share decreased from 20% to 5% over the same period. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. UPEEE Foundation page 6 . However. CO2 emissions from oil-based power plants. 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. Its contribution increased almost ten times from 1.49% in 1991 to 62. particularly the NPC. This explains why the emissions of the power sector almost doubled in only 11 years.236. 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.71% in 2001. generation share from oil-based power plants declined from 49. 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.222 tons in 2001. on the other hand. Over the period considered. from 8% in 1991 to 40% in 2001. It is also worthwhile to note that with the existence of the Non-NPC IPPs (permitted to operate through Executive Order 215).

The environmental emissions resulting from DOE’s generation plan for the low economic growth scenario would result in an increase in CO2. Geothermal plants will contribute only 2%. 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. shows that energy generation will increase by 93% (55. The increase in demand will be met mostly by increases in coal power plants (3. UPEEE Foundation page 7 . 124. The increase in the share of renewable energy generating capacity will come from a 795 MW large hydro. 65 MW wind and a 40 MW geothermal capacity additions.632 GW for 2003 will increase to 20. with the continued dominance of coal plants.828 million (UPSL estimate at 2002 present value). environmental emissions and costs were calculated similar to that of the historical performance assessment. Reliability. on the other hand will increase by 24%. this scenario would require 124. based on the low economic growth projections of NEDA.4 Scenarios under the Philippine Energy Plan 2003 . Capacity additions. The contribution of non-renewable energy sources to the energy mix. the reserve in 2003 will be 66%. 24% and 4%. the planned capacity additions will result in high reserve margins. PDP for the Low Economic Growth Scenario The PEP. No additional capacity addition for natural gas is expected in the period.500 MW) and oilbased plants (1. To meet the energy requirements.2012 The prospective performance of the Philippine Power Sector was also assessed based on the Philippine Energy Plan 2003 – 2012 prepared published by the Department of Energy. Total CO2 emissions for the DOE plan for the low economic growth scenario is 309. respectively for year 2003. 91. SOx and other emissions.263 billion cubic feet (BCF) of natural gas. This scenario will require $ 29.142 GWh in 2003 to 106.3 million tonnes. While the generation cost for this scenario is estimated at PhP 3.706 MW by 2012. it is still unrealistic to expect that cost of electricity in the Philippines in the near term will decrease under this scenario. Although this is expected to decline to 22% by 2012.368 million in abatement cost. operations and maintenance and fuel would require a total cost $ 23. renewable energy’s share will decrease to only 22% in 2012. For example.57% annually. Total installed capacity of 14. Of these amounts. Inc. From a share of 37% in 2003.9 million tonnes of coal and 1. natural gas and oil-based sources in the energy mix which is 34%.430 GWh in 2012) over the entire period at an average rate of 7. respectively.16/kWh.5 million barrels fuel oil equivalent (MMBFOE) of oil. The increase in the use of coal will account to contributing 55% of the total CO2 emissions for the period.5 MMBFOE of oil and 80. In terms of reliability. These emissions will be the direct result of the share of coal.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 1. Oil-based and natural gas plants will contribute 17% and 26% to the CO2 emissions.2 million tonnes of coal would have to be imported.775 MW). University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.

within the planning period. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. . nor the scenario for the low economic growth. capacity addition and utilization of renewable energy (geothermal. Total installed capacity of wind power plants is allowed to reach a maximum of 5% of the peak demand. Inc. These strategies are the following: • Moderate Clean Power Development (CCPD) Plan In this plan. and will require $ 32. 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. increasing by 195% from 2003 to 2012. The following performance indicators can be expected if this scenario push through: a) Installed capacity: 14. UPEEE Foundation page 8 . wind and hydro power) and natural gas plants are given priority over that of non-renewable plants for power generation. greenhouse emissions is expected to further soar.556 GWh in 2003 to 118.470 GWh in 2012 (213% increase for the 10-year period) c) Reserve Margin: d) Energy Mix: 25% (minimum) to 65% (maximum) Coal Oil R.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. 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.37% in 2003 decrease to 20% in 2012 Natural gas .E.5% in 2003 increase to 16% in 2012 . PDP for the High Economic Growth Scenario The DOE also prepared a power development plan based on high economic growth projections of NEDA. Notably.16% in 2003 increase to 47% in 2012 . 1.756 MW in 2012 (56% increase for the 10-year period) b) Energy generation: 55.632 MW in 2003 to 22.995 million in abatement cost.5 Clean Power Development Options for the Philippines Using the clean energy technologies and resources.24% in 2003 decrease to 17% in 2012 With the continuous decline in the share of renewable energy. biomass. Analysis of the PEP under this scenario indicates that the plan is also a business-as-usual plan that will perform no better than the historical performance of the Philippine power sector.

The share of coal and oil in the mix will be reduced by about 11% at the end of the period. Moderate Clean Power Development (MCPD) Plan To meet the demand of the Low Economic Growth Scenario. that these reserve margins do not take into account the ancillary diesel engines.983 MW in 2012). UPEEE Foundation page 9 . The natural gas contribution will also increase from 24% to 31%. This will translate to a 72% total share of clean energy in the energy mix by 2012. Cost penalties for intermittent power plant capacity beyond 5% (based on peak demand) was also imposed to account for the additional ancillary services. It was assumed in these plans that the local natural gas industry will be able to supply fuel for up to 3. Note. only the power development plan to meet the Low Economic Growth Scenario of the PEP 2003 – 2012 is presented. The share of renewable energy in the energy mix will increase from 37% to 41%. this plan will save $235 million in the planning period. This plan will reduce the GHG emissions and abatement costs for the Low GDP Scenario by 14% and 21%.6 million tonnes. from the period 2003 to 2012. which is PhP 3.763 MW in 2003 to 5.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines • Aggressive Clean Power Development (ACDP) Plan For this plan. O&M and fuel costs.16/kWh. this plan will increase the renewable energy plant installed capacity by 95% (from 4. the capacity additions starts only in 2008. Inc. as compared with the PEP. the strategy is to utilize all the practical renewable energy resources where possible without caps. In this summary.685 MW in 2012) and the natural gas plant capacity by 117% (from 2. Considering the investment. For all the plans. the 2003 to 2007 capacity additions were based solely on the PEP list of committed projects. respectively. however.12/kWh. Assuming a five-year lead-time for the planning to commissioning of the additional power plants.450 MW in 2003 to 8. The plans that correspond to the High Economic Growth Scenario are detailed in Chapter 5. The percentage installed reserve margin for the years 2008 onwards is kept as close as possible to the corresponding PEP reserve margins for comparison. This average generation cost is even cheaper than that of the PEP Low GDP scenario. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. This translates to a 69% total installed capacity for the combined natural gas and renewable energy plants.000 GWh annually) for the next twenty years. Total CO2 reduction as compared with the PEP is 44.800MW natural gas power plants (maximum generation of 23.592 million and the average generation cost is PhP 3. The total cost calculated for this plan is $23. which serve as frequency regulating plants for the wind power plants. 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 share of renewables in the energy mix will increase from 37% to 48%.17/kWh.520 MW in 2012) and the natural gas plant capacity by 95% (from 2. this plan will cost an additional $41M in the planning period compared to the PEP low GDP plan. as was done in this study.16/kWh but five centavos (PhP 0. The natural gas contribution will also increase from 24% to 31%. 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. This is comparable to the PEP Low GDP scenario. from the period 2003 to 2012. the ACPD plan will increase the renewable energy plant installed capacity by 159% (from 4. This translates to a 79% total installed capacity for the combined natural gas and renewable energy plants. which is PhP 3. natural gas importation may be pursued. At the current CO2 prices ($5 per tonne) in the market.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. To avoid significant amounts of GHG emissions in the future. Considering the investment. 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. The share of coal and oil in the mix will be reduced by about 20% at the end of the period. it fails to consider the implications of the activities in this sector to the environment that could even be more important if only the externalities will be considered in the economics of energy supply. Inc. wind and natural gas technologies.383 MW in 2012). In addition. The total cost calculated for this plan is $23.$10 per tonne. While the PEP has tried to address these problems. new natural gas sites must be identified and developed.67/tonne of CO2. There are even opportunities that can create additional dollar income from carbon trading and local employment.881 million and the average generation cost is PhP 3. With the current price of CO2 at $2 .05) per kWh more expensive than the Moderate Clean Power Development Plan due to the additional ancillary services for the intermittent wind power supply. the country has to resort to biomass. This plan will reduce the GHG emissions and abatement costs under the PEP Low GDP Scenario by 18% and 27%. respectively. This translates to a mitigation cost of $0.763 MW in 2003 to 5.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. small hydro. O&M and fuel costs. This will translate to a 79% total share of clean energy in the energy mix by 2012. This study also offers two alternative paths (moderate and aggressive) through the alternative clean power development plans. this plan will create an opportunity for the country in the carbon market. 1. UPEEE Foundation page 10 . To support power switching.

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

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

094 100. UPEEE Foundation page 13 . accounts for more than thirty (30) percent as a result of the burning of fossil fuels.497 15.529 2 N2O 717 40 347 43 0 285 3 Total 49. the energy sector accounted for 50. as shown in Table 2. the power sub-sector represents a large opportunity for carbon emissions reduction and sequestration. Coal Mining 2. Table 2.335 10.403 31.335 15. Fugitive Emissions from Fuels 1.130 7.774 55.801 3. mainly the power industry.548 ktonnes of CO2 for the Energy Industries for the year 1994. Commercial/Institutional 5.038 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.2.185 3 CH4 1. or roughly 47 percent.157 CH4 1.596 0 -2.190 226.359 1.980 15. Transport 4.544 1.1. Manufacturing Industries 3.72 9. The UPSL came up with 13.985 7 20. given that clean energy technologies and resources are available.369 4.87 227 217 10 50.800 6. Of the energy sector GHG emissions.738 ktonnes.140 2. Oil TOTAL EQUIVALENT CO2 EMISSIONS * does not include emissions from biomass Source: The Philippines’ Initial National Communication on Climate Change CO2 47. Agriculture B.038 ktonnes of the 100.59 216.1: 1994 Philippine Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector (equivalent ktonne CO2) SECTOR Energy Industry Agriculture Waste Land Use & Forestry TOTAL EQUIVALENT CO2 EMISSIONS CO2 47.603 33.335 N2O 717 0 12. Although it ranks only second to the transport in terms of GHG emissions. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.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. the energy industries. Fuel Combustion Activities 1.368 2.094 7.246 Total 50.738 Source: The Philippines’ Initial National Communication on Climate Change Table 2. of total net GHG emissions in the country.890 3.811 15. In 1994.330 954 245 14. Energy Industries 2.509 9. as shown from Table 2.038 10.759 11 170 45 1 1.458 8. Inc.2: 1994 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Philippine Energy Sector* (equivalent ktonne CO2) SECTOR A. Residential 6.

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

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

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

Geothermal energy refers to the heat stored in the rocks within the earth. Silting Social Impacts A major negative social impact of large hydro projects is the dislocation of population. In the Philippines.000 dams all over the world. 3. UPEEE Foundation page 17 . biomass energy is a renewable resource that can be used for base load electric generation.however. Rearrangement of water resources d. Increase in water pollution e. the frequency of disasters involving dams is 1 disaster for every 120. Geothermal Energy. Among them are: Ecological Effects a. Inc. high efficiencies. associated with a number of negative impacts. Geothermal energy is not entirely GHG emissions-free. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. In places where the earth’s heat flow is concentrated. Various hydro projects in the Philippines have dislocated thousands.000 dam years. 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. Displacement/wiping out of plant and animal species f. Landscape destruction b. long life and high levels of reliability. but it emits far less greenhouse gases as compared to fossil fuel-based counterparts. this energy may be harnessed in the form of steam or hot water. Like hydro and geothermal power. little maintenance. 4. which can subsequently be used for power generation. Destruction of fish habitat and fisheries c.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Hydro power facilities offer other benefits such as low generation costs. Biomass Energy. They are – large hydro in particular . the Agno River Basin Development Program resulted in the loss of hectares of Ibaloy ancestral lands and the subsequent dissolution of several Ibaloy communities. With about 15. Speculation also arise that dams cause earthquakes in its surrounding areas. The alteration of the local ecosystem also resulted in the loss of resource base. 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 per installed kilowatt. UPEEE Foundation page 18 . coal is still widely used around the world for power generation because it is abundant and cheap. however. distributed energy technologies are small and modular.000 per kilowatt of installed capacity. • Distributed energy technologies Unlike centralized generating units. Inc. as the name implies. to generate high enough temperatures to heat and boil water to drive steam engines. convert solar energy directly to electricity in a solid-state device called the solar cell. 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. Despite its unfavorable environmental reputation. Photovoltaics. less GHG and air pollutant emissions.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 5. concentrates the power of the sun. which is the form of fuel required for the electrochemical reaction to take place. 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. with sizes ranging from a few kilowatts to a few megawatts. integrated gasification combustion cycle (IGCC) systems and coal-fueled diesel engines. Solar Energy. Newer plants are actually achieving efficiencies greater than forty percent. Costs are prohibitive. ranging from $2. For most fuel cells. • Gas turbines Current gas turbine plants have efficiencies of around thirty percent. which. Clean coal technologies are costly. Solar radiation may be converted to electricity by using solar thermal engines or photovoltaic cells. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. on the other hand. These include fluidized bed systems such as pressurized fluidized bed combustion (PFBC) and circulating fluidized bed combustion (CFBC). and thus. • Fuel cells Fuel cells are devices that convert fuel and oxygen to electricity and heat by means of an electrochemical reaction. sometimes requiring around $3.000 to $4. • 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. Solar thermal engines make use of solar concentration systems. But since this type of plant is normally used for peak load applications. this would have a relatively low impact on emissions reduction. Greater local control of the system and waste heat utilization lead to higher energy efficiencies. 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. hydrocarbon fuels need to undergo a process of reforming to produce hydrogen. Many such technologies have been demonstrated in various countries but still remain not widely used because its high investment costs are quite prohibitive.

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

Inc. these sites could support at least 76. Palawan.000 GWh/yr. 14 UNIDO. Financial and Economic Implications of Wind Energy Applications for Power Generation. The study. capacity/km = 6.2 Resource Assessment The technologies described above would be rendered useless without the energy resource required to run them. Wind Power The wind resource analysis and mapping study for the Philippine archipelago conducted by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) shows that the country has plentiful wind electric potential. rotor diameter = 38 m. 6.600 MW of installed capacity and generate 195. Negros.34% of total Philippine land area. 3. occupying a total area of 11. 2. Samar. which will then be subsequently used for the generation of power switching scenarios. The NREL study identified six regions in the country where the best wind resource in the country are located. well-exposed east-facing coastal locations from northern Luzon southward to Samar.600 MW bringing the total estimated power generation from wind to 361. between Mindoro and Panay (including the Semirara Islands and extending to the Cuyo Islands). was not able to include factors such as transmission and grid accessibility constraints in the assessment. Mindoro. Cebu. the Batanes and Babuyan islands of north Luzon. Panay. 12 In one of the NREL scenarios. Leyte.055 km2 or roughly 3. the higher interior terrain of Luzon. amounting to 97.4 m/s or greater). 4. the northwest tip of Luzon (Ilocos Norte). turbine spacing = 10D by 5D. and adjacent islands. The following sections will quantify the amount of clean energy resources in the Philippines. 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. UPEEE Foundation page 20 2 . would more than double total installed capacity to 173. hub height = 40 2 m. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.9 MW. 5.equivalent to an annual average wind power of 300 W/m2 or greater12 (wind speeds of 6. however. In contrast to the optimistic estimate of the NREL. 13 Assumptions used by NREL to come up with estimates are: 500 kW turbine size.200 GWh/yr. These are: 1.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 2.000 sites in the country. Including sites with moderate wind resource levels. the wind corridors between Luzon and Mindoro (including Lubang Island). eastern Mindanao. (1994). Assessment of Technical. with good to excellent resource levels . 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 MW14.000 installed capacity. The NREL study identified around 10. According to the study13.

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

381 35.865 Mindanao 64 66 455 1. km 2 Potential installed capacity.3 and 2.4 summarize the results of the re-analysis.527 7.092. The first criteria reduced the number of wind sites to 2.668 1.699 Table 2. Table 2.1. 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.738 Mindanao 47 49 336 1.400 MW potential.277 Visayas 305 330 2. MWe Estimated Annual Generation.168 6. This distance was multiplied by a factor of 1. UPEEE Foundation page 22 . with an aggregate potential of 14.5 to adjust for topography and other factors that may affect the routing of the transmission system. Tables 2.397 Philippines 2.132 7.363 MW. Locations of these sites are shown in Figure 2. km 2 Potential installed capacity. GWh/yr Luzon 1. Appendix A identifies the provinces where these wind resources are located. 2. as well as its corresponding estimated electric capacity and annual generation. a re-analysis of the NREL data was conducted by the UPSL using the following criteria to screen for viable wind power sites: 1.755 11.092 2. To compute for transmission cost. Inc.206 14.363 44.404 23.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines For the purposes of the present study. The application of the second criteria further reduced the number of sites to 1.032 Philippines 1.900 15. the UPSL computed for the linear distance between the wind site and the nearest existing substation. GWh/yr University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.4: Practical Wind Resources in the Philippines (with wind power density ≥ 500 W/m2 and transmission cost constraint) Luzon 686 753 4. Power density of at least 500 W/m2.038 1.3: Philippine Wind Electric Potential (with wind power density ≥ 500 W/m2) Number of sites Total area.437 Visayas 360 385 2. MWe Estimated Annual Generation.038 with 7.047 Number of sites Total area.

POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Luzon Number of sites: 686 Potential Installed Capacity: 4.738 GWh Mindanao Number of sites: 47 Potential Installed Capacity: 336 MWe Estimated Annual Generation: 1.168 MWe Estimated Annual Generation: 6. UPEEE Foundation page 23 . Inc.277 GWh Visayas Number of sites: 305 Potential Installed Capacity: 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.900 MWe Estimated Annual Generation: 15.

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. UPEEE Foundation page 24 .. a number of large hydro sites in country to be used as candidate power plants for energy planning. Kalayaan and San Roque. 16 Two of these sites. These resulted to the elimination of three sites from the small hydro resource pool. This water may then be used to augment supply during low flow periods and thus ensure a relatively constant supply of power. the UPSL identified 239 small hydro sites in the country with an aggregated capacity of about 2. The UPSL made a re-analysis of the small17 hydro resource assessment made by the NREL. Tables 2. a total of 2. make use of the natural flow of a rivers as head.8. selecting sites with capacities of 5 MW or more.104 GWh.6 and 2.518 MW of hydro power is installed in the Philippines. These hydro power facilities range in size from 1 to 360 MW and includes reservoir type (dams) and run-of-river systems15. An additional screening criterion was used.7 shows the results of the application of the criteria mentioned above. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Inc. 15 Impoundment dams involve the impounding of a large volume of water in or upstream of power plants by use of reservoirs or dams. Run-of-river systems. are committed projects. 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. on the other hand. while Figure 2. with an annual production of 7. 17 As per WEC definition. In addition to the existing hydro power generation facilities. By the end of 2001. i.e.5 lists down identified sites for large hydro16. The DOE has verified a number of these small hydro sites. Using this criterion.2 shows the location of the sites selected. Table 2. as listed in Table 2.327 MW.

338.189. UPEEE Foundation page 25 .140.3 to 3.9 3. Inc.8 Province Estimated Capacity (MW) 60 46 360 13.3 Negros Oriental Negros Oriental Aklan Antique 33 17.6 93 45 175 24 332 350 113 12 52 to 250 45 42 34 345 27 21 2.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2.6 to 2.9 44 300 68 841.8 29 29 108.6 Isabela Quirino Apayao Mindoro Oriental Benguet Benguet Abra Mindoro Oriental Quirino Laguna Quezon Ifugao Ifugao Benguet Kalinga Apayao Kalinga Pangasinan Kalinga Kalinga TOTAL PHILIPPINES University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.387.5: Available Large Hydro Resources Site LUZON Abuan Addalam Agbulo Aglubang Amburayan Bakun A/B Binongan Catuiran Diduyun Kalayaan PS Kanan Lamut Matuno Nalatang Pasil B/C Saltan A/B San Roque Tanudan D Tinglayan B Total Luzon VISAYAS Pacuan Sicopong Timbaban Villasiga Total Visayas MINDANAO Agus III Bulanog-Batang Lanon Hydro Lake Mainit Liangan Pugo D/BA Pulangi V Tagoloan Total Mindanao Lanao del Norte Bukidnon South Cotabato Agusan del Norte Lanao del Norte Agusan North Cotabato Bukidnon 225 150 21 22 11.

0 4.0 5.291 6.140 Philippines 239 2.0 4. GWh/yr Table 2.8 44. Inc.0 3.308 12. MWe Estimated Annual Generation.0 4. MWe Estimated Annual Generation.327 12.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2.0 1. UPEEE Foundation page 26 .8 7.140 Philippines 236 2. GWh/yr Table 2.6 28.7: Practical Small Hydro Resources in the Philippines (sites with power capacity ≥ 5 MW and transmission cost constraint) Luzon 131 1.272 6.231 Number of sites Potential installed capacity.0 1.686 Visayas 9 58 305 Mindanao 96 978 5.786 Visayas 9 58 305 Mindanao 96 978 5.6: Philippine Small Hydro Electric Potential (sites with power capacity ≥ 5 MW) Luzon 134 1.4 14.131 Number of sites Potential installed capacity.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) 1.2 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.4 3.4 10.

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

Despite sugar mills’ own use of bagasse for fuel. UPEEE Foundation page 30 . if any. respectively.0 22.931 MW and geothermal generation was 10.935 GWh can be obtained from the verified geothermal source candidates in the Philippines. bagasse has traditionally been used in large quantities. In addition to existing geothermal power facilities. and 120 MW come from Luzon. Inc.6 127. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.9 5. 700 MW. storage and competing uses.8 235.10: 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) 0.7 7.442 GWh. Of the total estimated capacity. accounting for 14% and 22% of the total installed capacity and total generation.1 14. 380 MW. which are like associated with the use of biomass fuels for large scale power generation.8 32. Very small.200 MW and energy of 8. as listed in Table 2. particularly to fuel boilers in sugar mills. In 2001. total geothermal installed capacity amounted to 1. Visayas and Mindanao respectively.6 17.11.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Because of problems with such issues like collection.2 3. Unlike other biomass fuels. this study only looks on the potential of bagasse for grid-connected electricity generation.0 4. there usually remains a considerable amount of this waste material. Table 2.7 TOTAL PHILIPPINES Geothermal Power The Philippines power sector largely depends on geothermal energy to meet the demand and energy requirements of the country. 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. an estimated capacity of 1.

The Philippine government is considering plans to develop a local natural gas industry. local natural gas production would be supplemented by imported natural gas that would come from the Trans ASEAN Gas Pipeline to meet demand.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. the most significant of which is that found in Malampaya and San Martin in Palawan26. Source: PEP 2002-2011. Natib Mabini Batong Buhay Buguias-Tinoc Total Luzon VISAYAS Northern Negros* Dauin Mt. Inc.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2. Cabalian Leyte Optimization Biliran Mt. UPEEE Foundation .731 billion cubic feet (BCF). Table 2.771 to 4. If this pushes through.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. 26 These are proven fields.11: Available Geothermal Resources for Power Generation Name LUZON Bacman I Rangas Tanawon Manito Montelago Daklan Mt. 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. 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.

Mathematically. namely: (a) investment cost.158 322 637 Maximum 4. O & M27 and fuel costs28 comparison of the different types of power plants are shown in Table 2.13. one year). (c) fuel cost. in general entail high investment costs. The fuel costs used in this study do no include import duties.. Renewable energy technologies.3 Cost Comparison of Power Generation Technologies The investment.594 2.060 1. 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. UPEEE Foundation page 32 . (b) operation and maintenance (O&M) cost.e. 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. renewable energy-based power plants have to address these issues that will ultimately determine the viability of the power projects.760 hours University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. the total investment costs vary with site preparation and the required transmission lines to enable the plants to deliver power to the grid. Inc. 29 Capacity Factor (CF) refers to the percentage of the rated capacity of the power plant used for 8.760 518 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. Being site-specific. it is notable that the technologies that require low investment normally require fuel with high cost.538 243 Resource Size (BCF) Prospective 3. In addition.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 2.210 1. the economics of power generation technologies depends on several factors.720 60 176 78 11. Using these curves. Screening curves can be developed to determine the optimum power generation plan considering these four factors. For example. The fuel costs in Table 2. renewable energy-based plants have high investment costs.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2.277 454 2. Furthermore. the prices of fuel are likely to differ at the time this study is released. 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. energy production (kWh) CF = × 100 plant capacity(k W) × 8.760 hours (i.13 lists for different fuels used for power generation are based on typical power plant efficiencies. For fossil-fuel-based power plants. Wind and hydro plants do not require fuel but do not run at full capacity due to availability of resources.340 359 4 7. The costs shown in Table 2. and (d) the level of generation (also called capacity factor29). Clearly.

Geothermal steam and biomass fuel costs also vary. $/MWh 41.200 – 1.250 2. Table 2. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. UPEEE Foundation page 33 . coal and natural gas do not include import duties.10 11. $/kWa 850 – 1. These values show that electricity generation from renewable sources. These figures are intended only for relative comparison of the different power plant technologies.800 1.68 From “ The Environmental Manual for Power Development”. Table 2.53 0 36. medium or low capacity factor) could be determined/selected. Inc. the prices of fuel are likely to differ by the time this study is released.000 – 1.400 1.56 73. 31 Fuel costs for oil.14 also shows the corresponding levelized cost of generation for each power plant type using the typical capacity factors.800 1.14 to satisfy the minimum offtake character of the IPP contracts.550 700 – 900 550 – 650 1.93 32.750 – 1.12 0 0 3.13: Cost Comparison of Power Plants Type of Power Plant Oil-fired steam turbine Oil-fired gas turbine Oil-fired combined cycle gas turbine Diesel motors Pulverized coal-fired power plant Fluidized bed coal power plant Wind technologies Hydroelectric power plants Fluidized bed combustors (for biomass) Geothermal technologies Gas-fired combined cycle gas turbine (for natural gas) a Typical Economic Life. 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.150 – 1. depending on the site/environment.000 450 .40 9. They are however useful in evaluating and developing energy plans.000 – 3. Deutsche Gessellschaft für technishe.e.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines operate as “baseload”. Furthermore.500 700 – 900 Annual Fixed O & M Cost. which will operate at high. O&M and fuel costs31 of the different power plant technologies. “intermediate” or “peaking” plants (i. on a life-cycle basis.500 1. except for Clean Coal Technologies Considering the availability of the resource and reliability of the technologies. 30 Investment costs used in this study do not include site preparation. years 30 20 20 20 30 30 20 50 30 50 20 Investment Cost. It should be emphasized that the actual capacity factors that may be achieved in operation may not fall on the v alues given in Table 2.14 shows the typical capacity factors based on the investment30.750 – 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..04 49. is competitive in comparison with conventional fossil fuel-based generation. transmission line and transformer costs. Table 2.

0494 0. UPEEE Foundation page 34 .8174 3. Inc.7153 5.0512 0.0794 0. country risks and availability of financing.3644 6. Actual industry discount rates may be higher depending on the following factors: required equity return.0557 2.1059 0.0405 0. regulatory risks.2282 2.0625 0.0405 0.2277 1.14: 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. 33 The low capacity factor computed for diesel plant is 9%.2282 2. market risks. meaning it will be used for load following and/or peaking applications. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.5219 32 A discount rate of 12% was used to derive levelized generation costs.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2.0602 2.1101 0.4376 12.8236 4.0193 0.

“Introduction to Environmental Externality Costs”.g. Sundqvist and P. “Power Generation Choice in the Presence of Environmental Externalities. Other air pollutant emissions for different power plants are listed in Table 2. It should be noted that even though coal seem to have a lower CO2 emission level than conventional power plant types. as determined by the California Energy Commission using both the abatement and damage cost approaches. an externality is “an unpriced benefit or cost directly bestowed or imposed upon one agent by the actions of another agent”34. Table 2. Studies vary in their estimation of externality costs because of a number of factors. externalities include various pollutants that cause damage to receptors such as human health. These effects are called externalities.. These costs are what normally dictate an energy planner’s choice of which power generation technology to use.17. The abatement cost approach uses the cost of pollution control as a proxy to the true externality cost35. Power generation technologies. natural ecosystems. currently a leader in externality policy. geographical and climatological conditions). among others. 35 Jonathan Koomey and Florentin Krause. Second. are directly associated with effects that affect people’s welfare. population density. costs associated directly with the production of electricity from various technologies and resources were discussed. UPEEE Foundation page 35 . externality costs differ among different districts. abatement cost values for the North Coast of California. 34 T. emissions reduction policy. as published in the CRC Handbook on Energy Efficiency (1997). By definition. From the values given. 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. which has the lowest abatement costs among the districts. scope of analysis.4 Environmental Externalities In the previous section. The values were calculated based on the generic data recommended for power development analysis. p. In the case of electricity generation. On the other hand. crops and property. Söderholm. 2002). Luleá University of Technology. the damage cost approach puts a value on the damages that may be directly attributable to a particular pollutant. “Pollution represents an external cost because damages associated with it are borne by society as a whole and are not reflected in market transactions. In this study. Inc.15 shows the value of various air emissions in California. Table 2. According to Koomey and Krause (1997). First. were used to compute for the cost of externalities of the different scenarios. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. 3.16 shows the factors used in this study to arrive at the CO2 emissions of each type of power plant in tonne CO2/GWh. Except for particulate matter. including site specificity (e. a number of things could be noted.” 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. however. abatement costs are normally higher that damage cost estimates.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 2. there is a pronounced difference between damage cost and pollutant cost values. “Pricing Power Generation Externalities: Ethical Limits and Implications for Social Choice” (one of the six self-contained papers included in Sundqvist’s Doctoral Thesis.

00 3.66 0.28 4.55 AC 13.51 San Joaquin Valley DC 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. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.53 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.88 0. AC – abatement cost.04 Source: Computed from data give in “The GHG Indicator: UNEP Guidelines for Calculating Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Business and Non-Commercial Organizations.57 1.83 0.07 AC 2.03 0.37 0.03 0.18 AC 4.53 0.10 8.02 Source: The Environmental Manual for Power Development.01 0.03 NOx 4.06 0.66 2. one of the six selfcontained papers included in Sundqvist’s Doctoral Thesis. CO – Carbon Monoxide.07 AC 5.26 0.00 0. Inc.05 1. 2002).98 Sacramento Valley DC 0. Deutsche Gessellschaft für technishe 36 Lifted from “What Causes the Disparity of Electricity Externality Estimates?”. Luleá University of Technology.39 6.55 0.84 1.00 4.66 0. Sundqvist cites the 1992 Electricity Report by the California Energy Commission as the source of these data.00 2.72 11.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2.31 AC 1.16: 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 45.74 2.44 1.10 0.76 3.35 0.87 0.02 0.03 0.52 0.40 726.99 1.47 3.08 10.88 Bay Area DC 2.78 1.85 6.61 763.02 0.45 6.00 2.71 9.99 565.31 PM 31. “Power Generation Choice in the Presence of Environmental Externalities.08 0.18 15.71 5.75 0.04 0.40 7.32 3. SOx – Sulfur Oxide.43 Ventura County DC 0.03 0.02 0.12 12.88 9.83 441.98 3.82 713. ROG – Reactive organic gases.71 San Diego DC 1.01 North Coast DC 0.99 0.00 0.42 1. 10.64 2. and PM – particulate matter Table 2. p.00 0.34 1.10 867. UPEEE Foundation page 36 .65 0.01 0.99 4.98 2.73 Environmental Emissions CO CH4 NMVOC N2O 0.99 4.20 2.72 AC 5.02 17.4 6.03 0.75 16.05 0.85 I 13.08 0.04 0.10 5.85 0.96 I 2.59 DC – damage cost.45 AC 11.06 0.01 9.15: Value of Air Emissions Reductions in California 36 ($/pound of pollutant) District Pollutant South Coast DC SOx NOx CO ROG 4.01 3. NOx – Nitrogen Oxide.02 1.72 0.30 6. I – internalized.52 1.05 0.75 11.05 Particulates 0.37 12. except for geothermal which was computed from DOE data Table 2.

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

3.432 2000 12. respectively.290 2001 13.734 30.2.3.238 26.708 1997 10.226 5.1 Historical Energy Demand and Installed Generating Capacity The Philippines electricity consumption posted a moderate growth rate of 8. that the industrial sector demand grew only by 5.870 1993 6.578 1999 11. Performance is assessed in terms of reliability.267 1. it also had the highest peak demand (5. As shown in Figure 3.223 6.859 823 1. the Luzon Grid consumed 36. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.191 957 2.081 MW peak demand in 1991.536 5.471 6. the energy demand in the country was distributed among the three (3) main islands of Luzon.682 MW in 2001. or at an average annual growth rate of 7.835 MW in 2001).950 1. Inc.901 12.547 10.1). UPEEE Foundation page 38 . Table 3.1: Energy Consumption by Sector.368 4.1.132 4.049 Geographically.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 2001.713 47. and the whole of the Philippines.3% annually from 1991 to 2001 as shown in Table 3.249 4.851 1.390 6. It should be noted however.543 934 1.128 36.444 921 1. Both the economic performance and population growth remain as the main factors driving the consumption pattern of energy of the country.154 4.531 1. Figure 3.339 952 1. and cost. Bulk of the energy demand and consequently the generation comes from the main island of Luzon.5% while that of the residential sector grew by 11.910 8.754 41.725 9.353 10. Significant also was the growth in the consumption of the commercial sector. the gross domestic product and the population growth from 1991 to 2001 demonstrate a strong correlation with the consumption of electricity.176 25.053 4.042 2. are the biggest users of electricity (Figure 3.167 1. Visayas and Mindanao lag far behind with only 893 and 954 MW peak demand. whose demand grew by 108% from 1991 to 2001.590 5.875 8. With most of the industrial and commercial activities centered in Luzon.649 1992 6.013 12.196 5.132 4.894 9. 1991-2001 (GWh) SECTOR Residential Commercial Industrial Others Own Use Losses Total 1991 6.512 13.797 1998 11. environmental emissions.554 1996 9.037 39.098 14.849 41. This is almost twice of the 4.847 9.452 1.4 shows system peak demand of the power supply system from 1991 to 2001 for the Luzon.150 7.936 8.459 1995 8. The industrial and residential sectors.684 762 1.725 12.340 6.735 33.477 8.049 GWh energy generation which represents 77% of the requirements of the country.579 1994 7. In 2001 for example.086 3.865 10. The system peak for the whole Philippines reached 7.282 5.072 11. Data for the historical performance of the Philippine Power Sector is given in Appendix B.071 25.345 45.7% annually for the 11-year period. with 31% and 29% share respectively. Visayas and Mindanao grids.067 1. Visayas and Mindanao as shown in Figure 3.6%. Visayas and Mindanao share the balance energy almost equally.184 GWh of the total 47.395 721 1.

UPEEE Foundation page 39 . the installed generating capacity in the country doubled from 6. 1991-2001 In order to meet the growing demand for electricity.789 MW in 1991 to 13. Inc. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.5) This corresponds to the growth in demand that also doubled in the same period.402 MW in 2001 (Figure 3.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Power Losses 12% Utilities Own Use 5% Others 2% Residential 29% Industrial 31% Commercial 21% Figure 3.1: 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 3.2: Electricity Consumption. Gross Domestic Product and Population.

000 10. 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 3.000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 Luzon 1995 Visayas 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Mindanao Philippines Figure 3.000 45.4: System Peak by Grid.000 40.000 5.000 35.000 GWH 25.000 15. Inc.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 50.000 30.3: Electricity Generation by Grid. 1991-2001 (MW) University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 20. UPEEE Foundation page 40 .

There was not enough generating capacity. In the Philippines.S.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 16. Table 3. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.2 Historical Reliability Performance The historical data for the system peak demand and installed generating capacity indicate that the generating facilities in the early 1990’s were performing very badly from the point of view of reliability. 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.A..000 10.000 MW 8. Hence. the reliability criterion is very much lower compared to that in developed countries. the National Power Corporation has to resort to rotating “brownouts”.5: Total Installed Generating Capacity by Source.000 6. 1991-2001 (MW) 3. This criterion is considered high but is needed to support their industries.000 2. the National Power Corporation since the power crisis has adopted 1day/year LOLP. UPEEE Foundation page 41 .2 presents the reserve margin of the power system from 1991 to 2001. In other countries such as the U. Today. 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.000 12. people complain of high cost of electricity allegedly due to over supply as there is “too much” installed generating capacity. Inc.000 14. In developing countries. To analyze further the generating capacity vis-à-vis the system peak. The reserve margin based on dependable capacity shows that there is indeed a large excess generating capacity in the Philippines. It may be recalled that the Philippines experienced a power crisis that started in the late 1980’s and persisted in the mid 1990’s that almost crippled the national economy due to supply deficiency.000 0 1991 1992 1993 Oil-Based 1994 Coal 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Hydro 2000 2001 Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 3.000 4.

99 79.411.193 1997 6.729 146.621 7. Table 3.808 9.497 11.212 1995 5. that the generating capacity of the power system in the Philippines can be considered highly reliable.687 8. This part of the study has quantified the environmental emissions of the power plants in the country.611 % Increase 74 64 150 29 54 10 103 169 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.400 13. therefore. 1991-2001 (%) 1991 Peak (MW) Installed Capacity (MW) Percentage Reserve Margin (installed) Dependable Capacity (MW) Percentage Reserve Margin (dependable) 4.450 9. Historical Environmental Emissions for the Philippine Power Sector (tonne) Environmental Emissions CO2 SO2 NOx CO CH4 NMVOC N2O Particulates 1991 Level 10.233 115.72 11.209 35. Inc.726 16. A complete list of emissions for each year from 1991 to 2001 is provided in Appendix B.931 1999 6.431 2000 7.014 1994 4.17 78.352 11.48 53. The interruptions that the country has been experiencing can be attributed to the unreliable transmission and distribution systems.98 91.76 70.762 189.949 1993 4.363 11.402 66.3.45 85.93 92.682 13.296 6.291 9.76 37.666 11.96 78.075 842 29.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines It can be concluded.796 904 1.46 8.789 1992 4.55 45.3.60 83.732 1996 5.908 12.91 3.185 2001 7. The environmental performance of the Philippine power sector from 1991 to 2001 is summarized in Table 3.36 61.081 6.2: Reserve Margin.762 1998 6. UPEEE Foundation page 42 .989 2001 Level 18. The CO2 emissions increased by 74 percent while the rest of the air emissions increased by 10 to 169 percent. Table 3.807 20.18 74.580.124 587 975 415 10.816 11.725 58.3 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.

20. the share of coal-based generation increased by 427%.000 10. The share of renewable sources.000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Figure 3. In order to analyze the factors that brought about the environmental performance of the power sector.000. on the other hand.279 tons in 1991 to 10.000.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines For the CO2 emissions.000. Figure 3. The CO2 emissions however from oil-based power plants decreased by 21 percent from its level of 9. This scenario allowed the continued dominance of non-renewable fuels. Over the period considered.49% in 1991 to 62. Its contribution increased almost ten times from 1. Figures 3.000 14. Figure 3.29% during the same period.9 shows how carbon dioxide emissions varied with the energy mix within the 1991 to 2001 period.000 2. Inc. Note from this figure how much the CO2 emissions decreased and increased with the generation from oil-based and coal power plants.665 tons in 2001.51% to 37.000.000.236.000.541 tons in 1991 to 7. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. However.222 tons in 2001.6: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type. UPEEE Foundation page 43 .71% in 2001.000.000 tonne CO2 12.000 18.000.7 and 3.8 show that nonrenewable energy have remained greatly dominant over renewable energy as source of fuel for power generation. decreased from 42. The net increase in CO2 due to the changes in oil and coal is 74%.338.000 6.000 4. it is necessary to look at the power development as measured by the energy mix.000.000 8. the percentage share of oil-based power generation declined by 58%.000 16.471.082.6 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.000. 1991-2001 (tonne) The share of non-renewable sources in the energy mix even increased from 57.

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

000.000.000 8. Inc.000 6.000 4.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. 1999-2001 (%) 50.000 14.000.000.000.000.000 10. 1991-2001 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 2.000 10. Renewable Energy and Natural Gas in the Energy Mix.000.000.9: Energy Mix and Carbon Dioxide Emissions.000 45.000.000 30.8: Share of Coal and Oil-Based vs.000.000 0 Figure 3.000 GWh 25. UPEEE Foundation page 45 .000 40.000 35.000 20.000 16.000 5.000 18.000 15.000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro CO2 20.000 tonne CO2 12.

63 0.25 2.4.43 1996 2. The average rates and the estimated unbundled generation and transmission rates of NPC from 1995 to 2001 are shown in Table 3.00 per kWh. Table 3. for the years 1995 to 2001 by fuel type. respectively.52 Year 1998 2.5 show the production cost of NPC and IPPs. many power plants were installed in excess of what was actually needed. respectively The average rates of NPC increased annually from 1991 to 2001.29 2.68 2.64 2000 3.08 2.12 2.47 1997 2.52 1. It was noted that the average rates of NPC is for its bundled generation and transmission services. 9136 (Electric Power Industry Reform Act) was enacted. which range from PhP 4. many power plants were installed without the benefit of proper coordination through the centralized planning of the NPC or the government.62 1999 2.90 2. In addition.70 Luzon Visayas Mindanao Philippines Generation Transmission Note: Generation and Transmission Rates assumed 76% and 24% of the average rate.35 0. For purposes of this study.34 3.02 0. This considerable difference can be attributed to the cost of distribution and to the IPP’s that sell electricity directly to the distributors.84 2. Comparing the average rate of NPC with that paid by the consumers.77 2.28 1.14 1. As a result. Interestingly.85 1. except for the year 2001 when R.44 1. respectively.02 1.92 3.93 1.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 3. and the cost of which has to be paid off through the Purchased Power Adjustment (PPA).15 1.00 to PhP 3.77 1.96 1.23 1. the law has mandates to reduce the rates of electricity in the Philippines.01 3. there is difference of PhP 1. UPEEE Foundation page 46 .58 1.49 0. It is worthwhile to note that with the existence of the Non-NPC IPP’s (permitted to operate through Executive Order 215). University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Inc.02 2. the rates of NPC were unbundled into 76% and 24% for generation and transmission. IPP costs were always higher than NPC rates. 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).25 1.00 per kWh.75 2001 3. Table 2.37 0.A. 1991-2001 (PhP/kWh) 1995 1. the average rates consist of the actual operating expenses and the financing charges of NPC.67 2.65 2.00 to PhP 6. particularly that of the electricity distributors like MERALCO.96 0.4 Cost of Electricity This study also assessed the power development in the Philippines by analyzing the cost of electricity.20 0.08 2.4: NPC Average Electricity Rates.

0244 0.0212 0.0236 0.0195 0.0284 0.0047 0.0100 IPP --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 0.0284 0.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 3.0394 0.0294 --0.0358 0.0428 0.0232 0.0369 0.0360 0. N.0230 0.0386 0.0270 0.0326 0. UPEEE Foundation page 47 .0450 0.0281 0.0302 0.0177 0.0367 0.0683 Geothermal NPC IPP 0.0067 0.0038 0.0125 0.0331 0.0329 0.0203 * Lifted from “Renewable Energy Prospects for Supplying Electricity in the Deregulated Market in the Philippines” by J.0167 0.0150 0.0252 0.0538 0.0281 0. G.0349 0.0111 0.0303 0.0254 0.0431 0.0366 0.0662 0.0267 0. Estiva and M.0109 0.0462 Hydro NPC IPP 0.0198 0.0233 Coal NPC 0. Inc.0265 0.0276 0.0110 0.0092 0. Guzman University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.0137 0.0276 0.

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

467.413.04 5. Coal. 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).85 4.80 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2010 Note: GDP values for 2003 to 2006 are actual NEDA forecasts.57 5. Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. the DOE estimated GDP values based on the average growth rates forecasted by NEDA. For 2007 to 2012.23 5.82 1.138.51 6. Table 4.80 5.343.14 1. Philippine Energy Plan Top-Down Approach Figure 4.62 1.487.276.091.80 5.96 5.1.27 1. Inc.564.2 Gross Domestic Product Projections In the Philippine Energy Plan for the period 2003-2012. The GDP projections for the two scenarios.11 1.80 5.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.23 5.229.74 1.737.23 5.80 5.23 5. etc.69 1.387.29 6.1: National Energy Planning Process 4.60 1. Oil.91 1.01 1.10 1.156. the DOE uses two economic scenarios from which to forecast future energy requirement of the country.59 1. In this report.732.64 5.646.203.23 High GDP GDP Growth Rate (billion PhP) (%) 1.09 1.642.079.95 1.1: Low and High GDP Forecasts for 2003 to 2012 Year Low GDP GDP Growth Rate (billion PhP) (%) 1.01 6. 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.552.24 1.80 5.48 1.23 5. as well as the its corresponding growth rates are shown in Table 4.838.51 1.70 6.70 1. UPEEE Foundation page 49 .311.44 5.

120000 100000 80000 60000 GWh 40000 20000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4. generation would almost double to 106. energy generation is projected to increase at an average rate of 7. These plans will be discussed in the following sections. In addition. 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.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines In the PEP. O & M and fuel costs. UPEEE Foundation page 50 .2 shows the energy generation projected by the DOE that would meet the future energy requirements in 2003 to 201239. From 55.142 GWh in 2003. For this period.430 GWh in 2012. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Costs calculated do not include ancillary. transmission and distribution costs.57% annually and 93% over the entire period. Inc. 39 Details of the calculations made for this section are provided in Appendix C. 4.2: Generation under the Low Economic Growth Scenario 38 Generation costs were calculated using generic data for investment. the DOE formulates generation plans for the two economic scenarios.3 DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario Energy Generation Figure 4.

amounting to 800 MW. this scenario is very similar to how the Philippine power sector performed historically.3. which are more capital intensive.000 5.632 GW and will increase to 20. Inc. 65 MW wind capacity and a 40 MW geothermal capacity additions.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Installed Generating Capacity Total installed capacity for 2003 is 14.500 MW.000 15.706 MW by 2012. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 MW 10. and renewable energy plants.000 20. will be due to a 795 MW hydro capacity. the increase in demand requirement will be met mostly by increases in oil-based and coal plant capacities of 1. These high reserve margins would translate to higher electricity prices during the period. which is a more expensive fuel. The table also computes the capacity that would be required if the percentage reserve margin was kept at 20%. Reserve Margin and Reliability Table 4. UPEEE Foundation page 51 . 25. As shown in Figure 4. No additional capacity addition for natural gas is expected in the period. 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. committed and indicative capacity additions for each year in the planning period are given.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. These figures just show the continued preference on the use coal over natural gas. respectively40.775 MW and 3. Notably. The increase in the share of renewable energy generating capacity. For indicative plant additions.3: DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the Low Economic Growth Scenario 40 In the PEP. Notable are the considerably high reserve margins for 2003 to 2009.

6. Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements.576 17.889 17.800 MW capacity of 23.756 20. of the total 55. and.015 16. will supply 26% and 11%.4 and 4.332 13. Of these amounts. • share of imported coal is 87.865 16. UPEEE Foundation page 52 .324 million.777 20.066 tonnes of coal and 1.263 billion cubic feed (BCF) of natural gas for the whole planning period. Inc. respectively.814 15. Renewable energy sources.443 16. The combined contribution of coal and oil to the energy mix.033 Installed Capacity (MW) 14.208 GWh energy production annually. of the total generation. 41 This assumes that: local natural gas production can support 3.895. respectively.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 4.423 12. as it was in 2001.120 15.813 14.632 15. From a share of 37% in 2003.5) for the planning period indicates minimal thrust towards more use of renewable energy sources and cleaner fuels.600 11.393 tonnes of coal would have to be imported41.615 15. 124. Imported fuel would cost $4. A look at the energy mix (Figures 4.5 tonnes of oil and 80.139 11.519 10.367 14. 91.2: Percentage Reserve Margin for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario.997 12. The breakdown of the fossil fuel that would be consumed in the LEGS-PEP scenario is shown in Figure 4. particularly geothermal and hydro. Contribution from wind sources stays insignificant for the whole period.5 million barrels of oil. this scenario would require 124. on the other hand will increase to 59% in 2012 to from a value of 38% in 2003.440 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Energy Mix For the LEGS.505 18.396 15.3% of total consumption.277 11. Clean fuels’ (renewable energy and natural gas) share in the energy mix decreases from 61% to 41% by 2012. • University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. 2003-2012 Peak Demand (MW) 8.143 GWh generation. renewable energy’s share decreases to 22% in 2012. coal.869 13. the PEP expects that for the year 2003.576 16. natural gas and oilbased sources will supply 34%.565 17.224.833 9.405 19.706 Percentage Reserve Margin (%) 66 59 52 42 33 29 27 24 24 22 Capacity Required for 20% Reserve Margin 10. 24% and 5%.

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. 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. UPEEE Foundation page 53 .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.

916 42 Abatement costs values in this chapter and the chapters that follow were computed using abatement costs for SOx .7 shows the contribution of each type to the CO2 emissions. Total cost of abatement for this scenario is $ 29.828. Inc.744. along with the assumptions used.71642. As would be expected. Generation Cost The present value of the costs calculated for the PEP-LEGS is given below. These do not take into account the effect on the generation cost by deals made with independent power producers. Average generation cost for the period is PhP 3. the increase in the use of coal would result in an increase in CO2.189 $ 2.137. respectively. Table 4. Total CO2 emissions for the period amounts to 309. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.376. Table 3.3 million tonnes. fuel.1592 per kWh.368. SOx and other emissions. These generation costs were computed from the values for investment. NOx and particulates for the North Coast of California. Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: $ 11.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.479.454.3 shows the values for the years 2003 and 2012 and Figure 4. Coal contributes 55% of the CO2 emissions for the period. Geothermal plants contribute only 2%. Oil-based and natural gas plants contribute 17% and 26% to the CO2 emissions. as given in Chapter 1. Appendix C shows the amount of emissions for the whole planning period.707.292 $ 23.391. and operations and maintenance costs involved in the operation of the different plants to meet demand and energy requirements for the scenario.324.4 lists down the generation costs calculated for each year of the planning period. UPEEE Foundation page 54 .434 $ 9.

000 80.3: 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 18.323 644 3.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100.611 489.000 20.000.669.000.362 282 1.788 54.821 295.389 55.000 70.6: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario Table 4.927 Year 2012 46.289 112.000 (tonnes) 50.000.000.000.000. UPEEE Foundation page 55 .000 40.000.850 159.647 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 0 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 4.000.000 90.778. Inc.581 952 19.000.000 30.432 2.000 10.000.712 21.000 60.

2123 3.1026 3.000 40.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 50.0997 3.0429 3.0568 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 0.7: Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario Table 4.0574 12% 3% 2% PhP/kWh* 3.000 20.1592 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000.000.000.000.0564 0.000 45.000.4: Generation Costs for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario. Inc.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4.3072 3.0553 0.000 10.000. UPEEE Foundation page 56 .000 25.000.1229 3.0601 0.0612 0.0409 3.0564 0.000 35.0592 0.2548 3.000 tonne CO2 30.000.0447 3.000.000.000 15.0554 0.0584 0.0553 0.3636 3.000 5.

the percentage reserve margin in the HEGS is considerably high. Table 4. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.8 shows the expected generation under the HEGS.5 lists down the percentage reserve margins for the PEP Plan for the HEGS. UPEEE Foundation page 57 .POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 4.632 MW in 2003 to 22.556 GWh in 2003 to 118. generation is expected to increase from 55.8: Generation under the High Economic Growth Scenario Installed Generating Capacity Installed generating capacity would increase from 14.470 GWh in 2012.4 DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario Energy Generation In the high economic growth scenario. with a minimum value of 26% and a maximum of 65%. Figure 4. Figure 4. A large part of this increase is due to the addition of coal plants. increasing more than 200 percent within the ten-year planning period. Inc. Reserve Margin and Reliability Similar to LEGS. 140000 120000 100000 80000 GWh 60000 40000 20000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4. corresponding to a 56% increase within the ten-year planning period.756 MW in 2012.9 shows how the installed generating capacity would change from 2003 to 2012.

615 15. Inc.660 11.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Wind Demand (MW) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4.005 21.106 Installed Capacity (MW) 14.865 16.790 18.423 15.120 15.632 15.562 16.424 12.727 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 5.560 12.633 10.756 Percentage Reserve Margin (%) 65 57 49 39 30 25 26 29 30 26 Capacity Required for 20% Reserve Margin 10.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25.308 18.000 20.155 20.031 17.469 11.359 14.765 18.148 21. 2003-2012 Peak Demand (MW) 8.065 16.674 20.854 16.5: Percentage Reserve Margin for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario.806 22.709 14.000 15.378 13.000 MW 10.883 9. UPEEE Foundation page 58 .9: DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the High Economic Growth Scenario Table 4.563 13.

5 million barrels of oil 85. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. UPEEE Foundation page 59 . Coal share remains very significant at 47% in 2012.11.5 million barrels of oil.127 million. Much of the increase in the share of non-renewable energy may be attributed to oil whose shares increase from 5% to 17%. Total cost of imported fuel is $5. 184.120 tonnes of coal and 1.322.835.10 and 4. it is quite evident that dependence on non-renewable energy for power generation remains strong.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Energy Mix From Figures 4. The breakdown of fossil fuels that will be used in the HEGS-PEP scenario is shown in Figure 4. this scenario would require 184.272 BCF of natural gas for the whole planning period. Of these amounts. 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. the share of non-renewable energy increases to 80%.211 tonnes of coal would have to be imported. 98.12.10: Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements. Inc. While the share of renewable energy declines to 20% by 2012 from 37% in 2003. and natural gas whose contribution ranges from 24% to 17% for the period considered.

000 60.000.000. Inc.000 70.000 10.000 90.000 30.000 80.000 (tonnes) 50.000.000 20.000.000 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 4.000.000.000.12: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000.000.000 40. UPEEE Foundation page 60 .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 4.000.11: Share of Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy in the Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario 100.

294.758 $ 25. the UPSL obtained the following shown in Table 4.225 $ 10.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.680.211 111.165.317 326.995.059. greenhouse has emissions is to further soar.13 illustrates the contribution of each energy source to CO2 emissions resulting from the DOE plan for the HEGS.764.779.751 283 1.076. Inc. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.599 970 19.6: 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 19.236.820 61.829 631.059.022.409 2.7 for energy generation cost for 2003 to 2012.913 $ 2.6.677 Year 2012 565.050.945 70.843 167. An estimate of the environmental emissions is provided in Table 4.064 21. Table 4. Figure 4.568.132 Generation Cost The PEP-HEGS Scenario will require the following costs: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: $ 12. Total abatement cost for the HEG-PEP Scenario is $32. Total CO2 emissions for the period is 347.610 778 4. UPEEE Foundation page 61 .2 million tonnes.896 Based on the installed capacities and energy generation indicated in the PEP for the HEGS.

9810 2. 2003-2012 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average Assumptions: Discount rate Inflation rate Fuel escalation rate * $1 = PhP 55 Generation Cost $/kWh 0.000 50.0545 3.2021 3.000.0175 3.0612 0.9853 3.13: Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario Table 4.7: Generation Costs for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario.000.000.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 4.3646 3.000 20.0553 0. Inc.1488 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 60.000 40.0549 0.0555 0.0640 2.0573 12% 3% 2% PhP/kWh* 3.0392 3.000.4908 3.0543 0. UPEEE Foundation page 62 .2889 3.000 tonne CO2 30.0635 0.0542 0.0598 0.000 10.0582 0.000.000.0557 0.

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

have lower capacity factors compared to coal power plants. Total cost of fuel that need to be imported for this scenario is $ 3.4. natural gas capacity would continue to increase until the end of the planning period. Of these amounts. The energy mix and share of clean energy for the option are shown in Figure 5. The share of coal and oil in the mix would reduce by about 28% at the end of the period. This is shown in Figure 5.1. this scenario would require 58.279 tonnes of coal and 1. Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.945. 58. which cannot be addressed with the low dependable capacity of its existing plants. renewable energy plant installed capacity is increased by 95% from 4.8 million barrels of oil. which were used in this option to address the additional power and energy demand. the reserve margin is quite higher at 42% to 48%.1 LEGS-MCPD Scenario In this scenario.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 5. The total share of clean energy in the energy mix increases by 18% due the 148% boost in energy generation from natural gas power plants. UPEEE Foundation page 64 .3.228 tonnes of coal and 154. Also.4 BCF of natural gas for the whole planning period. For Mindanao.685 MW in 2012. 73. Details of this scenario is given in Appendix D. This is because more power plants are required to meet Mindanao’s energy demand. Note also that wind power plants.502.450 MW in 2003 to 8. which were used in the PEP scenarios.060 million. the Moderate Clean Power Development option is applied to the Low Economic Growth Scenario. however. natural gas and renewable energy plant capacities would amount to 69% of the total installed capacity. 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%. respectively. 64.2 and 5. Installed Capacity As shown in Figure 5. Inc.8 million barrels of oil. Energy Mix The share of renewable energy for the LEGS-MCPD option would increase by 10% from the period 2003 to 2012.554.9 BCF of natural gas would have to be imported. By 2012.

1235 The LEGS-MCPD will achieve a net savings of $ 236 million as compared with the LEGS-PEP.0568 or PhP 3.1: Installed Generating Capacity for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario Environmental Emissions and Abatement Cost As would be expected.053 $ 23. computed cost values for the planning period are as follows: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: Average generation cost: $ 12. Figure 5.000 20.5 illustrates the CO2 emissions calculated from this option.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 5.592.508 $ 8. UPEEE Foundation page 65 .507.166 million higher than that of the LEGS-MCPD.113.000 MW 10. Total cost of abatement of other emissions for this option is $23. Inc.000 5.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25. The LEGS-PEP abatement cost is $6.723. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Generation Cost For this LEGS-MCPD. Total CO2 emissions for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario is 264.000 15.479.969.6 million tonnes of CO2 as compared to the LEGS-PEP.7 million tonnes.755.955. achieving net reduction of 44.254 $ 2. GHG emissions from the LEGS-MCPD are much lower than that from the LEGS-PEP.815 $ 0.202 million.

UPEEE Foundation page 66 . 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 5.2: Energy Mix for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Coal and Oil-Based Renewable and Natural Gas Figure 5. Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.3: Coal and Oil-Based vs.

000.000.000.000 30.000 10.000.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 80.000.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Coal 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 5.000.000 30.000.4: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario 40.000.000.000.000 70.5: CO2 Emissions for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000.000.000 20.000 60.000 50.000.000 25.000 15.000.000 5.000 20.000 (tonnes) 40.000. UPEEE Foundation page 67 .000 10. Inc.000 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 5.000 35.000.

renewable energy capacity is increased from 4.860 million. brings the clean energy generation from 33.294. the Aggressive Clean Power Development Option is applied to the Low Economic Growth Scenario. Energy Mix Figure 5. for 2008 to 2012. In this option. Installed Capacity In this option.715.2 LEGS-ACPD Scenario In this scenario. Figure 5.8 shows the increase in clean energy share in the mix.731 tonnes.175 tonnes of coal.450 MW in 2003 to 11. The total CO2 emissions for each year are shown in Figure 5.9 million tonnes less than the LEGS-PEP.10. The mix of imported and indigenous fuel is shown in Figure 5. Coal importation for this option reaches 58.4 million tonnes. The 30% increase in renewable energy share from 37% to 48% over the planning period. brings the CO2 emission level at 321. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. in this option.794 GWh in 2003 to 84. while importation of oil and natural gas stand at 57. The average for the country is 34%.7 illustrates the energy mix resulting from the LEGS-ACPD option.7 BCF of natural gas and 57.9.34 tonnes/GWh. 1471.523.40% of the peak demand. Reserve Margin For Luzon and Visayas.2 million barrels of oil. The total CO2 emissions for the period is 248. Figure 5. UPEEE Foundation page 68 .480 MW in 2012 and the further increase in the utilization of geothermal and biomass resources. Total cost of abatement for this option is $ 21.633. wind power plants take 20. is 53%.074. Mindanao’s average reserve margin. respectively.520 MW in 2012. Inc.270 GWh in 2012.6 shows the installed capacities for the LEGS-ACPD option. Environmental Emissions and Abatement Cost The increased utilization of renewable energy resources. Total cost of fuel that is needed to be imported for this scenario is $ 2. respectively. which is 60. the average reserve margins are 33% and 26%.2 million barrels and 139.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 5. Fuel Consumption Total fuel requirement for the LEGS-ACPD is 66.4 BCF. This 159% increase in renewable capacity is largely attributable to the increase in wind capacity from zero in 2003 to 3.

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.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25. UPEEE Foundation page 69 .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 5.7: Energy Mix for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 MW 10. Inc.000 15.

9: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 20.000 80.000 0 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 5.000 60.000.000.000.000 40.8: Coal and Oil-Based vs.000.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Coal and Oil-Based Renewable and Natural Gas Figure 5.000 10.000 70.000 (tonnes) 50. Inc.000. Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario 90.000.000. UPEEE Foundation page 70 .000.000.000 30.

Inc.816.603.000.403.000 10.012 $ 23.000.000. computed cost values for the planning period are as follows: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: Average generation cost: $ 12.057.000 20.000.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 40.671 $ 0.000 25.000 5.0576 or PhP 3.000.132. 5.880.564 $ 2.3 HEGS-MCPD Scenario In this scenario.000 0 2003 2004 Oil-based 2005 Coal 2006 2007 2008 Geothermal 2009 Hydro 2010 Biomass 2011 Wind 2012 Natural Gas Figure 5.414. Renewable energy capacity accounts for 30% in 2003 and 39% in 2012.1698 This scenario would cost $52 million more than the LEGS-PEP. the Moderate Clean Power Development option is applied to the High Economic Growth Scenario.10: CO2 Emissions for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario Generation Cost For this LEGS-ACPD. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000.000 35.661.000.000.11. Natural gas capacities are increased throughout the period and would account for the biggest share in installed capacity by 2012.094 $ 8. Installed Capacity The installed capacity for this option is given in Figure 5.000 15.000 30. UPEEE Foundation page 71 .

computed cost values for the planning period are as follows: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: Average generation cost: $ 12.12 shows the corresponding energy mix for the HEGS-MCPD option. Total abatement cost for this option is $ 24.4 million tonnes lower than the HEGS-PEP. Figure 5.686. 2% is contributed by wind power plants.769.15 shows the CO2 emissions resulting from the HEGS-MCPD option.13 illustrates the clean energy mix.781.7 million barrels of oil. 73.390. Total cost of fuel imports is $ 3. Of these amounts. which falls within 35% to 48%.271 tonnes of coal and 1.1065 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.778. this scenario would require 70. Inc. The total CO2 emissions is at 283. Generation Cost For this HEGS-MCPD.8 BCF tonnes of natural gas would have to be imported.124 $ 9.0565 or PhP 3.665. renewable energy and natural gas contribution to the energy mix increases from 61% to 74% for 2003 to 2012.807.322 million. Environmental Emissions Figure 5. UPEEE Foundation page 72 .030 $ 2.857 tonnes of coal and 342.349.076.347.456 $ 0. 64.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. Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements. Energy Mix With its installed capacities dominating.580.9 BCF of natural gas for the whole planning period. Of this mix.7 million barrels of oil. 70.718. This difference is attributable to the inevitable higher reserve margin for Mindanao.940. while Figure 5.8 million tonnes.302 $ 24.549. which is 63.

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 5.000 15.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25. UPEEE Foundation page 73 .000 5. Inc.000 20.000 MW 10.12: Energy Mix for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.

13: Coal and Oil-Based vs. Inc.000. Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario 80.000 70.000 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 5.000 (tonnes) 40.000.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Coal and Oil-Based Renewable and Natural Gas Figure 5.000.000 30.000 50.000.14: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000.000 10.000.000 60.000.000 20.000. UPEEE Foundation page 74 .

000.4 HEGS-ACPD Scenario In this option. the Aggressive Clean Power Development option strategy is applied to the High Economic Growth Scenario.000.000. Installed Capacity The more aggressive use of renewable energy resources for this option results to a 50% contribution of renewable energy to the total installed capacity in 2012.000 30. the country’s effective reserve margin ranges from 28% to 32%. Figure 5.000.000 5.16 illustrates this.15: CO2 Emissions for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario 5.000 35.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Coal 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 5.000 15. Inc. clean energy share increased by 24% over the planning period.000. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 25.000 20. Energy Mix While oil-based and coal share in the energy mix decreased by 38%.000 10.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 40. UPEEE Foundation page 75 .000. Reserve Margin With the inevitably high reserve margin of 45% to 51% for Mindanao. Figure 5.000.18 illustrate these changes in the energy mix.17 and Figure 5.000.

199.730 $ 2. Total CO2 emissions is at 275.271 $ 25. Environmental Emissions and Abatement Cost Carbon dioxide generation for the HEGS-ACPD option is shown in Figure 5.560. 67.5 BCF of natural gas for the whole planning period.7 BCF of natural gas.19 shows the sharing of the imported and indigenous fossil fuels.567 $ 9.532.288. UPEEE Foundation page 76 . along with 59. Inc.1647 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Generation Cost For this HEGS-ACPD. this scenario would require 90.842.791.583.1 million tonnes lower than that for the HEGS-PEP.402.584.182.682 tonnes of coal and 1.0 million barrels of oil.20.1 million tonnes.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements.139 tonnes of coal and 276.458. 72.638.723. Figure 5.513 million. All of the oil would have to be imported.824. NOx and particulates for this option is 23.568 $ 0.0575 or PhP 3. The cost of abatement for SOx . computed cost values for the planning period are as follows: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: Average generation cost: $ 12. Cost of fuel imports is $ 3.

17: Energy Mix for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25.000 5.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Oil-based Hydro Coal Biomass Natural Gas Wind Geothermal Peak Demand Figure 5.000 15.000 20.16: Installed Generating Capacity for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 5. UPEEE Foundation page 77 .000 MW 10. Inc.

POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Coal and Oil-Based Renewable and Natural Gas Figure 5.000 70.000.000 0 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 5.000. Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario 80. UPEEE Foundation page 78 .000.000.000 30.18: Coal and Oil-Based vs.000.19: Fuel Consumption for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 10.000.000 (tonnes) 40.000 60.000 20.000. Inc.000.000 50.

000.000.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 40. Inc.000.000.000.000 25. UPEEE Foundation page 79 .000.20: CO2 Emissions for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 30.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Coal 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 5.000 10.000.000 5.000 35.000 20.000 15.000.

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

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

run-of-river small hydro and biomass) should be given priority in the dispatch of generating units. particularly on the required technical analysis and compensating equipment. The Philippine Grid and Distribution Code (PGDC) must be clear on its requirements and procedures on the connection. The cost of such an expansion should be borne by the transmission or distribution utility.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.2 Transmission and Distribution Development Transmission and distribution infrastructure should be developed to increase access to renewable energy sites. 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. UPEEE Foundation page 82 . Inc. 6. Transmission facilities should deliberately be expanded toward locations of promising renewable energy sources.1: Recommended Bottom-Up Approach to Energy Planning 6. The Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) should allow such an expansion even if it does not initially show recovery of investment. operation and control of nonconventional. The System Operator should be allowed to procure ancillary services needed by the Grid to accommodate intermittent wind power and pass on the cost to all users of the Grid. most of which are site specific. renewable energy-based power plants.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. These plants must “feed-in” the Grid at minimum prices that will guarantee the returns of power developers.

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

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

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

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

Inc. 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 1.922 21 158 484 5 40 125 5 33 100 20 151 478 43 315 971 7 46 143 17 125 382 11 86 263 21 165 509 15 98 307 24 163 509 4 40 123 117 796 2.486 686 4906 15.1: Locations of Practical Wind Resources in Luzon Province Abra Albay Aurora Bataan Batangas Benguet Bulacan Cagayan Camarines Norte Camarines Sur Cavite Ifugao Ilocos Norte Ilocos Sur Isabela Kalinga Laguna Mountain Province Nueva Ecija Nueva Vizcaya Pampanga Pangasinan Quezon Quirino Rizal Sorsogon Tarlac Zambales LUZON TOTAL Estimated Estimated Number of Sites Aggregate Capacity Aggregate Annual (MWe) Generation (GWh) 26 183 567 26 183 576 46 320 1.Appendix A POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table A.280 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.

Appendix A POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table A.2: Locations of Practical Wind Resources in Visayas Province Aklan Antique Biliran Bohol Capiz Cebu Eastern Samar Iloilo Leyte Negros Occidental Negros Oriental Samar Southern Leyte VISAYAS TOTAL Number of Sites 24 41 20 6 1 30 2 12 52 26 48 10 33 305 Estimated Capacity Estimated Annual (MWe) Generation (GWh) 163 517 309 965 144 466 39 120 7 20 202 620 14 43 85 266 357 1. UPEEE Foundation page 2 of 4 .031 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.113 169 519 347 1.170 6.738 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 1.3: Locations of Practical Wind Resources in Mindanao Province Agusan del Norte Agusan del Sur Camiguin Surigao del Norte Surigao del Sur MINDANAO TOTAL No. Inc.065 75 229 259 795 2.

258 6.585 Table A. Inc.671 6 35 184 3 34 179 15 181 110 4 26 951 3 28 147 19 179 941 1 6 32 129 1.Appendix A POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table A. UPEEE Foundation page 3 of 4 .5. 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 1.030 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 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.4.

Inc.Appendix A POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table A.237 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. UPEEE Foundation page 4 of 4 .209 7 37 11 58 7 37 826 4.692 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 1.6.

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

254 2.183 16.288 19.594 11.547 10.432 45.339 952 1.875 8.927 Coal 405 405 441 550 850 1.301 2.301 2.791 2. 1991-2001 (MW) Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Fuel Type Oil-based 3.395 721 1.176 25.200 3.335 5.894 9.296 5.931 Hydro 2. Inc.3: Energy Consumption by Sector.840 7.862 6.132 4.870 26.758 5.368 4.116 18.290 47.402 Source: DOE Table B.259 2.754 41.949 7.849 41.399 4.226 5.104 Source: DOE Table B.363 9.973 5.870 1993 6.910 8.859 823 1.067 1.730 11.936 8.931 1.345 45.663 18.2: 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 25.267 1.725 12.928 12.417 1.901 12.844 5.440 5.493 3.030 6.578 1999 11.282 5.867 16.072 11.155 2.167 1.649 1992 6.223 6.013 12.819 1.459 1995 8.600 1.696 11.590 5.518 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 6.735 33.667 6.626 10.959 9.150 7.707 39.050 12.536 5.684 762 1.579 1994 7.341 3.049 Source: DOE University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.037 39.442 5. UPEEE Foundation page 1 of 2 .237 8.799 7.855 7.301 2.353 10.145 4.073 1.128 36.301 2.512 13.190 11. 1991-2001 (GWh) Year Year 1991 Residential Commercial Industrial Others Utilities Own Use Power Losses Total 6.799 9.950 1.Appendix B POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table B.939 13.649 25.942 1.531 1.839 4.851 1.066 7.789 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 20 16 17 848 5.865 10.797 41.154 1.725 9.600 2.914 10.459 33.987 3.109 4.567 13.554 1996 9.185 13.098 14.249 4.789 6.797 1998 11.301 2.212 9.579 30.348 2.847 9.135 6.340 6.554 36.568 4.053 4.444 921 1.578 41.534 7.078 18.1: Installed Generating Capacity.931 1.132 4.390 6.196 5.867 1.425 5.301 2.257 2.063 Geothermal 888 888 963 1.929 19.471 6.543 934 1.069 5.042 2.856 1.191 957 2.432 2000 12.804 13.232 7.154 4.290 2001 13.015 1.452 1.185 9.713 47.734 30.162 11.320 6.086 3.477 8.030 5.963 3.963 Natural Gas 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 1.708 1997 10.388 11.071 25.700 5.238 26.

245 41.486 20.396 18.337 25.698 4.414 162.704 18.644 13.797 1998 31.509.552 135.122.090 16.611 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.082.666 1999 5.566.816 1997 4.671 16.566 3.678 117.747 25.365 39.231.261 9.351.831 189.679 8.989 12.687.131.521 18.671 16.119.116 20.633 130. tonne CO2 Year Oil-based 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 9.492 144.870.932 154.682 Table B.075 N 2O 415 436 421 469 541 610 711 742 644 734 842 Particulates 10.338.311 20.644 328.362 14.296 1993 3.519.695 33.529 296.726 67.553.521.133 1.705.896 136.870 1993 19.131.127 1.762 SOX 115.808 Fuel Type Geothermal 261.459 1995 25.481 5.286.352 1998 5.708 23.175.964 114.708 1997 30.835 893 954 7. 1991-2001 (GWh) 1991 Luzon Visayas Mindanao Philippines Source: DOE 1992 19.441 5.411.076 792 805 904 NMVOC 975 1.351.547.675 10.175 5.566.553.411.428.049 19.580.687 1994 3.045 410 626 4.902 2.763 25.794 13.836 18.649 812 939 7.820 474.882 149.360 14.083 18.854 6.004 101.780 257.585.6: Environmental Emissions.991 5.029 36.403 1.848 164.250 473 573 4.585.6: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Source.789 3.688 3.687.578 1999 31.233 11.702 7.4: Peak Demand.563 127.159 13.755 4.094.163 5.579 1994 23.311 10.124 17.238 106.556 404.036 4.273 1.062 1.712.291 1. UPEEE Foundation page 2 of 2 .807 CO 16.185.283 15.233 11.554 1996 27.236.473 523 691 4.448 16.345 2.400 2001 5.242 1.586 126.808 1995 3.762 Table B.222 Natural Gas 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.703 47.164 19.432 2000 34.282 286.915 12.745 4.872 6.729 NOX 58.109 23.530 15.076 2.232.133 30.306 682 828 5.990 99.359 1. 1991-2001 (MW) Year Luzon Visayas Mindanao Philippines Source: DOE 1991 3.184 5.084 4.283 15.067 Hydro 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wind 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 10.727 29.580.521.541 10.580 27.616 28.555 30.343 41.Appendix B POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table B.781 24.704 18.309 146.652 4.428.347 5.511 2.226 789 893 6.081 1992 3.796 CH4 587 643 685 835 963 974 1.159 13.038 973 1.970 527.028 770 868 6.864 26.290 2001 36.131.290 3.279 998.920 591 780 5.376 3.665 Coal 1.103.582 11.147 5.903 21.348 2.928 278.962 751.582 11.464 45.639 16.491.561 551 696 4.679 5.967 2.206 3.204 160.725 117.733 24.908 2000 5.471.164 19.004 906 1.291 1996 4.413 258.396 18.530 15.813 3. Inc.547.069 84.649 Table B. tonne Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Environmental Emissions CO 2 10.448 16.773 727 852 6.5: Generation by Grid.674 480.

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

G.563 1.869 13.R.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.360 1.39% NATIONAL Non-Coincident Peak 8.58% VISAYAS 1.2012) LUZON 6. UPEEE Foundation page 1 of 16 .30% 7.007 1.912 2.084 1.93% 7.592 1.034 7.041 7.277 11.830 10.275 7.26% 7.2012) (2003 .161 9. (2003 .548 11.519 10.459 1.276 1.319 12.2007) (2008 .033 7.95% 7.707 1.074 1.889 17.997 12.752 7. Inc.477 1.159 1.168 1.377 1.254 1.95% 6.813 14.833 9.57% Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.13% 7.91% 7.814 15.1a: 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.958 8.789 1.67% MINDANAO 1.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.673 1.139 11.149 13.829 1.31% 7.503 9.855 8.

57% Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.1c: Electricity Sales Forecasts for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (GWh) YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual Ave.924 8.182 55.024 85.170 6.391 71.870 66.260 76. UPEEE Foundation page 2 of 16 .604 42.2012) LUZON 39. (2003 .743 10.274 7.892 7.93% 7.539 69.740 7.735 57.827 92.661 10.103 9.135 11.754 7.420 11.154 59.67% MINDANAO 6.13% 7.31% 7.2012) (2003 .342 8.057 98.306 7.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.R.016 9.411 9.660 61.95% 6. G.30% 7.548 64. Inc.506 74.91% 7.320 5.686 7.95% 7.726 6.564 80.452 7.26% 7.39% TOTAL 51.072 49.258 6.58% VISAYAS 5.875 53.497 9.801 8.675 46.2007) (2008 .

017 2.817 2.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.707 616 200 200 - 1.308 2011 1583 3758 450 3.308 2004 2443 3758 450 3.796 12.308 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 11.1d: DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (MW) Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Local Imported Year 2003 2443 3758 450 3.267 2.131 13.517 2.907 616 200 200 - 2.607 616 - 1.141 12.308 2010 1583 3758 450 3.381 11.308 2005 2443 3758 450 3.831 15. Inc.067 2. UPEEE Foundation page 3 of 16 .207 616 200 200 - 2.217 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 - 1.107 616 200 200 - 2.367 2.208 616 200 200 - 2.308 2006 2443 3758 450 3.308 2007 2443 3758 450 3.807 616 200 200 - 1.308 2009 2233 3758 450 3.308 2008 2443 3758 450 3.647 1.031 15.717 1.141 12.141 12.657 616 - 1.617 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.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 1.441 13.604 546 - 1.308 2012 1583 3758 450 3.

763 3.563 Philippines Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 2.763 3.381 4.340 4.163 600 3.970 65 550 1.632 15.163 600 3.163 600 3.706 Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.163 600 3.970 65 1.563 2011 2.963 600 3.970 65 300 - 2.350 1.869 1.970 65 - 2.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Local Imported Year 2003 3.340 4.120 15.963 600 3.565 17.930 - 2.500 1.970 65 400 650 - 2.950 900 Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking PHILIPPINES TOTAL 14.756 20.763 3.457 3. UPEEE Foundation page 4 of 16 .363 2006 3.214 1.300 1.763 3.763 2.970 65 350 - 2.480 4.865 16.350 300 2.763 3.963 600 3.214 1.950 750 2.763 3.563 2012 2.340 4.381 4.970 65 3.563 2008 3.163 600 3.970 65 150 350 - 2.214 1.130 4.214 1.363 2004 3.163 600 3.505 18.214 1.563 2009 3.363 2005 3.405 19.763 3.214 1.763 3.970 65 2.615 15.015 16.563 2010 2.214 1.214 1.563 2007 3.490 3.340 3.650 750 2. Inc.763 2.519 1.163 600 3.

500 2.200 290 390 490 Mindanao Coal Baseload Plant Baseload Plant 200 50 150 370 420 570 1.240 Cebu Baseload 4.440 Cebu Baseload Negros Baseload 50 50 50 50 890 Baseload Plant 150 870 6.150 Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. UPEEE Foundation page 5 of 16 .100 2006 2007 Midrange 2008 Midrange 2009 Peaking 300 690 690 990 Panay Midrange Panay Baseload Cebu Baseload Negros Baseload 600 300 1. Inc.200 5.890 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.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.750 690 Baseload Plant 50 620 3.1e: 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 4.050 San Roque Hydro 2005 345 690 240 Diesel Plant from Luzon Midrange Plant 70 100 170 1.350 1.190 Cebu Baseload Panay Baseload 990 Baseload Plant 100 970 7.

528 31.997 Table C.091 57.317.782 13.609 10.495 685.975 14.503 1.918 Coal 10.158.928 31.340 238.086.599 168.680 489.491 97.103 21.820.635 582.313 685.937 148.812 32.402.820.330 25.465 5.061 35.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C. Inc.536.951.284 24.844 147.435 81.941 384.201 30.030 2.760.894 22.265.676 685.982.460 34.307.429 181.138 38.388.534 8.921.1g: 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 137.113 283.669.491.676 6.422 335.833.304.113.450 295.624 7.922 Natural gas 5.1h: 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 78.445 Oil-based 21.462 27.203 265.887.045.531 14.981 303.764.452 685.816.352.687 16.577.416 21.927 8.869.060.837 18.600.464 Natural gas 104 125 134 143 152 157 159 158 156 157 1.965 83.850 20.988 213.722 685.177 685.249.114.762 94.477 203.264 8.410 89.410 40.985 42.229 8.051.317 211.829 222.927 8.020 289.076.032 392.177 92.493 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.100 8.251 128.849 7.963 15.521 36.497 195.792 8.303 265.095 Oil-based 2.151 243.188 139.897.840 51.093 679.536 Oil-based 12.449 685.289 159.870 225.897 189.220 8.660 169.770 25.088 TOTAL 159.803.011 2.652 182.188.865 683.644 7.908 32.019 TOTAL 112.958.803 103.163 437.939 26.633 164.453 Table C.712 117.785 39.991 33.855 133.802.289 28.776 3.185 32.710 128.936.778.086 8.611 309.297 33.962 16.171 29.821 2.275.939 Natural gas 21.828 345.631.125.316.797 3.532 39.519 TOTAL 18.242 75.993 46.1f: 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 641.788 1.876.279 28.855 246.809.808 40.273 7.324 28.866. UPEEE Foundation page 6 of 16 .571.573.568 115.821 2.827.896 9.

963 3.008 2. Inc.763 13.999 7.758 42.285 13.157 2.586 10.121 54.250 3.414 Oil-based 2.045 1.425 1.630 2.571 14.714 3.134 3.193 121.060 6.656 12.323 362.053 76.078 165.712 28.519 1.049 Natural gas 8.1k: Total NMVOC Emissions by Fuel Type for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total for period Geothermal Coal 373 362 399 493 551 610 665 783 933 1.586 1.207 TOTAL 21.925 4.362 23.810 2.196 13.454 Oil-based 163 195 267 238 302 449 713 770 755 802 4.602 16.337 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.274 13.671 Table C.268 11.580 1.125 13.1j: 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 1.571 1.385 11.373 2.966 32.581 1.008 Oil-based 33 40 49 44 59 82 121 129 122 131 810 TOTAL 282 314 346 379 423 470 526 566 598 644 4.432 25.562 1.595 46.971 12.228 Natural gas 1.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.240 4.655 TOTAL 1.254 1.069 14.730 Natural gas 145 174 186 198 211 218 220 219 217 218 2.1i: 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 9.575 13.873 9.241 28.776 10.397 3.548 Table C.586 50.758 24.341 1. UPEEE Foundation page 7 of 16 .319 13.620 20.529 11.355 26.554 12.176 17.363 36.

43 0.1l: 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 1.97 421.209 43.698 3.563 Oil-based 2.03 0.02 0.176 2.003 1.684 7.78 CO 0.336 Oil-based 79 95 121 108 142 202 305 320 308 328 2.42 0.89 2.01 0.41 4.836 7.03 0.589 9.700 24.044 Natural gas 836 1. Inc.01 0.02 0.140 22.647 338.01 0.072 7.528 3.01 0.51 CH4 0.03 0.40 0.02 0.139 4.39 0.927 20.39 410.01 NMVOC 0.917 17.514 5.268 1.44 0.39 373.923 7.25 2. UPEEE Foundation page 8 of 16 .256 11.52 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.02 0.36 0.50 0.02 0.995 Table C.66 429.01 0.013 1.50 0.01 0.52 3.66 358.008 TOTAL 952 1.160 25.02 0.031 46.84 3.275 1.15 4.02 0.06 3.952 38.342 Natural gas 313 376 402 428 456 471 476 474 469 471 4.37 0.04 1.03 0.02 0.559 21.140 1.244 26.175 1.97 2.89 4.14 2.653 49.122 1.264 1.03 0.45 2.221 3.399 1.02 Particulates 0.03 0.50 0.03 N2O 0.34 0.36 390.57 2.47 0.69 2.03 0.424 1.35 0.250 1.24 3.01 0.37 438.778 1.41 0.60 NOX 2.67 2.1n: Environmental Emissions per Unit Generation (tonne/kWh) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Environmental Emissions CO2 340.858 29.257 1.216 1.686 Table C.969 2.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.353 55.620 274.1m: 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 16.589 1.387 TOTAL 19.073 1.03 0.55 338.01 0.50 SOX 2.01 2.42 0.389 15.39 0.01 0.46 0.771 53.256 34.78 346.02 0.973 33.394 15.979 29.49 0.03 0.35 2.466 41.

R.034 2.809 1.400 1.815 VISAYAS 1.992 11.94% 8.378 13.65% 7.60% 8.2b: System Peak Demand Forecasts for the High Economic Growth Scenario (MW) YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual Ave.633 10.862 12.543 1. G.176 1.512 1. Inc.90% 8.2007) (2008 .22% 8.883 9.13% 8.09% 8.46% 8. (2003 .675 1.359 14.423 15.081 1.953 2.099 1.73% 7.630 1.2a: 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.711 9.92% 8.23% Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.469 11.281 1.313 1.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.014 1.804 13.757 1.428 1.186 10.106 MINDANAO 1.424 12.562 16.438 10.891 2.186 NATIONAL Non-Coincident Peak 8.59% 7.194 1.994 8.788 7.357 7.2012) LUZON 6. UPEEE Foundation page 9 of 16 .2012) (2003 .106 8.790 18.

300 6.033 8.64% 7.888 8.305 6.851 7.155 8.59% 7.233 11.124 8.497 10.814 60.187 71.578 75.104 81.73% 7.888 51.2007) (2008 .2c: Electricity Sales Forecasts for the High Economic Growth Scenario (GWh) YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual Ave.465 8.658 66.60% 8.474 69.13% 51. UPEEE Foundation page 10 of 16 .46% 6. G.R.847 12.807 6.555 10.149 8.22% 5.392 83. (2003 .363 59.2012) 39.015 11.814 43.355 5. Inc.90% 8.555 90.938 7.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.746 64.805 9.09% 8.94% 8.094 55.848 9.2012) (2003 .469 55.711 77.92% 8.156 46.23% Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.266 104.732 8.314 11.148 97.542 8.

300 1.308 2012 1.500 900 2.758 450 3.758 450 3.763 2.758 450 3.763 2.443 3.141 12.583 3.800 3.205 907 65 2.817 2.443 3.381 11.357 616 200 200 - 2.308 2009 2.604 546 - 1.763 2.758 450 3.308 2007 2.308 2006 2.431 14.763 1.205 907 65 2.707 616 200 200 - 1.205 907 65 2.443 3.308 2005 2.647 1.308 2010 1.758 450 3.205 907 65 2.658 616 200 200 - 2.758 450 3.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.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 - 1.758 616 200 200 - 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 1.758 450 3.308 Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 2.758 450 3.205 907 65 2.205 907 65 Luzon Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking 300 1.381 17.657 616 - 1.367 2.700 1.881 16.007 616 200 200 - 2.300 750 LUZON TOTAL Oil-based Coal Local Imported 11.860 907 65 2.763 1.308 2008 2.317 2.763 2.510 907 - 2.557 616 200 200 - 2.205 907 65 2.607 616 - 1.017 2.141 12.583 3.205 907 65 2.796 12.763 2.767 2.763 2.443 3. UPEEE Foundation page 11 of 16 .067 2.583 3. Inc.308 2011 1.443 3.800 3.567 2.758 450 3.867 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.441 13.763 2.443 3.758 450 3.763 2.2d: DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the High Economic Growth Scenario (MW) Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Local Imported Year 2003 2.233 3.141 12.717 1.308 2004 2.857 616 200 200 - 2.

214 1.963 600 3.005 21.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Local Imported Year 2003 3.214 1.480 4.214 1.765 18.214 1.163 600 3.340 4.250 750 PHILIPPINES TOTAL 14.490 3.806 22.756 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.120 15.763 3.340 3.065 16.763 3.970 65 2.763 3.363 2005 3.163 600 3.000 4.763 2.763 3.563 2007 3.163 600 3.250 0 3.970 65 2.970 65 2.381 4.340 4.214 1.763 3.130 4.563 Philippines Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 2.363 2004 3.381 4.163 600 3.930 - 2.632 15. UPEEE Foundation page 12 of 16 .200 4.970 65 Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking 300 350 150 400 450 800 700 2.963 600 3.970 65 2.563 2009 3.865 16.163 600 3.563 2012 2.150 0 1.763 3.850 3.500 0 3.519 1.214 1.163 600 3.214 1.214 1.563 2010 2.340 4.963 600 3.155 20.869 1.970 65 2.163 600 3.763 2.457 3.763 3.615 15.563 2011 2.763 3.970 65 2. Inc.970 65 2.563 2008 3.363 2006 3.970 65 2.

170 9.250 Midrange 1. Inc.190 Cebu Baseload Panay Baseload Baseload Plant 50 720 3.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.440 Baseload Plant 100 1.100 2005 150 50 50 100 50 50 50 50 100 50 50 50 100 150 50 1.200 4. UPEEE Foundation page 13 of 16 .200 Peaking 2012 750 6.070 8.850 2009 Negros Baseload Cebu Midrange Bohol Midrange Baseload Plant 900 1.2e: DOE Plan for Power Plant Line-Up for the High Economic Growth Scenario LUZON YEAR PLANT ADDITION Kalayaan 3&4 VISAYAS MINDANAO PHILIPPINES MW installed MW installed MW installed PLANT ADDITION PLANT ADDITION cumulative total capacity MW capacity MW capacity MW 350 345 Uprating of LeyteBohol Interconnection from 35 MW to 100 MW from 35 MW to 100 MW Mambucal Geo 40 0 385 PNOC_EDC Wind 2004 Transfer of Hopewell GT to Mindanao (70 MW) Northwind San Roque Hydro 40 -70 40 25 345 690 Uprating of LeyteCebu Interconnection from 200 MW to 400 MW Panay Midrange Negros Midrange 240 Hopewell GT from Luzon 70 170 1.300 2010 Midrange Baseload Plant 2011 Midrange 900 600 5.200 2.340 Baseload Plant Midrange Plant 150 50 1.550 990 Cebu Baseload Cebu Midrange Negros Baseload Baseload Plant Midrange Plant 200 50 670 2.290 Cebu Baseload Bohol Midrange Baseload Plant Midrange Plant 100 50 870 6.140 940 590 290 440 Midrange Plant 100 2006 2007 Midrange 2008 300 690 690 Panay Midrange Panay Baseload Panay Midrange Mindanao Coal Baseload Plant 200 50 370 420 1.150 Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.540 Cebu Baseload Panay Baseload 1.350 1.790 Cebu Baseload Negros Baseload Cebu Midrange 50 50 100 50 50 1.

294.585 685.064 118.829 347.258.710 546.198.498 130.839 182.060.630 162.743.939 26.744.518 77.704.537 16.124 8. Inc.582 40.296 1.042 17.170 89.239 10.706 153.250 284.000 684.316 257. UPEEE Foundation page 14 of 16 .824 13.221 109.673 35.172 22.792.434 28.689 Oil-based 9.106.808 243.211 173.208.341 26.173 56.808 139.220 8.194 TOTAL 111.094 104.488.890.297 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.864 2.473 51.565.636 Natural gas 104 126 136 145 155 158 159 158 156 157 1.897 409.859 7.927 8.017 30.620.888 232.686 Coal 10.887 197.645.396 154.300.299 33.526 33.774 12.722 685.014 42.415 Natural gas 21.722 685.683 61.518 214.722 685.877.713 217.664.891 11.897.300 Table C.941 30.701 Natural gas 5.909 224.989.178.073.590 Table C.921.198.370.785.767 685.828.052 418.055 2.2h: 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 79.812 33.822 23.945 479.639 34.796 44.806.499 TOTAL 167.2f: 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 641.207 14.912 293.051 8.226 7.498 264.351 79.866 288.873 49.945 1.293 82.322 12.456 Oil-based 27.793 3.934.661 30.297 33.686 347.734.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.820.264 8.254 191.912.233 33.234.320 681.891 8.399.2g: 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 139.050.202 74.267 121.862 11.677 174.741 631.206 180.970.253.863.609 28.688 221.437 242.021.897.033 8.167.180 42.922 383.779 15.124 11.787.002 321.450 685.877 20.572.465.879 Oil-based 2.533 32.862.585 685.840.784 157.035 TOTAL 19.043 41.965 19.849 7.383 326.895 12.198 192.812 6.634 149.070 305.951.435 2.708 137.317 3.529 5.625 1.534.125.843 20.653 27.490 157.185 32.735.

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

Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.583 3.763 907 1.191 3.491 2.758 3.531 3.205 25 12.491 2.061 3.053 3.917 4.491 2.116 37 100 60 2.263 4.287 3.255 12 20 2.831 92 315 17.313 4.269 647 250 228 1.782 647 200 108 997 1.214 50 65 15.002 3.971 3.583 2.971 3.942 112 850 21.763 907 2.510 11.983 2.747 4.983 1.971 3.758 3.871 1.758 3.189 559 205 956 12 50 1.763 1.758 3.415 12 40 2.901 655 205 1.583 947 2.923 2.558 12 80 2.752 3.758 2.283 1.758 3.678 547 108 997 1.512 2.732 647 108 997 1.671 92 170 16.227 2.697 4.624 2.127 4.952 3.804 509 205 956 12 1.763 1.213 5.163 2.942 5.418 112 685 19.383 2.214 80 65 16.758 3.422 400 14.467 12 60 2.205 65 12.763 907 1.963 2.205 65 12.266 73 100 100 2.781 4.583 1.758 3.213 5.694 609 205 986 12 80 20 1.547 3.189 609 205 956 12 80 1.985 5.283 2. UPEEE Foundation Visayas page 2 of 16 .419 609 205 1.862 647 250 108 997 2.931 2.759 2.869 25 15.213 2.971 2.912 647 250 128 1.963 2.775 2.583 2.763 1.895 2.633 2.138 2.797 525 14.758 3.383 977 2.652 3.941 605 205 1.697 3.066 12 80 40 2.101 629 205 1.404 130 12.758 3.763 907 2.267 2.429 545 205 916 12 1.763 1.011 1.491 2.213 5.925 112 520 18.404 235 13.011 1.211 650 15.682 547 108 997 1.860 25 11. Inc.146 647 250 188 1.661 1.519 14.658 12 100 2.491 1.194 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.012 647 250 148 1.871 5.149 559 205 956 12 1.963 2.711 4.917 4.216 63 100 80 2.011 3.312 3.398 647 250 228 1.763 1.214 25 15.1a: 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 2.763 907 2.652 3.213 4.287 4.213 3.

343 16.821 2.060 33.020.654 29.937 1.523 4.596 1.573.931 0 40 0 0 0 90 130 340 180 70 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 2.360 92.536.837 15.583 0 0 300 0 50 0 0 20 75 50 Coal 3.963 0 0 0 200 50 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 2.951 31.928 7.764 6.094.235 1.249.763 0 0 0 0 0 820 800 900 300 400 1.590 1.579 1.897.085 16.272 Total 55.101 Fuel Type Geothermal 641.813 19.148 1.979.760.589 27.113.948 80.893 7.141 18.477 12.097 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 14.797 3.577.857 27.247 3.452 685.975 14.113.687 16.653 821.151.086 11.438 86.757 30.125.831 2.778.114.216 13.229 8.372 64.710 18.133.629 18.001 16.456 758.209 Total Addition Table D.271 21.624 7.430 Table D.849 7.927 8. Inc.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.462 27.652 1.835 Natural Gas 13.152.465 5.894 22.098 15.210 19.906 27.659 27.089.054 15.1b: Annual Capacity Additions (MW) Year Oil-based Current Installed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3.982.415 20.706 1.576 14.1d: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.495 639.968 8.402.374 30.284 24.076.158.636 99.484 1.521 27.388.782 13.121 14.333.915 Coal 18.045.689 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.916.528 31.263 14.908 Coal 10.850 20.943 27.623.784 15.644 1.087 19.125.017 17.757 846.099 14.349 16.324 6.958.213 1.820.1c: Power Generation (GWh) Year Oil-based 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.975 15.215.953 24.383 Natural Gas 5.313 1.181 69.896 9.391 1.865 683.092 15.449 685.281.289 106.833.074 24.519 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 1.869.011 2.177 685.100 18.884 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 0 645 785 785 785 Wind 0 153 153 153 153 153 843 1.275.093 679.943 7.580 74.901.720 3.952 3.143 59. UPEEE Foundation page 3 of 16 .776 3.816.297 Hydro Biomass Wind Total 18.174.061 27.936.783 15.641 6.534 8.609 10.571.550 30.

02 0.061 27.42 0.06 0.317 164.24 3.402.06 0.840 217.52 2.894 22.779 2.36 0.41 0.03 0.03 N2O 0.10 3.397 943.35 2.988 213.008 2.02 0.32 0.937 148.06 0.712 117.275 Environmental Emissions CO 21.901.70 304.916.284 24.01 NMVOC 0.01 2.39 373.289 159.18 9.966 32.238 N 2O 952 1.362 23.42 0.36 0.01 0.137 171.73 1.973 33.536 27.89 2.954 180.778.157 2.06 3.38 0.927 20.147 943.152.02 0.110 35.689 SOX 159.758 32.151 243.97 2.98 10.06 0.029 NOX 112.36 390.936.03 0.380 169.50 8.32 299.03 0.27 Table D.013 1.979 29.46 0.04 3.01 0.39 0.03 0.528 31.951 31.17 2.1g: Generation Cost Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Generation Cost US$/kWh 0.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.37 0.52 2.01 0.43 0.422 217.02 8.599 168.30 0.122 1.90 1.09 314.241 28.160 25.06 3.584 2.36 0.31 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.1e: Environmental Emissions (tonne) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 18.84 3.726 215.06 PhP/kWh 3.215.757 30.140 22.839 27.677 28.249.39 323.12 3.03 0.35 1.55 338.14 2.355 26.03 0.35 0.37 0.897 189.01 0.39 0.34 0.850 20.06 0.044 CH 4 282 314 346 379 423 470 443 470 497 536 NMVOC 1.25 2.66 358.581 1.687 38.01 0.06 0.363 36.429 181.02 0.589 775.05 NOX 2.05 3. UPEEE Foundation page 4 of 16 .83 1.982.113.630 2.03 0. Inc.810 2.654 29.06 0.275 1.69 Environmental Emissions CO CH 4 0.650 218.01 0.113 283.69 2.251 128.87 Particulates 0.1f: Environmental Emission per Unit Generation (tonne/GWh) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 340.373 2.06 0.535 Particulates 19.451 943.02 0.03 0.10 3.462 27.03 0.01 0.88 SO X 2.19 3.05 3.78 346.01 0.981 3.442 34.542 Table D.424 1.04 1.06 0.40 0.20 3.952 27.28 0.01 0.

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

UPEEE Foundation page 6 of 16 .325 3.213 3.869 25 15.759 907 1.065 17.149 559 205 956 12 1.042 647 250 148 1.758 3.214 80 65 16.404 25 1.071 3.2a: 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 2.831 117 1.758 3.267 4.856 609 205 1.971 3.658 12 335 3.519 14.763 2.758 3.825 510 205 1.205 25 12.227 2.468 2.211 25 3.697 4.718 609 205 996 12 80 20 1.491 2.468 907 1.415 12 106 2.561 3.063 2.758 3.136 647 250 188 1.758 3.096 12 80 40 2.841 4.583 3.283 647 250 228 1.168 4.369 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.743 2.214 25 15.682 547 108 997 1.758 3.002 3.747 4.476 63 80 80 2.922 647 250 128 1.558 12 262 2.189 559 205 956 12 50 1.804 509 205 956 12 1.862 647 250 108 997 2.778 2.971 3.480 23.491 1.678 547 108 997 1.063 3.671 102 718 16.547 3.138 907 2.661 1.871 1.491 2.963 2.763 1.422 25 1.797 25 2.807 21.925 117 2.763 2.752 3.917 4.413 647 250 228 1.763 1.205 65 12.411 18.255 12 33 2.214 50 65 15.578 2.652 3.763 1.952 3.127 4.213 4.732 647 108 997 1.491 2.652 3.968 5.189 609 205 956 12 80 1.860 25 11.548 2.758 3.213 3.868 609 205 1.957 2. Inc.221 3.465 16.971 3.531 1.963 2.011 1.346 63 80 80 2.991 4.968 2.205 65 12.697 3.488 1.104 19.011 3.932 117 3.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.467 12 179 2.758 3.923 907 2.168 4.963 2.931 2.404 10 665 12.287 3.964 977 2.548 4.865 14.265 13.213 4.163 2.510 11.782 647 200 108 997 1.735 1.291 510 205 1.763 1.213 2.130 2.491 2.213 5.429 545 205 916 12 1.758 2.267 2.418 117 2.971 2.763 3.633 907 2.763 2.763 1.778 4.053 947 2.758 3.011 1.763 2.146 37 80 60 2.

375 24.746 23.341 22.011 2.2d: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type (tonne) Year Oil-based 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.908 Coal 10.345 16.158.577.849 7.132.181 69.651 1.776 3.732 12.198 29.2c: Power Generation (GWh) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.815 19.856 14.177 685.157.465 3.573.647 13.436.452 685.778.528 26.963 0 0 0 200 50 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 2.782 13.557.360 92.324 6.284 24.247 3.820.975 15.692 27.016.114.550 26.287 9.032.915 Coal 18.433 2.430 Table D.136 2.172.992.263 6.891 26.104 20.2b: Annual Capacity Additions (MW) Year Oil-based* Currently Installed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3.178.388.079 2.125.821 2.602 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.893 7.082 Natural Gas 5.270 21.676.289 106.655 20.927 8.865 683.948 80.778.741 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 715 820 820 436 259 Wind 0 153 153 153 153 1.791.896 9.529 26.113.534 21.809 13.737.833.415 18.936.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.245 Natural Gas 13. Inc.975 14.622 7.636 99.694 Fuel Type Geothermal 641.349 16.545 16.437 86.229 8.372 64.249.281 2.982.583 0 0 300 0 50 548 548 488 538 528 Coal 3.708 27.519 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 2.098 13.158 14.477 12.085 Total 55.580 74.850 20.093 679.770 5.952 3.045.076.536.138 26.919 Hydro Biomass Wind Total 18.203.928 7. UPEEE Foundation page 7 of 16 .897.087 19.387 1.332 919.720 3.385 3.885 32.654 1.764 4.659 27.143 59.320.365 *includes capacities of diesel engines used as ancillary to wind power plants Table D.922 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 14.333.958.369 11.709 1.763 0 0 0 0 0 300 715 770 420 500 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 1.797 3.361 10.545.687 14.462 27.386 649.973 769.449 597.523 4.534 8.092 15.054 15.790 1.210 19.103.931 0 40 0 0 0 100 150 340 280 150 2.017 17.170 867.121 14.760.624 7.953 24.704 1.894 22.942 19.961.317 16.629 18.117 10.943 7.385 2.816.758.609 10.968 15.141 18.919 3.

35 0.00 0.122 1.712 117.702 32.03 0.737 148.03 0.073 N 2O 952 1.284 24.06 0.13 SO X 2.936.05 3.03 0.581 1.73 1.442 21.55 338.48 2.2f: Environmental Emission per Unit Generation (tonne/GWh) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 340.157 2.43 0.178.529 26.06 PhP/kWh 3.988 213.778.54 261.04 1.01 2.35 0.39 0.37 0.301 985.39 373.602 SOX 159.891 26.02 0.66 358.42 0.04 3.03 0.539 185.528 26.113.35 0.00 0.03 0.311 525.97 2.475 31.34 0.160 25.937 148.69 2.14 2.376 30.01 0.90 288.583 Particulates 19.01 0.00 NMVOC 0.140 22.961.363 29.00 1.125 985.020 22. UPEEE Foundation page 8 of 16 .739 161.2g: Generation Cost Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Generation Cost US$/kWh 0.03 N2O 0.40 0.810 2.02 0.41 10.241 28.23 0.78 346.48 1.75 1.94 Particulates 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.37 0.84 3.966 32.36 325.02 0.52 NOX 2.849 3.06 0.731 171.12 3.03 0.54 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.599 168.34 0.852 Table D.426 33.05 3.151 243.39 0.24 2.791.546 150.154 2.429 181.01 0.223 151.30 0.03 0.065 214.64 5.63 271.859 NOX 112.32 0.407 2.41 0.973 28.355 26.138 26.26 0.06 0.251 128.02 0.01 0.03 0.38 3.15 3.68 11.02 10.00 0.289 159.424 859.113 232.675 146.06 0.676.249.06 3.93 1.01 3.927 20.008 2.00 0.373 2.06 0.89 2.979 29.275 1.906 CH 4 282 314 346 379 423 389 418 444 462 492 NMVOC 1.086 24.150 312.29 2.21 Table D.013 1.362 23.45 308.679 2. Inc.462 27.36 0.2e: Environmental Emissions (tonne) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 18.850 20.06 0.33 0.692 27.89 2.010 26.982.10 3.06 0.63 1.894 22.23 3.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.39 Environmental Emissions CO CH 4 0.107 Environmental Emissions CO 21.897 155.03 0.737.25 1.

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

205 65 12.871 1.176 12 80 40 2.519 14.138 907 2.291 629 205 1.267 2.758 3.971 3.041 4.534 717 200 228 1.763 1.971 3.547 3.581 605 205 1.763 1.287 3.963 2.763 2.583 4.652 3.116 100 574 20.963 2.011 1.758 3.817 4.652 3.883 80 364 18.860 25 11.862 717 200 108 997 2.357 4. UPEEE Foundation page 10 of 16 .518 100 739 22.832 717 200 108 997 2.892 2.007 1.971 2.758 3.510 11.022 3.227 2.763 2.205 25 12.027 977 2.433 7.581 2.341 655 205 1.763 2.163 7.694 609 205 996 12 80 20 1.404 130 12.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.758 3.869 25 15.197 4.941 2.3a: 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 2.383 4.205 65 12.931 2.301 3.214 80 65 16.758 3.211 690 17.367 2.987 4.043 907 2.658 89 2.434 1.511 1.491 2.491 2.163 3.758 2.945 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.163 6.183 7.583 2.658 69 2.758 3.817 4.759 907 1.963 2.758 3.011 1.333 4.691 4.733 6.732 717 108 997 1.682 547 108 997 1.189 609 205 956 12 50 1.661 1.491 2.804 509 205 956 12 1.276 37 100 65 2.758 3.767 3.797 565 16.822 3.311 717 200 188 1.832 2.429 545 205 916 12 1.763 1.583 3.214 50 65 16.122 717 200 148 1.663 717 200 228 1.422 440 15.071 3.467 49 2.678 547 108 997 1.383 3.073 947 2.163 2.703 907 2.733 2.491 2.183 2.404 275 13.189 609 205 956 12 80 1.763 2.214 25 15.011 3.971 100 904 22.763 1.022 3. Inc.526 73 100 105 2.163 2.163 7.809 609 205 1.763 1.491 1.922 717 200 128 1.476 63 100 85 2.758 3.687 109 2.971 4.383 907 1.163 4.971 3.763 3.149 559 205 956 12 1.783 80 150 17.412 3.433 2.

019 814.773.115 100.110 2.107 4.640.020 16.465 37.050.984 30.258.897.963 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 2.156.858 1.349 16.226.104 13.065 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 14.272 Fuel Type Geothermal 641. UPEEE Foundation page 11 of 16 .128.722 2.585 685.535 1.051 10.891 8.503 42.893 7.108 20.879 3.874 109.218.673 29.479 27.321 14.239 10.439 18.885 23.315 118.664. Inc.208.208 14.252 2.747 Coal 18.759 0 415 715 340 30 1.749 2.850 21.028 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 561 561 701 343 701 Wind 0 153 153 153 153 402 974 1.130 20.946 20.190 3.556 60.534.919 33.585.324 6.3c: Power Generation (GWh) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.704.103 16.458 14.763 0 0 0 0 0 820 1.386 678.207 14.320 681.146 29.448 Hydro Biomass Wind Total 19.188.252.226 7.850 7.766 19.496 5.569.033.420 4.779 15.694 2.595 66.849 7.649 6.106.671 14.745 912.404 13.768 3.859.695.317 Total 55.458 Natural Gas 5.828.407.574 1.893 18.263 72.932 7.700 750 200 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 1.744.791 23.964 Natural Gas 13.864 3.519 0 350 345 0 0 569 100 233 402 453 Biomass 0 0 0 0 50 30 0 0 20 0 0 Wind 0 0 25 0 40 0 85 214 210 165 165 Total Addition 14.785.978 27.578 19.234.153 85.952 8.158 14.931 0 40 0 0 0 100 230 390 280 70 2.269 36.124 8.084 17.463 2.163 30.600 16.000 684.125.076 15.807 93.484.756 31.101 15.964 26.840.907 937.722 597.000 15.928.862.3d: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type (tonne) Year Oil-based 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.042 15.916.126 15.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.471 Table D.602 17.973 27.583 0 0 370 50 0 0 0 20 75 50 Coal 3.496 14.450 685.169 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.646 2.891 11.739 26.537 18.877 1.016 28.672 938 Table D.573 1.141.650 79.991 Coal 10.3b: Annual Capacity Additions (MW) Year Oil-based Currently Installed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3.920.555.640.615 4.897.859 3.777 34.769 22.855.150 1.367 2.243 26.934 17.734.672.209 26.

37 0.862.04 0.274 3.887 173.0175 3.858 2.04 0.24 2.43 0.0544 0.062 118.343 31.304 36.307 2.264 200.48 0.099 214.39 0.101 CH 4 283 321 358 402 456 453 509 540 592 655 NMVOC 1.38 0.97 1.284 27.494 23.18 351.44 2.90 406.377 1.828. UPEEE Foundation page 12 of 16 .734 179.0555 0.0495 3.43 0.928.01 0.566 674.755 181.51 0.199 33.42 0.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.3e: Environmental Emissions (tonne) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 19.03 3.591 216.50 0.636 217.359 842.9923 2.684 207.0549 0.130 20.750 24.156.15 2.45 0. Inc.01 0.9785 2.25 3.777 34.04 0.03 0.733 174.44 0.3138 3.01 0.447 153.10 3.02 0.677 42.10 354.10 2.500 132.71 8.984 30.01 0.202 173.03 0.0561 0.0554 0.01 0.44 0.596 2.30 3.756 31.03 0.389 NOX 111.166 37.546 36.69 4.099 Table D.43 0.169 S OX 167.268 674.02 8.065 2.01 1.18 2.0541 0.01 0.4193 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.024 3.617 413.916.620 4.421 Environmental Emissions CO 21.266 191.0622 3.739 26.68 429.859.151 31.41 SO X 3.372 842.04 0.13 373.141.506 45.139 288.03 0.01 0.024 N 2O 970 1.17 351.04 N2O 0.711 48.0542 0.32 2.07 9.61 2.428 38.56 0.873 215.672.0868 3.096 27.06 NOX 2.055 1.686 239.0603 0.01 0.01 NMVOC 0.559 3.91 376.16 2.0578 0.39 2.79 385.38 0.41 0.1790 3.676 20.269 36.02 0.272 41.163 30.430 43.21 2.03 0.25 8.050.12 2.54 367.3f: Environmental Emission per Unit Generation (tonne/GWh) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 370.0536 2.04 Particulates 0.599 1.845 Particulates 19.344 45.98 Environmental Emissions CO CH 4 0.46 Table D.01 0.02 0.885 23.294 244.186 1.3g: Generation Cost Generation Cost US$/kWh PhP/kWh 0.50 0.02 0.673 29.42 0.35 4.44 0.9744 3.407.

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

797 25 2.690 510 205 1.527 17.149 559 205 956 12 1.983 2.333 2.065 17. Inc.122 717 200 148 1.214 50 65 16.841 4.963 2.238 4.687 262 3.465 16.281 20.987 4.548 717 200 228 1.180 2.971 3.547 3.661 1.783 977 2.732 717 108 997 1.942 717 200 128 1.197 4.561 4.678 547 108 997 1.189 609 205 956 12 80 1.656 510 205 1.163 5.765 95 609 205 1.758 3.491 2.758 3.763 907 2.041 22.767 3.963 2.043 2.163 4.763 1.971 3.758 3.214 80 65 16.491 2.832 717 200 108 997 2.871 1.063 2.741 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.763 907 2.339 76 2.291 609 205 1.758 3.763 1.071 3.163 3.687 186 2.605 5.804 509 205 956 12 1.758 3.978 2.763 907 1.869 25 15.011 3.860 25 11.583 3.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.971 3.758 3.404 15 4.715 23.022 3.763 1.337 4.963 2.336 717 200 188 1.163 2.211 25 3.983 1.429 545 205 916 12 1.652 3.703 2.297 5.966 95 Visayas 771 1.146 47 100 230 2.822 3.096 22 80 110 2. UPEEE Foundation page 14 of 16 .783 2.557 125 3.205 25 12.971 2.519 14.124 18.404 15 3.011 1.011 1.163 2.682 547 108 997 1.652 3.763 907 2.510 11.817 4.817 4.265 12.205 65 12.155 125 2.205 65 12.758 2.687 12 336 3.189 609 205 956 12 50 1.287 3.763 907 1.227 2.460 3.214 25 15.931 2.491 2.758 3.540 152 2.758 3.238 4.163 5.333 1.422 25 1.4a: Installed Capacity (MW) Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Luzon Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind LUZON TOTAL Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind VISAYAS TOTAL Oil-based Coal Mindanao Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind MINDANAO TOTAL Oil-based Coal Philippines Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind PHILIPPINES TOTAL Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.865 15.491 1.073 3.022 3.863 609 205 996 22 80 30 1.548 665 1.333 2.862 717 200 108 997 2.759 2.221 3.491 2.723 13.758 3.267 2.763 1.476 73 100 314 2.991 4.678 717 200 228 1.063 947 2.094 2.757 2.333 1.163 3.971 137 3.346 73 100 314 2.138 2.763 1.

484.193 6.556 60.867 Coal 10.263 72.076 15.978 26. UPEEE Foundation page 15 of 16 .326.252.386 649.984 30.897.814.030 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 666 666 876 876 960 Wind 0 153 153 153 153 2.471 3.578 19.101 15.862.859 4.125.952 8.874 109.779 15.420 4.418 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.153 85.450 685.4c: Power Generation (GWh) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.104 20.107 6.633.865.897.4d: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.263 Fuel Type Hydro 6.549 6.091 33.534.471 Table D.124 8.332 919.130 20.200 350 0 1.583 0 0 370 50 0 621 582 549 595 529 Coal 3.326.639 16.062 2.585 685.095 7.760 23.209.290 36.864 3.931 0 40 0 0 0 100 150 340 280 150 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 2.226 7.016 28.850 7.050.258.644 34.779 Total Addition *includes capacities of diesel engines used as ancillary to wind power plants Table D.051 9.208.387 1.932 7.618.963 22.239 21.807 93.234.883 9.768 3.106.885 23.960 19.186 2.324 6.893 7.791 21.115 13.708.439 18.170 867.993 Natural Gas 5.891 8.956.650 79.243 26.335.382 1.953 Geothermal 14.126 15.407.317 16.118 31.739 26.000 15.020 16.538 2.891 11.828.630.735 12.511.595 66.000 684.763 0 0 0 0 0 300 720 1.840.016 17.600 Coal 18.036.239 10.916.496 5.320 681.893 18.109 8.158 14.014 17.942 19.722 2.193 16.084 17.653 Total 55.115 100.142 29.538 4.103 11.443.060 4.190 3.207 14.409 3.650.527.045 26. Inc.615 4.216 11.673 28.639 Fuel Type Geothermal 641.734.850 21.479 10.919 Hydro Biomass Wind Total 19.973 769.292 2.704.419 14.722 597.288.042 14.298.953 36.012 Natural Gas 13.746.508 29.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.315 118.963 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 2.080 6.349 16.398.426 20.104 13.744.315 24.849 7.4b: Annual Capacity Additions (MW) Year Oil-based* Currently Installed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3.519 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 2.664.

03 0.2638 3.862.9923 2.750 24.0175 3.248 42.151 31.18 2.39 0.0544 0.566 800.984 30.37 0.01 0.750 N 2O 970 1.09 329.01 0.52 329.676 20.0550 0.438 1.00 Particulates 0.9785 3.41 0.511.68 429.40 0.97 319.202 173.746.6854 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.0495 3.01 0.47 0.546 36.106 170.53 0.625 166.771 3.04 0.430 46.754 NOX 111.425 2.03 0.03 SO X 3.40 0.828.343 31.4f: Environmental Emission per Unit Generation (tonne/GWh) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 370.515 212.739 26.82 11.45 0.777 Particulates 19.30 3.596 2.01 0.75 2.814.01 0.38 0.0549 0.052.03 0.32 2.44 0.0593 0.34 9.01 0.13 373.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.0554 0.44 0.654 Environmental Emissions CO 21.69 4.294 38.04 0.500 132.16 2.479 3.01 0.916.050.02 0.0622 0.153.0575 0.0536 2.264 200.48 0.599 1.12 2.447 153.644 34.58 11.307 2.60 0.885 23.03 Environmental Emissions CO CH 4 0.02 10.374 800.03 0.79 385.096 27.258 34.4234 3.68 10.0542 0.139 288.740 1.42 0.90 406.720 234.118 31.38 0.494 23.062 118.738 45.465 36.00 1.09 1.508 29.91 372.887 168.055 1. Inc.01 0.0670 PhP/kWh 3.79 1.052.03 3.4g: Generation Cost Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Generation Cost US$/kWh 0.196 3.02 0.858 2.679 188.073 174. UPEEE Foundation page 16 of 16 .0555 0.19 2.065 2.882 164.199 32.44 2.785 1.41 0.377 1.407.54 Table D.130 20.10 3.956.485 45.42 0.03 0.18 2.284 27.81 2.02 0.01 0.212 174.686 246.186 1.036.418 SOX 167.355 Table D.733 174.142 29.25 3.294 244.67 NOX 2.04 N2O 0.02 0.50 0.997 56.1607 3.4e: Environmental Emissions (tonne) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 19.31 358.03 0.263 44.04 0.673 28.51 0.01 NMVOC 0.82 1.291 CH 4 283 321 358 402 456 439 479 517 559 634 NMVOC 1.0228 3.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful