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

POWER SWITCH!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3

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

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

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

........................................ 1991-2001 ... 19912001...................1 Figure 3.................... Gross Domestic Product and Population...................................................... Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario............................. 1999-2001 ..........50 DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the Low Economic Growth Scenario........6 Figure 4.............2 Figure 4..........5 Practical Wind Resources in the Philippines ................................6 Figure 3...7 Figure 3.. 19992001.................39 Electricity Generation by Grid.......... 1991-2001 ........43 Energy Mix....1 Figure 4...........40 System Peak by Grid...................................51 Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario.........................................58 Figure 4.....................7 Figure 4........................................44 Share of Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy in the Energy Mix.................41 Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type............... Inc...9 Figure 4..............................................POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2..........3 Figure 4.................................................................................... UPEEE Foundation page iii ......2 Figure 3..........................45 Energy Mix and Carbon Dioxide Emissions..45 National Energy Planning Process .......53 Coal and Oil-Based vs...........................................................................53 Fossil Fuel Consumption for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario....8 Figure 4.....................................4 Figure 3.2 Figure 3....................................9 Figure 4..............3 Figure 3.............................................1 Figure 2...... 1999-2001..................... 2001....................39 Electricity Consumption...... 1999-2001 ..............27 Electricity Consumption by Sector...4 Figure 4...8 Figure 3................23 Practical Small Hydro Resources in the Philippines.................................................................56 Generation under the High Economic Growth Scenario.............................59 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.....................55 Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario..49 Generation under the Low Economic Growth Scenario.........................40 Total Installed Generating Capacity by Source...................5 Figure 3............................................................................................................................10 Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario.......... 1991-2001.....................................................................................57 DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the High Economic Growth Scenario .....................................................

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

...31 Philippine Natural Gas Resources...........................42 Historical Environmental Emissions for the Philippine Power Sector .....12 Table 2....................15 Table 2.......................1 Table 3..................10 Table 2................2 Table 2.......36 Emission Factors for Various Power Plants .........................26 Small Hydro Power Sites Verified by the DOE ....................................................13 1994 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Philippine Energy Sector .........14 Table 2............................................................38 Reserve Margin..........13 Table 2.....26 Practical Small Hydro Resources in the Philippines..................... 2 1994 Philippine Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector ........................17 Table 3................................................. 1991-2001 ........22 Available Large Hydro Resources ...16 Table 2...........................46 NPC and IPP Production Cost at 1990 Constant Prices. 2 Typical Capacity Factors of Power Plants and Levelized Generation Costs................................1 Table 1.............................................................11 Table 2.13 Philippine Wind Electric Potential ..........................34 Value of Air Emissions Reductions in California ...................36 Carbon Dioxide Emissions of Different Power Plant Types .5 Table 2......................4 Table 2....... 1991-2001 ...............7 Table 2....................42 NPC Average Electricity Rates..........................22 Practical Wind Resources in the Philippines .......................................................................4 Table 3.................33 Typical Capacity Factors of Power Plants and Levelized Generation Costs....................30 Available Geothermal Resources for Power Generation..5 Cost Comparison of Power Plants.............47 page v University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas...........2 Table 3.1 Table 2.........6 Table 2..............25 Philippine Small Hydro Electric Potential ..............................................3 Table 3....................... 1991-2001 .............POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines LIST OF TABLES Table 1....... UPEEE Foundation .......8 Table 2...............................9 Table 2.. Inc...3 Table 2...........28 Philippine Bagasse Electric Potential...................................2 Table 2....................................................................36 Energy Consumption by Sector........................................................32 Cost Comparison of Power Plants................26 Projected Supply of Biomass Resources ......................................

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

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.

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

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

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

3644 6.150 – 1.0193 0. $/kWa 17 – 20 11 – 14 14 – 18 14 – 16 30 – 35 44 – 45 20 – 25 40 – 70 44 – 45 29 – 38 14 – 18 Fuel Cost.200 – 1. Screening curves (costs per kWh vs.500 700 – 900 Annual Fixed O & M Cost.750 – 1.0625 0.1101 0.0405 0. Inc. (b) operation and maintenance cost.550 700 – 900 550 – 650 1.750 – 1.68 Table 1.0557 2.53 0 36.000 – 3. Actual industry discount rates may be higher depending on the following factors: required equity return. country risks and availability of financing.000 – 1. and (d) the level of generation (also called capacity factor).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 0.40 9. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.2282 2.8236 4.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.2277 1. UPEEE Foundation page 2 .800 1.0602 2.0494 0.1 below shows the costs used in this study.8174 3. including: (a) investment cost.1059 0. $/MWh 41. capacity factor) were developed based on the life cycle of each power generation technology and the four economic factors mentioned above.10 11. market risks.000 450 . Table 1.2282 2.800 1.0794 0.1: 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. regulatory risks.500 1.7153 5.5219 1 A discount rate of 12% was used to derive levelized generation costs.400 1. (c) fuel cost.12 0 0 3.93 32.4376 12.250 2. $/kWa 850 – 1.04 49.56 73. years 30 20 20 20 30 30 20 50 30 50 20 Investment Cost. Table 1.0512 0.0405 0.

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

UPSL considered only bagasse from sugarcane processing as practical resource for grid connection. The Philippine government is considering plans to develop a local natural gas industry. storage. construction of transmission lines) will cost up to 25% of the total life-cycle cost were considered. This first criterion reduced the number of wind sites to 2. A re-analysis of the NREL small hydro resource assessment was also conducted. Only those sites whose connection (i.e. In addition to existing geothermal power facilities. Using the second screening criterion similar to that use in the wind resource assessment. local natural gas production would be supplemented by imported natural gas. 1.931 MW. which generated a total of 10.) of the Philippine power sector from the period beginning 1991 to 2001 was also assessed in this study. This include considering only sites with power density of at least 500 W/m2. The application of the second criterion further reduced the number of sites to 1. limiting the transmission investment cost to 25% of total investment cost) resulted to the elimination of three sites from the small hydro resource pool. Inc.7 MW. Additional screening criteria were imposed to determine practical and viable wind power sites. This potential is spread all over the country where sugar centrals are situated. A second criterion that relates to grid connection costs was also used.092 with an aggregate potential of 14. For the purposes of this study.200 MW that could generate about 8.323 MW. This accounts for 14% and 22% of the total installed capacity and total generation. If this pushes through. total geothermal installed capacity amounted to 1. respectively in the country. Of all the biomass resources in the country.200 GWh of electricity per year. The Philippines power sector largely depends on geothermal energy to meet the demand and energy requirements of the country. UPEEE Foundation page 4 . Selecting only the sites with capacities of 5 MW or more as criterion.731 billion cubic feet (BCF). the most significant of which is that found in Malampaya and San Martin in Palawan.404 MW potential.. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. and competing uses to be viable for large-scale power generation.e. In 2001. a re-analysis of the NREL wind mapping data was conducted. UPSL estimates the electric power potential of bagasse at 235. Other biomass resources are still facing problems or issues like collection..038 with 7. with a combined estimated reserves of 2. an estimated capacity of 1. (i.308 MW.3 Historical Performance of the Philippine Power Sector The performance (in terms of reliability.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 195. cost and environmental emissions.442 GWh.935 GWh annually can be obtained from additional verified geothermal sites in the Philippines. 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. A few natural gas finds in the Philippines have been made. the UPSL identified 236 small hydro sites in the country with an aggregated capacity of about 2.771 to 4.

184 GWh of the total 47. losses and miscellaneous uses. 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). respectively. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. It should be noted however. The analysis has shown that the generating facilities in the early 1990’s were performing very badly from the point of view of reliability.. from mid 1990’s onward.e. the Luzon Grid has a share of 36. respectively.5% while that of the residential sector grew by 11. It can be concluded. the reserve margin (i. these rates were unbundled into 76% and 24% for generation and transmission. Visayas and Mindanao. Historical Reliability Performance To analyze the reliability performance of the power system in the Philippines.789 MW in 1991 to 13. the Philippines power sector performance went to the other extreme of having excessive capacity compared to the demand. The interruptions that the country has been experiencing can be attributed to the unreliable transmission and distribution systems and their operations. 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. UPEEE Foundation page 5 . However. The commercial sector accounts for 21% of the total consumption for 2001. the installed generating capacity in the country doubled in 11 years with 6.049 GWh energy generation which represents 77% of the requirements of the country. therefore. It was noted that the rates of NPC is for its bundled generation and transmission services.7% annually for the 11-year period. In order to meet the growing demand for electricity. In 2001 for example. the energy demand in the country was distributed among the three (3) main islands of Luzon. The industrial and residential sectors. are the biggest users of electricity. Geographically. that the industrial sector demand grew only by 5. The rest are attributed to own use. 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. Visayas and Mindanao share the remaining balance almost equally.402 MW in 2001.A.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. generating capacity compared to the system peak) from 1991 to 2001 was determined from historical data.3% annually from 1991 to 2001. accounting for 31% and 29% energy share for the year 2001. For purposes of this study. Bulk of the energy demand and consequently the generation comes from the main island of Luzon. The rates of NPC appear to be increasing annually except for the year 2001 when R. Inc. Historical Cost Performance This study also assessed the power development in the Philippines by analyzing the cost of electricity. that the generating capacity of the power system in the Philippines can be considered highly reliable.

UPEEE Foundation page 6 . The share of non-renewable sources in the energy mix even increased from 57. it can be concluded that that non-renewable energy have remained greatly dominant over renewable energy as source of fuel for power generation. Over the period considered. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Its contribution increased almost ten times from 1. decreased by 21 percent from its level of 9. Accounting the changes in oil and coal.00 per kWh. coal contribution increased more than fivefold. This scenario allowed the continued dominance of non-renewable fuels. from 8% in 1991 to 40% in 2001. For the CO2 emissions.222 tons in 2001.665 tons in 2001. Inc.338. particularly the NPC.279 tons in 1991 to 10. Clearly. particularly those owned by electricity distributors like Manila Electric Company (MERALCO).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. Historical Environmental Performance The environmental performance of the Philippine power sector from 1991 to 2001 (measured in terms of the amount of gases and particulates that are emitted by the electric power generating plants) shows that CO2 emissions increased by 74 percent while the rest of the air emissions increased by 10 to 169 percent. This 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. Comparing the average rate of NPC with that paid by the consumers.49% in 1991 to 62. This explains why the emissions of the power sector almost doubled in only 11 years. many power plants were installed even though there were already excess generation capacity in the system.9% in 1991 to 21. the net increase in CO2 for the 11-year period is 73%. CO2 emissions from oil-based power plants. which emits more greenhouse gases. on the other hand.236.541 tons in 1991 to 7. In addition. It is also worthwhile to note that with the existence of the Non-NPC IPPs (permitted to operate through Executive Order 215). and not towards the utilization of renewable resources. generation share from oil-based power plants declined from 49. Looking into the energy mix to link the environmental performance of the power sector. renewable hydro share decreased from 20% to 5% over the same period.00 per kWh.471.71% in 2001. there is difference of PhP 1.00 to PhP 6.9% in 2001. which range from PhP 4. However. 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.082. coal power plants are the major contributors.00 to PhP 3. This indicates the poor coordination of the plans of the IPPs that deal directly with Distributors in the context of centralized planning of the government. the shift is only towards the use of coal. 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.

POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 1. it is still unrealistic to expect that cost of electricity in the Philippines in the near term will decrease under this scenario. SOx and other emissions. 124. Reliability. Geothermal plants will contribute only 2%. Oil-based and natural gas plants will contribute 17% and 26% to the CO2 emissions. shows that energy generation will increase by 93% (55. To meet the energy requirements. The environmental emissions resulting from DOE’s generation plan for the low economic growth scenario would result in an increase in CO2. the reserve in 2003 will be 66%. based on the low economic growth projections of NEDA. Although this is expected to decline to 22% by 2012. Total installed capacity of 14. Of these amounts.5 million barrels fuel oil equivalent (MMBFOE) of oil. From a share of 37% in 2003. This scenario will require $ 29.16/kWh. Total CO2 emissions for the DOE plan for the low economic growth scenario is 309. with the continued dominance of coal plants. While the generation cost for this scenario is estimated at PhP 3. on the other hand will increase by 24%.57% annually.500 MW) and oilbased plants (1. The increase in demand will be met mostly by increases in coal power plants (3. respectively. 91.5 MMBFOE of oil and 80. These emissions will be the direct result of the share of coal.368 million in abatement cost.706 MW by 2012. respectively for year 2003. No additional capacity addition for natural gas is expected in the period.2 million tonnes of coal would have to be imported. 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.4 Scenarios under the Philippine Energy Plan 2003 .9 million tonnes of coal and 1.828 million (UPSL estimate at 2002 present value).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. 24% and 4%. this scenario would require 124.3 million tonnes. In terms of reliability. Inc. 65 MW wind and a 40 MW geothermal capacity additions.632 GW for 2003 will increase to 20.263 billion cubic feet (BCF) of natural gas. environmental emissions and costs were calculated similar to that of the historical performance assessment. UPEEE Foundation page 7 . The increase in the use of coal will account to contributing 55% of the total CO2 emissions for the period.430 GWh in 2012) over the entire period at an average rate of 7. natural gas and oil-based sources in the energy mix which is 34%.142 GWh in 2003 to 106. Capacity additions.775 MW). For example. the planned capacity additions will result in high reserve margins. operations and maintenance and fuel would require a total cost $ 23. The contribution of non-renewable energy sources to the energy mix. PDP for the Low Economic Growth Scenario The PEP. renewable energy’s share will decrease to only 22% in 2012. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. The increase in the share of renewable energy generating capacity will come from a 795 MW large hydro.

These strategies are the following: • Moderate Clean Power Development (CCPD) Plan In this plan. Notably.995 million in abatement cost. UPEEE Foundation page 8 . Total installed capacity of wind power plants is allowed to reach a maximum of 5% of the peak demand. capacity addition and utilization of renewable energy (geothermal. 1.24% in 2003 decrease to 17% in 2012 With the continuous decline in the share of renewable energy. PDP for the High Economic Growth Scenario The DOE also prepared a power development plan based on high economic growth projections of NEDA.756 MW in 2012 (56% increase for the 10-year period) b) Energy generation: 55. wind and hydro power) and natural gas plants are given priority over that of non-renewable plants for power generation. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. greenhouse emissions is expected to further soar.E. increasing by 195% from 2003 to 2012. and will require $ 32.5 Clean Power Development Options for the Philippines Using the clean energy technologies and resources.16% in 2003 increase to 47% in 2012 . . The following performance indicators can be expected if this scenario push through: a) Installed capacity: 14. 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.5% in 2003 increase to 16% in 2012 .632 MW in 2003 to 22. 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. Inc.470 GWh in 2012 (213% increase for the 10-year period) c) Reserve Margin: d) Energy Mix: 25% (minimum) to 65% (maximum) Coal Oil R. nor the scenario for the low economic growth.37% in 2003 decrease to 20% in 2012 Natural gas . within the planning period. 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.556 GWh in 2003 to 118. biomass.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.

the strategy is to utilize all the practical renewable energy resources where possible without caps. The percentage installed reserve margin for the years 2008 onwards is kept as close as possible to the corresponding PEP reserve margins for comparison.763 MW in 2003 to 5.12/kWh.16/kWh.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines • Aggressive Clean Power Development (ACDP) Plan For this plan. It was assumed in these plans that the local natural gas industry will be able to supply fuel for up to 3. from the period 2003 to 2012.6 million tonnes. This will translate to a 72% total share of clean energy in the energy mix by 2012. Assuming a five-year lead-time for the planning to commissioning of the additional power plants. Total CO2 reduction as compared with the PEP is 44. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. The share of renewable energy in the energy mix will increase from 37% to 41%. the capacity additions starts only in 2008.450 MW in 2003 to 8. The total cost calculated for this plan is $23. that these reserve margins do not take into account the ancillary diesel engines. O&M and fuel costs. The natural gas contribution will also increase from 24% to 31%. as compared with the PEP. The plans that correspond to the High Economic Growth Scenario are detailed in Chapter 5.983 MW in 2012).000 GWh annually) for the next twenty years. This average generation cost is even cheaper than that of the PEP Low GDP scenario. which serve as frequency regulating plants for the wind power plants. This plan will reduce the GHG emissions and abatement costs for the Low GDP Scenario by 14% and 21%. Considering the investment. Moderate Clean Power Development (MCPD) Plan To meet the demand of the Low Economic Growth Scenario. This translates to a 69% total installed capacity for the combined natural gas and renewable energy plants. this plan will increase the renewable energy plant installed capacity by 95% (from 4. however. The share of coal and oil in the mix will be reduced by about 11% at the end of the period. 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.800MW natural gas power plants (maximum generation of 23. For all the plans. In this summary. the 2003 to 2007 capacity additions were based solely on the PEP list of committed projects.685 MW in 2012) and the natural gas plant capacity by 117% (from 2.592 million and the average generation cost is PhP 3. UPEEE Foundation page 9 . only the power development plan to meet the Low Economic Growth Scenario of the PEP 2003 – 2012 is presented. Cost penalties for intermittent power plant capacity beyond 5% (based on peak demand) was also imposed to account for the additional ancillary services. Note. this plan will save $235 million in the planning period. which is PhP 3. Inc. respectively.

POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Aggressive Clean Power Development (ACPD) Plan To meet the demand of the Low Economic Growth Scenario. the country has to resort to biomass. While the PEP has tried to address these problems. There are even opportunities that can create additional dollar income from carbon trading and local employment. natural gas importation may be pursued. This study also offers two alternative paths (moderate and aggressive) through the alternative clean power development plans. wind and natural gas technologies. the ACPD plan will increase the renewable energy plant installed capacity by 159% (from 4. UPEEE Foundation page 10 .763 MW in 2003 to 5.6 Conclusions and Recommendations The Philippine power sector from 1991 to 2001 has not performed very well in terms of reliability and cost to end-users. The share of coal and oil in the mix will be reduced by about 20% at the end of the period.17/kWh. These alternative plans are comparable to the PEP in terms of costs. O&M and fuel costs. This translates to a mitigation cost of $0. This study has assessed the technologies and resources in the Philippines that could be tapped for clean power development. To avoid significant amounts of GHG emissions in the future. Inc. from the period 2003 to 2012. which is PhP 3. The total cost calculated for this plan is $23. new natural gas sites must be identified and developed. small hydro. This plan will reduce the GHG emissions and abatement costs under the PEP Low GDP Scenario by 18% and 27%. 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.67/tonne of CO2. The share of renewables in the energy mix will increase from 37% to 48%.$10 per tonne.383 MW in 2012). This translates to a 79% total installed capacity for the combined natural gas and renewable energy plants. respectively. this plan will cost an additional $41M in the planning period compared to the PEP low GDP plan.881 million and the average generation cost is PhP 3. The natural gas contribution will also increase from 24% to 31%. this plan will create an opportunity for the country in the carbon market.450 MW in 2003 to 11. as was done in this study.05) per kWh more expensive than the Moderate Clean Power Development Plan due to the additional ancillary services for the intermittent wind power supply. To support power switching. 1.16/kWh but five centavos (PhP 0.520 MW in 2012) and the natural gas plant capacity by 95% (from 2. Considering the investment. This is comparable to the PEP Low GDP scenario. In addition. At the current CO2 prices ($5 per tonne) in the market. With the current price of CO2 at $2 . 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 will translate to a 79% total share of clean energy in the energy mix by 2012.

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

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

157 CH4 1. as shown from Table 2.335 N2O 717 0 12.190 226.759 11 170 45 1 1. the power sub-sector represents a large opportunity for carbon emissions reduction and sequestration. of total net GHG emissions in the country. The UPSL came up with 13.369 4.335 15.038 ktonnes of the 100.529 2 N2O 717 40 347 43 0 285 3 Total 49. Coal Mining 2.497 15.811 15. Residential 6.1: 1994 Philippine Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector (equivalent ktonne CO2) SECTOR Energy Industry Agriculture Waste Land Use & Forestry TOTAL EQUIVALENT CO2 EMISSIONS CO2 47.544 1.980 15. Oil TOTAL EQUIVALENT CO2 EMISSIONS * does not include emissions from biomass Source: The Philippines’ Initial National Communication on Climate Change CO2 47. Of the energy sector GHG emissions.87 227 217 10 50.548 ktonnes of CO2 for the Energy Industries for the year 1994. Commercial/Institutional 5.2: 1994 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Philippine Energy Sector* (equivalent ktonne CO2) SECTOR A.596 0 -2.890 3. Fugitive Emissions from Fuels 1.509 9.738 ktonnes.1. In 1994.038 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.038 10.985 7 20. Inc.738 Source: The Philippines’ Initial National Communication on Climate Change Table 2. Energy Industries 2. given that clean energy technologies and resources are available.800 6. accounts for more than thirty (30) percent as a result of the burning of fossil fuels.603 33.59 216. as shown in Table 2. UPEEE Foundation page 13 . Although it ranks only second to the transport in terms of GHG emissions.185 3 CH4 1. the energy industries. Agriculture B.140 2.246 Total 50.801 3. Fuel Combustion Activities 1. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.359 1.330 954 245 14.72 9. Manufacturing Industries 3. the energy sector accounted for 50.335 10.458 8. Transport 4.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. or roughly 47 percent.403 31.2.094 100.368 2.130 7. Table 2. mainly the power industry.094 7.774 55.

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

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

Intermittent power would affect power system operability and stability and therefore poses limitations on levels of penetration of wind power. and. 9 p. through rain or snow) and part of it will eventually contribute to the flow of streams. which are as follows: micro hydro resources are those with capacities less than 100 kW. Hydro power is considered a clean technology because it is renewable and does not emit air pollutants. initial estimates for wind penetration levels are between 5% and 20%. In some cases. The Philippines Department of Energy (DOE) classifies hydro resources based on its potential capacity.and small-hydro resources. 10 The World Energy Commission uses a different classification from that used by the DOE. with worldwide installed capacity totaling to 24. rives and falls. UPEEE Foundation page 16 . and therefore translates to higher electricity costs. This water will return to the earth’s surface as precipitation (e. depending on system conditions. 11 Quick Facts. Wind energy conversion technology (WEC) is a mature technology. but the amount of emissions is small as compared to fossil fuelbased electricity generation. 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. Thus. The kinetic energy of the wind can be converted to mechanical energy by means of a wind turbine. 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.. Utilities’ operational experience.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 1.000 MW by the end of 2001. Hydro Power. Wind Energy. Factors Relevant to Utility Integration of Intermittent Renewable Technologies. Yih-huei Wan and Brian K. For the Philippines. has been limited to low wind power penetration levels so far. large hydro as those with capacities greater than 10 MW10. it generates some amount of GHG gases as a result of the rotting of organic matter that get submerged in reservoirs. intermittent generation will require additional ancillary services to be provided in the grid. mini-hydro resources are those with capacities ranging from 100 kW to 1 MW. small hydro resources are those with capacities from 1 to 10 MW. p. It is a renewable form of energy because the energy of flowing water ultimately comes from the sun. Canadian Hydropower Association University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Hydro power resources come in various sizes. 1993).g. This mechanical energy can then be used to run electric generators to produce electricity. 49. Hydro power refers to the use of falling or flowing water for power. 49. Inc. as follows: micro-hydro for hydro resources with capacities ranging from 1 to 100 kW. 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. Parsons. (Colorado: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Also. and. Various modeling studies show that wind generation capacities could amount from a low value of 4% to a high value of 50% of system load9. the Philippine definition of mini-hydro encompasses the WEC mini. particularly in the United States. Large hydro resources are those with capacities greater than 10 MW. mini-hydro for those with capacities from 101 kW to 10 MW. 2.

Geothermal Energy. 4. but it emits far less greenhouse gases as compared to fossil fuel-based counterparts. Increase in water pollution e. Various hydro projects in the Philippines have dislocated thousands. In the Philippines. Geothermal energy refers to the heat stored in the rocks within the earth. Inc. Like hydro and geothermal power. Among them are: Ecological Effects a. which served as livelihood of the Ibaloys.000 dams all over the world. 3.however. In places where the earth’s heat flow is concentrated. The alteration of the local ecosystem also resulted in the loss of resource base. Silting Social Impacts A major negative social impact of large hydro projects is the dislocation of population. Landscape destruction b. UPEEE Foundation page 17 . They are – large hydro in particular .POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Hydro power facilities offer other benefits such as low generation costs. which can subsequently be used for power generation. Speculation also arise that dams cause earthquakes in its surrounding areas. Displacement/wiping out of plant and animal species f. Technologies that can be used to generate power from biomass include gasification-electric generation systems and burner technologies similar to that used for coal. Biomass Energy. this energy may be harnessed in the form of steam or hot water. long life and high levels of reliability. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. the Agno River Basin Development Program resulted in the loss of hectares of Ibaloy ancestral lands and the subsequent dissolution of several Ibaloy communities. little maintenance. Destruction of fish habitat and fisheries c. Geothermal energy is not entirely GHG emissions-free. With about 15.000 dam years. biomass energy is a renewable resource that can be used for base load electric generation. Risk and Safety Major disasters involving dams have occurred in the past at 6 to 10 year intervals. high efficiencies. Rearrangement of water resources d. associated with a number of negative impacts. the frequency of disasters involving dams is 1 disaster for every 120.

on the other hand.000 per kilowatt of installed capacity. • Gas turbines Current gas turbine plants have efficiencies of around thirty percent. Solar radiation may be converted to electricity by using solar thermal engines or photovoltaic cells. sometimes requiring around $3. to generate high enough temperatures to heat and boil water to drive steam engines. which is the form of fuel required for the electrochemical reaction to take place. Solar Energy. and thus. Despite its unfavorable environmental reputation. • Fuel cells Fuel cells are devices that convert fuel and oxygen to electricity and heat by means of an electrochemical reaction. distributed energy technologies are small and modular. 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. this would have a relatively low impact on emissions reduction. less GHG and air pollutant emissions. For most fuel cells. Fuel cells have efficiencies ranging from 40 to 60 percent and could achieve very negligible carbon and air pollutant emissions when paired with carbon separation technologies. Photovoltaics. Many such technologies have been demonstrated in various countries but still remain not widely used because its high investment costs are quite prohibitive. with sizes ranging from a few kilowatts to a few megawatts. convert solar energy directly to electricity in a solid-state device called the solar cell. concentrates the power of the sun. • 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. hydrocarbon fuels need to undergo a process of reforming to produce hydrogen. Greater local control of the system and waste heat utilization lead to higher energy efficiencies. as the name implies.000 to $4. however. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 5. UPEEE Foundation page 18 . These include fluidized bed systems such as pressurized fluidized bed combustion (PFBC) and circulating fluidized bed combustion (CFBC). But since this type of plant is normally used for peak load applications. Clean coal technologies are costly. 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. which. Newer plants are actually achieving efficiencies greater than forty percent. Costs are prohibitive. integrated gasification combustion cycle (IGCC) systems and coal-fueled diesel engines. ranging from $2. coal is still widely used around the world for power generation because it is abundant and cheap.000 per installed kilowatt. • Distributed energy technologies Unlike centralized generating units. Inc.

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

Including sites with moderate wind resource levels.000 sites in the country. Cebu. hub height = 40 2 m. 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.34% of total Philippine land area. The study. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.2 Resource Assessment The technologies described above would be rendered useless without the energy resource required to run them. however. rotor diameter = 38 m.600 MW bringing the total estimated power generation from wind to 361. which will then be subsequently used for the generation of power switching scenarios. Panay. the Batanes and Babuyan islands of north Luzon. these sites could support at least 76. UPEEE Foundation page 20 2 . with good to excellent resource levels . turbine spacing = 10D by 5D. According to the study13. The NREL study identified six regions in the country where the best wind resource in the country are located. 12 In one of the NREL scenarios. 3. 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. and adjacent islands. Financial and Economic Implications of Wind Energy Applications for Power Generation. capacity/km = 6. would more than double total installed capacity to 173. the northwest tip of Luzon (Ilocos Norte). Negros. 4. Leyte. The NREL study identified around 10.200 GWh/yr. Assessment of Technical.4 m/s or greater). Inc.055 km2 or roughly 3.9 MW. was not able to include factors such as transmission and grid accessibility constraints in the assessment. the wind corridors between Luzon and Mindoro (including Lubang Island). the higher interior terrain of Luzon. Mindoro. well-exposed east-facing coastal locations from northern Luzon southward to Samar. 13 Assumptions used by NREL to come up with estimates are: 500 kW turbine size. 6. The following sections will quantify the amount of clean energy resources in the Philippines. 14 UNIDO. eastern Mindanao.000 installed capacity. 2. In contrast to the optimistic estimate of the NREL. (1994).000 GWh/yr.600 MW of installed capacity and generate 195. 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.equivalent to an annual average wind power of 300 W/m2 or greater12 (wind speeds of 6. Palawan.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 2. These are: 1. 5. Samar. amounting to 97. between Mindoro and Panay (including the Semirara Islands and extending to the Cuyo Islands). occupying a total area of 11.

among which are the following: 1. All wind turbine installations are of the stand-alone type. project proponents were able to obtain very lenient and attractive financing schemes. 3. 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. 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. A 3-kW system in Bantay. 2. which are scheduled for commissioning in 2006 and 2004. These wind facilities will both be located in Ilocos Norte. Tagaytay. which required the developers to collect at least two-years of wind speed measurements. Ilocos Sur in Luzon. In tandem with a diesel generator. Further. Transmission facilities are quite far from the wind sites. First is the absence of site-specific wind assessment data. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. It is in operation since 1994. current utilization are mostly to run wind pumps and a few small-scale turbine generators. that for the NLWPP. Batangas in Luzon. This is a pilot project of the National Power Corporation to electrify a number of households. Second is the connection of the wind farms to the transmission grid. A 10-kW system in Pagudpod. Proponents of these projects were able to secure power purchase agreements with the local distribution utility. 0. that the PNOC-EDC was required to put up 42 kilometers of transmission line and 130 transmission line towers/poles to connect to the nearest transmission line trunk. UPEEE Foundation page 21 . Ilocos Norte in Luzon. A 25-kW system in General Santos in Mindanao. A 25-kW stand-alone system in Picnic Grove. Two committed wind projects are expected to contribute a significant amount of electricity to grid. Inc. respectively. there are more than 500 wind pump and 9 wind turbine installations in the country.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Despite the vastness of wind resources in the country. Project proponents claim that they will be able to sell electricity at prices below that of the grid.95 percent for goods. 4. It is significant to note two issues that developers of these two wind power projects had to address. which they used to obtain financing. this system is used to power up a relay station of the Philippine Telegraph and Telecommunications Company (PT & T). It was commissioned in 1996.75 percent for consulting services) and a 40-year repayment period (inclusive of a 10-year grace period). At present.

with an aggregate potential of 14. Locations of these sites are shown in Figure 2.381 35.363 MW.527 7. Inc. MWe Estimated Annual Generation.168 6.437 Visayas 360 385 2.668 1. To compute for transmission cost. GWh/yr Luzon 1.206 14.4: Practical Wind Resources in the Philippines (with wind power density ≥ 500 W/m2 and transmission cost constraint) Luzon 686 753 4. Tables 2.3: Philippine Wind Electric Potential (with wind power density ≥ 500 W/m2) Number of sites Total area. km 2 Potential installed capacity.032 Philippines 1. Appendix A identifies the provinces where these wind resources are located. the UPSL computed for the linear distance between the wind site and the nearest existing substation. The application of the second criteria further reduced the number of sites to 1. Power density of at least 500 W/m2.092 2.277 Visayas 305 330 2.1.5 to adjust for topography and other factors that may affect the routing of the transmission system.404 23.699 Table 2. 2.047 Number of sites Total area. km 2 Potential installed capacity. This distance was multiplied by a factor of 1.900 15.363 44.865 Mindanao 64 66 455 1.038 with 7.400 MW potential. UPEEE Foundation page 22 . as well as its corresponding estimated electric capacity and annual generation.738 Mindanao 47 49 336 1.397 Philippines 2.4 summarize the results of the re-analysis. Table 2. The first criteria reduced the number of wind sites to 2. GWh/yr University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.092.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines For the purposes of the present study.038 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. a re-analysis of the NREL data was conducted by the UPSL using the following criteria to screen for viable wind power sites: 1.3 and 2.132 7.755 11. MWe Estimated Annual Generation.

168 MWe Estimated Annual Generation: 6.032 GWh Figure 2.738 GWh Mindanao Number of sites: 47 Potential Installed Capacity: 336 MWe Estimated Annual Generation: 1. Inc.900 MWe Estimated Annual Generation: 15.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Luzon Number of sites: 686 Potential Installed Capacity: 4.277 GWh Visayas Number of sites: 305 Potential Installed Capacity: 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. UPEEE Foundation page 23 .

with an annual production of 7. 16 Two of these sites. i.7 shows the results of the application of the criteria mentioned above. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Kalayaan and San Roque. as listed in Table 2.327 MW. 15 Impoundment dams involve the impounding of a large volume of water in or upstream of power plants by use of reservoirs or dams.. These hydro power facilities range in size from 1 to 360 MW and includes reservoir type (dams) and run-of-river systems15. while Figure 2.6 and 2. By the end of 2001.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. An additional screening criterion was used. the UPSL identified 239 small hydro sites in the country with an aggregated capacity of about 2. Tables 2. Using this criterion. on the other hand. Inc.e. selecting sites with capacities of 5 MW or more. 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.2 shows the location of the sites selected. Table 2. are committed projects. The DOE has verified a number of these small hydro sites.8.518 MW of hydro power is installed in the Philippines. In addition to the existing hydro power generation facilities. make use of the natural flow of a rivers as head. a total of 2.104 GWh. The UPSL made a re-analysis of the small17 hydro resource assessment made by the NREL. UPEEE Foundation page 24 . 17 As per WEC definition. Run-of-river systems.5 lists down identified sites for large hydro16. a number of large hydro sites in country to be used as candidate power plants for energy planning. 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.

387.6 to 2.3 Negros Oriental Negros Oriental Aklan Antique 33 17.189.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2.6 Isabela Quirino Apayao Mindoro Oriental Benguet Benguet Abra Mindoro Oriental Quirino Laguna Quezon Ifugao Ifugao Benguet Kalinga Apayao Kalinga Pangasinan Kalinga Kalinga TOTAL PHILIPPINES University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.5: Available Large Hydro Resources Site LUZON Abuan Addalam Agbulo Aglubang Amburayan Bakun A/B Binongan Catuiran Diduyun Kalayaan PS Kanan Lamut Matuno Nalatang Pasil B/C Saltan A/B San Roque Tanudan D Tinglayan B Total Luzon VISAYAS Pacuan Sicopong Timbaban Villasiga Total Visayas MINDANAO Agus III Bulanog-Batang Lanon Hydro Lake Mainit Liangan Pugo D/BA Pulangi V Tagoloan Total Mindanao Lanao del Norte Bukidnon South Cotabato Agusan del Norte Lanao del Norte Agusan North Cotabato Bukidnon 225 150 21 22 11. Inc. UPEEE Foundation page 25 .9 44 300 68 841.140.8 29 29 108.3 to 3.8 Province Estimated Capacity (MW) 60 46 360 13.9 3.338.6 93 45 175 24 332 350 113 12 52 to 250 45 42 34 345 27 21 2.

Inc.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. GWh/yr Table 2.8 7.8: 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) 1.140 Philippines 239 2.140 Philippines 236 2.0 5.0 4.0 4.6 28. MWe Estimated Annual Generation.0 1. UPEEE Foundation page 26 .786 Visayas 9 58 305 Mindanao 96 978 5.4 14.308 12.7: Practical Small Hydro Resources in the Philippines (sites with power capacity ≥ 5 MW and transmission cost constraint) Luzon 131 1.4 10.6: Philippine Small Hydro Electric Potential (sites with power capacity ≥ 5 MW) Luzon 134 1.327 12.131 Number of sites Potential installed capacity.231 Number of sites Potential installed capacity.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2. GWh/yr Table 2.291 6.686 Visayas 9 58 305 Mindanao 96 978 5.4 3.272 6.0 1.0 3.8 44.0 4. MWe Estimated Annual Generation.

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

Visayas and Mindanao respectively.6 17. and 120 MW come from Luzon.11.7 7. as listed in Table 2. storage and competing uses. accounting for 14% and 22% of the total installed capacity and total generation.8 32. Of the total estimated capacity. which are like associated with the use of biomass fuels for large scale power generation. there usually remains a considerable amount of this waste material. Table 2. total geothermal installed capacity amounted to 1. particularly to fuel boilers in sugar mills. In addition to existing geothermal power facilities.935 GWh can be obtained from the verified geothermal source candidates in the Philippines. In 2001.0 4.0 22.9 5. Very small. if any.6 127. Despite sugar mills’ own use of bagasse for fuel. bagasse has traditionally been used in large quantities. 700 MW.8 235.2 3. which the mills have to dispose.200 MW and energy of 8. UPEEE Foundation page 30 . University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. this study only looks on the potential of bagasse for grid-connected electricity generation.7 TOTAL PHILIPPINES Geothermal Power The Philippines power sector largely depends on geothermal energy to meet the demand and energy requirements of the country. Unlike other biomass fuels.931 MW and geothermal generation was 10. an estimated capacity of 1. 380 MW.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. respectively.1 14. additional geothermal resources could be expected in the future as the Philippines has nearly used most of its geothermal resource sites.442 GWh.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Because of problems with such issues like collection. Inc.

page 31 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. with a combined estimated reserves of 2. 26 These are proven fields.12 lists down identified natural gas fields in the country and their corresponding resource sizes. local natural gas production would be supplemented by imported natural gas that would come from the Trans ASEAN Gas Pipeline to meet demand. Source: PEP 2002-2011. The Philippine government is considering plans to develop a local natural gas industry. Inc. Lobi Mahagnao Total Visayas MINDANAO Lakewood Manat-Amacan Total Mindanao PHILIPPINES TOTAL *committed plant Source: DOE Location Potential Installed Capacity Sorsogon Sorsogon Albay Oriental Mindoro Benguet Bataan Batangas Kalinga Benguet 10 40 20 20 10 20 20 120 120 380 40 20 60 40 40 200 300 700 80 40 120 1.731 billion cubic feet (BCF). Cabalian Leyte Optimization Biliran Mt.11: Available Geothermal Resources for Power Generation Name LUZON Bacman I Rangas Tanawon Manito Montelago Daklan Mt.771 to 4.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2. Table 2.200 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. If this pushes through. 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. UPEEE Foundation . the most significant of which is that found in Malampaya and San Martin in Palawan26. Natib Mabini Batong Buhay Buguias-Tinoc Total Luzon VISAYAS Northern Negros* Dauin Mt.

renewable energy-based plants have high investment costs.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2. in general entail high investment costs. Clearly.13 include only the costs of the technologies but not the associated site-specific costs that could be more expensive than the plant itself.158 322 637 Maximum 4. Screening curves can be developed to determine the optimum power generation plan considering these four factors.. UPEEE Foundation page 32 . renewable energy-based power plants have to address these issues that will ultimately determine the viability of the power projects. Renewable energy technologies. The fuel costs in Table 2. energy production (kWh) CF = × 100 plant capacity(k W) × 8. Furthermore.277 454 2.13 lists for different fuels used for power generation are based on typical power plant efficiencies. namely: (a) investment cost.340 359 4 7. 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.060 1.3 Cost Comparison of Power Generation Technologies The investment. In addition. Wind and hydro plants do not require fuel but do not run at full capacity due to availability of resources. 29 Capacity Factor (CF) refers to the percentage of the rated capacity of the power plant used for 8. and (d) the level of generation (also called capacity factor29).e.594 2. one year). 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. Inc. Using these curves.760 hours University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. the total investment costs vary with site preparation and the required transmission lines to enable the plants to deliver power to the grid.760 518 2. the type of power plants that will 27 28 Figures used for power plant investment and O&M cost are only intended for relative comparison. For fossil-fuel-based power plants.760 hours (i.538 243 Resource Size (BCF) Prospective 3.720 60 176 78 11.210 1. it is notable that the technologies that require low investment normally require fuel with high cost. In general.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. (b) operation and maintenance (O&M) cost. the economics of power generation technologies depends on several factors. Mathematically. Being site-specific.13. O & M27 and fuel costs28 comparison of the different types of power plants are shown in Table 2. (c) fuel cost. For example. the prices of fuel are likely to differ at the time this study is released. The fuel costs used in this study do no include import duties. The costs shown in Table 2.

UPEEE Foundation page 33 . the prices of fuel are likely to differ by the time this study is released. coal and natural gas do not include import duties.93 32.10 11. except for Clean Coal Technologies Considering the availability of the resource and reliability of the technologies.200 – 1.750 – 1. transmission line and transformer costs.800 1.250 2. These values show that electricity generation from renewable sources. 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.750 – 1. which will operate at high. Inc. O&M and fuel costs31 of the different power plant technologies. on a life-cycle basis.12 0 0 3. Geothermal steam and biomass fuel costs also vary.150 – 1.14 to satisfy the minimum offtake character of the IPP contracts.000 450 .e. “intermediate” or “peaking” plants (i. Table 2.14 shows the typical capacity factors based on the investment30.14 also shows the corresponding levelized cost of generation for each power plant type using the typical capacity factors.56 73.04 49. They are however useful in evaluating and developing energy plans.000 – 1.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines operate as “baseload”.53 0 36. 31 Fuel costs for oil. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.500 700 – 900 Annual Fixed O & M Cost. 30 Investment costs used in this study do not include site preparation.500 1. depending on the site/environment. Deutsche Gessellschaft für technishe.400 1. $/MWh 41.68 From “ The Environmental Manual for Power Development”. years 30 20 20 20 30 30 20 50 30 50 20 Investment Cost. Table 2.550 700 – 900 550 – 650 1. $/kWa 850 – 1. medium or low capacity factor) could be determined/selected.000 – 3. Furthermore. These figures are intended only for relative comparison of the different power plant technologies. is competitive in comparison with conventional fossil fuel-based generation.40 9. It should be emphasized that the actual capacity factors that may be achieved in operation may not fall on the v alues given in Table 2. $/kWa 17 – 20 11 – 14 14 – 18 14 – 16 30 – 35 44 – 45 20 – 25 40 – 70 44 – 45 29 – 38 14 – 18 Fuel Cost.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. Table 2..800 1.

Inc. meaning it will be used for load following and/or peaking applications.0405 0.0794 0.5219 32 A discount rate of 12% was used to derive levelized generation costs.1101 0.4376 12.3644 6.7153 5.1059 0.0405 0.2282 2. 33 The low capacity factor computed for diesel plant is 9%. UPEEE Foundation page 34 .8236 4.8174 3.2282 2.2277 1.0512 0. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.0494 0.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2. country risks and availability of financing.0193 0.0625 0. market risks.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. Actual industry discount rates may be higher depending on the following factors: required equity return. regulatory risks.0557 2.0602 2.

population density. Second. “Pricing Power Generation Externalities: Ethical Limits and Implications for Social Choice” (one of the six self-contained papers included in Sundqvist’s Doctoral Thesis. there is a pronounced difference between damage cost and pollutant cost values. In this study. These costs are what normally dictate an energy planner’s choice of which power generation technology to use. Inc.16 shows the factors used in this study to arrive at the CO2 emissions of each type of power plant in tonne CO2/GWh. costs associated directly with the production of electricity from various technologies and resources were discussed. among others. as determined by the California Energy Commission using both the abatement and damage cost approaches.g. “Introduction to Environmental Externality Costs”. 35 Jonathan Koomey and Florentin Krause. Other air pollutant emissions for different power plants are listed in Table 2. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. According to Koomey and Krause (1997). UPEEE Foundation page 35 . First.15 shows the value of various air emissions in California. By definition. as published in the CRC Handbook on Energy Efficiency (1997). Luleá University of Technology. “Power Generation Choice in the Presence of Environmental Externalities. crops and property. On the other hand. externality costs differ among different districts. are directly associated with effects that affect people’s welfare. The values were calculated based on the generic data recommended for power development analysis. a number of things could be noted. emissions reduction policy. currently a leader in externality policy.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 2. Table 2.” 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. These effects are called externalities. From the values given. Table 2.17. It should be noted that even though coal seem to have a lower CO2 emission level than conventional power plant types.. 2002). The abatement cost approach uses the cost of pollution control as a proxy to the true externality cost35. In the case of electricity generation. Except for particulate matter. Söderholm. scope of analysis.4 Environmental Externalities In the previous section. natural ecosystems. Studies vary in their estimation of externality costs because of a number of factors. p. an externality is “an unpriced benefit or cost directly bestowed or imposed upon one agent by the actions of another agent”34. 34 T. however. “Pollution represents an external cost because damages associated with it are borne by society as a whole and are not reflected in market transactions. the damage cost approach puts a value on the damages that may be directly attributable to a particular pollutant. including site specificity (e. Power generation technologies. externalities include various pollutants that cause damage to receptors such as human health. abatement cost values for the North Coast of California. were used to compute for the cost of externalities of the different scenarios. which has the lowest abatement costs among the districts. Sundqvist and P. geographical and climatological conditions). 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. 3. abatement costs are normally higher that damage cost estimates.

02 1.03 NOx 4. and PM – particulate matter Table 2.10 8.20 2.00 2.37 12.28 4.06 0.72 0.75 16.02 0.08 0.61 763.52 1.18 15.31 PM 31.00 4.78 1.15: Value of Air Emissions Reductions in California 36 ($/pound of pollutant) District Pollutant South Coast DC SOx NOx CO ROG 4.08 0. 2002).02 17.99 1.06 0.05 0.98 2.03 0.52 0.26 0.03 0. UPEEE Foundation page 36 .42 1.99 4.88 Bay Area DC 2.05 0.75 0.01 North Coast DC 0.72 AC 5.73 Environmental Emissions CO CH4 NMVOC N2O 0. SOx – Sulfur Oxide.53 0.00 0.01 9.98 Sacramento Valley DC 0. AC – abatement cost. CO – Carbon Monoxide.34 1.07 AC 5.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2. Deutsche Gessellschaft für technishe 36 Lifted from “What Causes the Disparity of Electricity Externality Estimates?”.59 DC – damage cost.66 0. I – internalized. Luleá University of Technology.87 0.03 0.96 I 2.02 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 7.65 0.31 AC 1.88 9.43 Ventura County DC 0.39 6.44 1.03 0.04 0.72 11.64 2.02 Source: The Environmental Manual for Power Development.83 441.66 0.00 3.32 3.85 0.35 0. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.53 0.45 6.82 713. Sundqvist cites the 1992 Electricity Report by the California Energy Commission as the source of these data.00 0. NOx – Nitrogen Oxide.01 0.07 AC 2.45 AC 11.16: 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 45.05 1.00 2.55 0.03 0.40 726.40 7.75 11.76 3.71 9.98 3. “Power Generation Choice in the Presence of Environmental Externalities.55 AC 13.30 6.10 5.10 0.03 0.84 1.10 867.85 I 13. except for geothermal which was computed from DOE data Table 2.99 0.74 2. one of the six selfcontained papers included in Sundqvist’s Doctoral Thesis.85 6.00 0.51 San Joaquin Valley DC 0.4 6.12 12.18 AC 4.57 1.00 0.08 10.37 0. p.04 Source: Computed from data give in “The GHG Indicator: UNEP Guidelines for Calculating Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Business and Non-Commercial Organizations. Inc.04 0.83 0.05 Particulates 0.99 565.01 0.02 0.71 5.01 3.66 2.47 3.02 0. 10. ROG – Reactive organic gases.99 4.88 0.71 San Diego DC 1.

Inc. The UPSL did not consider other forms (rice hull. storage and competing uses.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 2.5 Mitigation Options As a result of the technology and resource analyses made by the UPSL. wood wastes. only bagasse was considered as option. it was assumed that infrastructure would be built to support an expanding natural gas industry. On the use of natural gas. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. collection. UPEEE Foundation page 37 . 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.

072 11.353 10. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. This is almost twice of the 4. 3.649 1992 6.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 2001.067 1. Visayas and Mindanao as shown in Figure 3.049 GWh energy generation which represents 77% of the requirements of the country.042 2. are the biggest users of electricity (Figure 3.894 9.132 4.725 12. it also had the highest peak demand (5.150 7.459 1995 8.708 1997 10.184 GWh of the total 47.531 1. and the whole of the Philippines. the gross domestic product and the population growth from 1991 to 2001 demonstrate a strong correlation with the consumption of electricity. Bulk of the energy demand and consequently the generation comes from the main island of Luzon.1: Energy Consumption by Sector.086 3.590 5.167 1.2.735 33.578 1999 11. The system peak for the whole Philippines reached 7. Visayas and Mindanao grids. As shown in Figure 3.547 10.1.847 9.368 4.081 MW peak demand in 1991.6%. In 2001 for example.754 41.390 6.910 8.536 5. the Luzon Grid consumed 36. respectively. with 31% and 29% share respectively.870 1993 6. UPEEE Foundation page 38 .849 41.543 934 1.1 Historical Energy Demand and Installed Generating Capacity The Philippines electricity consumption posted a moderate growth rate of 8. Visayas and Mindanao lag far behind with only 893 and 954 MW peak demand.340 6. It should be noted however.128 36.512 13.4 shows system peak demand of the power supply system from 1991 to 2001 for the Luzon.734 30.154 4. environmental emissions.865 10. With most of the industrial and commercial activities centered in Luzon.013 12.471 6.851 1. Both the economic performance and population growth remain as the main factors driving the consumption pattern of energy of the country. Visayas and Mindanao share the balance energy almost equally. The industrial and residential sectors.875 8. the energy demand in the country was distributed among the three (3) main islands of Luzon.725 9.835 MW in 2001).444 921 1.049 Geographically.936 8.290 2001 13.3.477 8.345 45.267 1.226 5. Figure 3.395 721 1.053 4.339 952 1.191 957 2.950 1.684 762 1.176 25.859 823 1. Performance is assessed in terms of reliability. and cost.249 4. 1991-2001 (GWh) SECTOR Residential Commercial Industrial Others Own Use Losses Total 1991 6. Table 3.7% annually for the 11-year period.713 47.071 25.1).579 1994 7. or at an average annual growth rate of 7.282 5.5% while that of the residential sector grew by 11.098 14.901 12.037 39. Data for the historical performance of the Philippine Power Sector is given in Appendix B.223 6.554 1996 9.238 26. Significant also was the growth in the consumption of the commercial sector.682 MW in 2001.432 2000 12. that the industrial sector demand grew only by 5.132 4.797 1998 11.452 1.3% annually from 1991 to 2001 as shown in Table 3. whose demand grew by 108% from 1991 to 2001. Inc.196 5.

University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. 2001 120000 90000 80000 100000 70000 80000 GWH / GDP (x10M) 60000 60000 50000 POP (x1000) 40000 40000 30000 20000 20000 10000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 year Electricity (GWH) GDP (BPhP) Population (in million) 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 0 Figure 3. Gross Domestic Product and Population.1: Electricity Consumption by Sector. UPEEE Foundation page 39 .402 MW in 2001 (Figure 3. Inc.789 MW in 1991 to 13.5) This corresponds to the growth in demand that also doubled in the same period.2: Electricity Consumption.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. the installed generating capacity in the country doubled from 6. 1991-2001 In order to meet the growing demand for electricity.

000 5.000 GWH 25.3: Electricity Generation by Grid. Inc.000 15. UPEEE Foundation page 40 .POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 50.000 40.000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 Luzon 1995 Visayas 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Mindanao Philippines Figure 3. 1991-2001 (GWh) 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 Luzon 1995 Visayas 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 MW Mindanao Philippines Figure 3.4: System Peak by Grid.000 45.000 20.000 35. 1991-2001 (MW) University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 30.000 10.

To analyze further the generating capacity vis-à-vis the system peak.2 presents the reserve margin of the power system from 1991 to 2001. In other countries such as the U. This criterion is considered high but is needed to support their industries. In the Philippines.S. the National Power Corporation has to resort to rotating “brownouts”. 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. people complain of high cost of electricity allegedly due to over supply as there is “too much” installed generating capacity. the reliability criterion is very much lower compared to that in developed countries..000 0 1991 1992 1993 Oil-Based 1994 Coal 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Hydro 2000 2001 Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 3. There was not enough generating capacity. It may be recalled that the Philippines experienced a power crisis that started in the late 1980’s and persisted in the mid 1990’s that almost crippled the national economy due to supply deficiency. Today. Table 3. Inc.000 2.5: Total Installed Generating Capacity by Source. The reserve margin based on dependable capacity shows that there is indeed a large excess generating capacity in the Philippines. UPEEE Foundation page 41 .000 MW 8.A. 1991-2001 (MW) 3. the National Power Corporation since the power crisis has adopted 1day/year LOLP.000 12.000 14.000 6.2 Historical Reliability Performance The historical data for the system peak demand and installed generating capacity indicate that the generating facilities in the early 1990’s were performing very badly from the point of view of reliability.000 10. In developing countries. Hence.000 4. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. 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.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 16.

46 8.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines It can be concluded.816 11. UPEEE Foundation page 42 .2: Reserve Margin.081 6.233 115.411.99 79. The CO2 emissions increased by 74 percent while the rest of the air emissions increased by 10 to 169 percent.72 11. therefore.762 1998 6.014 1994 4.450 9.687 8.352 11. Table 3.726 16.76 70.124 587 975 415 10.497 11. A complete list of emissions for each year from 1991 to 2001 is provided in Appendix B.48 53.796 904 1.789 1992 4. This part of the study has quantified the environmental emissions of the power plants in the country.908 12.611 % Increase 74 64 150 29 54 10 103 169 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.808 9. Inc. Table 3.400 13.682 13.3.98 91.91 3.96 78.075 842 29. The environmental performance of the Philippine power sector from 1991 to 2001 is summarized in Table 3.18 74.580.931 1999 6. that the generating capacity of the power system in the Philippines can be considered highly reliable.363 11.666 11.76 37.60 83.185 2001 7.17 78. 1991-2001 (%) 1991 Peak (MW) Installed Capacity (MW) Percentage Reserve Margin (installed) Dependable Capacity (MW) Percentage Reserve Margin (dependable) 4.209 35.762 189.212 1995 5.402 66.431 2000 7.45 85.93 92.989 2001 Level 18. The interruptions that the country has been experiencing can be attributed to the unreliable transmission and distribution systems.55 45.725 58.807 20.291 9.296 6.36 61.729 146. Historical Environmental Emissions for the Philippine Power Sector (tonne) Environmental Emissions CO2 SO2 NOx CO CH4 NMVOC N2O Particulates 1991 Level 10.621 7.3.949 1993 4.3 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.193 1997 6.732 1996 5.

This scenario allowed the continued dominance of non-renewable fuels. Inc. Figure 3.000 8. the share of coal-based generation increased by 427%.51% to 37.471.000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Figure 3. The net increase in CO2 due to the changes in oil and coal is 74%.279 tons in 1991 to 10.000.236.000. However. Figures 3.000 18.000 2.000 16.49% in 1991 to 62. the percentage share of oil-based power generation declined by 58%.000.71% in 2001.665 tons in 2001.6: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type. it is necessary to look at the power development as measured by the energy mix.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines For the CO2 emissions.000 tonne CO2 12. The CO2 emissions however from oil-based power plants decreased by 21 percent from its level of 9.8 show that nonrenewable energy have remained greatly dominant over renewable energy as source of fuel for power generation.000. Note from this figure how much the CO2 emissions decreased and increased with the generation from oil-based and coal power plants. 20. Its contribution increased almost ten times from 1.541 tons in 1991 to 7.000 14. on the other hand. decreased from 42. The share of renewable sources. UPEEE Foundation page 43 .000. Figure 3. In order to analyze the factors that brought about the environmental performance of the power sector.000. 1991-2001 (tonne) The share of non-renewable sources in the energy mix even increased from 57.338.000.222 tons in 2001.000 6. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Over the period considered.000.6 shows that the coal power plants are the major contributors in greenhouse gases.7 and 3.000 4.29% during the same period.000.000. The energy mix indicates the intensity of contribution of renewable energy resources as fuel for power generation.9 shows how carbon dioxide emissions varied with the energy mix within the 1991 to 2001 period.000 10.082.

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

000 2.000.000 30.000 GWh 25.000 35.000 16.000 20.8: Share of Coal and Oil-Based vs.000 6. 1999-2001 (%) 50. Renewable Energy and Natural Gas in the Energy Mix.000.000 18.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Coal and Oil-Based Renewable and Natural Gas Figure 3.000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro CO2 20. Inc.000. 1991-2001 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 15.000.000 10.000. UPEEE Foundation page 45 .000.000 0 Figure 3.000 40.000 8.000 45.000 tonne CO2 12.000.000.9: Energy Mix and Carbon Dioxide Emissions.000 10.000 5.000 14.000.000.000 4.

respectively.70 Luzon Visayas Mindanao Philippines Generation Transmission Note: Generation and Transmission Rates assumed 76% and 24% of the average rate. 9136 (Electric Power Industry Reform Act) was enacted. This considerable difference can be attributed to the cost of distribution and to the IPP’s that sell electricity directly to the distributors. Table 2.28 1.29 2.49 0. As a result.84 2. 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 2. respectively The average rates of NPC increased annually from 1991 to 2001.02 0. for the years 1995 to 2001 by fuel type.34 3.20 0.4.65 2.37 0.02 2.68 2. UPEEE Foundation page 46 .62 1999 2.4: NPC Average Electricity Rates.35 0.52 1. many power plants were installed in excess of what was actually needed.52 Year 1998 2.12 2. 1991-2001 (PhP/kWh) 1995 1.00 per kWh.64 2000 3.15 1.75 2001 3.77 2.92 3.00 per kWh. and the cost of which has to be paid off through the Purchased Power Adjustment (PPA).4 Cost of Electricity This study also assessed the power development in the Philippines by analyzing the cost of electricity. many power plants were installed without the benefit of proper coordination through the centralized planning of the NPC or the government.00 to PhP 3.96 1.14 1.96 0. The average rates and the estimated unbundled generation and transmission rates of NPC from 1995 to 2001 are shown in Table 3.85 1.77 1. except for the year 2001 when R. the average rates consist of the actual operating expenses and the financing charges of NPC.25 1.08 2. Comparing the average rate of NPC with that paid by the consumers. It was noted that the average rates of NPC is for its bundled generation and transmission services. Interestingly.90 2.23 1.47 1997 2.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 3.5 show the production cost of NPC and IPPs. respectively.67 2. the rates of NPC were unbundled into 76% and 24% for generation and transmission.A. In addition. It is worthwhile to note that with the existence of the Non-NPC IPP’s (permitted to operate through Executive Order 215).63 0.00 to PhP 6. For purposes of this study. particularly that of the electricity distributors like MERALCO.44 1. Table 3. which range from PhP 4.43 1996 2.93 1. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Inc. there is difference of PhP 1.02 1.01 3. the law has mandates to reduce the rates of electricity in the Philippines.58 1. IPP costs were always higher than NPC rates.08 2.

Estiva and M.0195 0.0203 * Lifted from “Renewable Energy Prospects for Supplying Electricity in the Deregulated Market in the Philippines” by J.0662 0.0111 0.0265 0.0276 0.0067 0.0047 0.0212 0.0236 0.0252 0. Inc.0244 0.0276 0.0428 0.0167 0.0150 0.0110 0. UPEEE Foundation page 47 .0358 0.0303 0.0137 0.0038 0. G.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 3.0125 0.0281 0.0386 0.0326 0.0349 0.0367 0.0294 --0.0360 0.0329 0.0270 0.0109 0. N.0284 0.0394 0.0538 0.0281 0.0284 0.0683 Geothermal NPC IPP 0.0233 Coal NPC 0.0450 0.0198 0.0230 0.0431 0.0232 0.0254 0.0462 Hydro NPC IPP 0. Guzman University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.0331 0.0267 0.0177 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 0.0302 0.0366 0.0092 0.0369 0.0100 IPP --0.

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

Table 4.079.23 5.343. the DOE uses two economic scenarios from which to forecast future energy requirement of the country.09 1. Oil.62 1.838.59 1.74 1.276.23 5.311. Philippine Energy Plan Top-Down Approach Figure 4.82 1.203.24 1. UPEEE Foundation page 49 .01 6.70 1.27 1.1.64 5.487.80 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2010 Note: GDP values for 2003 to 2006 are actual NEDA forecasts.138.467.413.80 5.95 1.2 Gross Domestic Product Projections In the Philippine Energy Plan for the period 2003-2012.29 6.14 1.85 4.44 5.04 5. These two scenarios are based on the NEDA’s low and high projections of the country’s GDP and are aptly named the Low GDP and High GDP scenarios.01 1.57 5.60 1. The GDP projections for the two scenarios. In this report.732.80 5.80 5.564. 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). Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.51 1.11 1.51 6. For 2007 to 2012. Coal.642.80 5.23 5.1: Low and High GDP Forecasts for 2003 to 2012 Year Low GDP GDP Growth Rate (billion PhP) (%) 1.69 1.1: National Energy Planning Process 4.80 5.387.91 1. Inc. etc. as well as the its corresponding growth rates are shown in Table 4.48 1.23 5.156.96 5.737.646. the DOE estimated GDP values based on the average growth rates forecasted by NEDA.091.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.70 6.23 5.552.229.23 High GDP GDP Growth Rate (billion PhP) (%) 1.10 1.

Costs calculated do not include ancillary. For this period. transmission and distribution costs. 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. These plans will be discussed in the following sections.2 shows the energy generation projected by the DOE that would meet the future energy requirements in 2003 to 201239. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. O & M and fuel costs. energy generation is projected to increase at an average rate of 7. 120000 100000 80000 60000 GWh 40000 20000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4.430 GWh in 2012. 4. From 55. In addition. the DOE formulates generation plans for the two economic scenarios.142 GWh in 2003. generation would almost double to 106. 39 Details of the calculations made for this section are provided in Appendix C.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines In the PEP.2: Generation under the Low Economic Growth Scenario 38 Generation costs were calculated using generic data for investment. UPEEE Foundation page 50 . Inc.57% annually and 93% over the entire period.3 DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario Energy Generation Figure 4.

3: DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the Low Economic Growth Scenario 40 In the PEP.000 15. which are more capital intensive.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Installed Generating Capacity Total installed capacity for 2003 is 14. 65 MW wind capacity and a 40 MW geothermal capacity additions. amounting to 800 MW. The table also computes the capacity that would be required if the percentage reserve margin was kept at 20%. These high reserve margins would translate to higher electricity prices during the period. Notable are the considerably high reserve margins for 2003 to 2009. committed and indicative capacity additions for each year in the planning period are given.000 MW 10.706 MW by 2012.775 MW and 3. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.500 MW.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Wind Demand (MW) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4. UPEEE Foundation page 51 . which is a more expensive fuel.3. As shown in Figure 4. No additional capacity addition for natural gas is expected in the period. and renewable energy plants. For indicative plant additions.632 GW and will increase to 20. respectively40. the UPSL assumed that indicative base load capacity will be coal plants while intermediate and peaking plants corresponds to oil-based plants. Reserve Margin and Reliability Table 4.2 summarizes the results of the UPSL’s calculation for the DOE’s plan for the LEGS. the increase in demand requirement will be met mostly by increases in oil-based and coal plant capacities of 1.000 5.000 20. These figures just show the continued preference on the use coal over natural gas. Inc. The increase in the share of renewable energy generating capacity. this scenario is very similar to how the Philippine power sector performed historically. Notably. 25. will be due to a 795 MW hydro capacity.

143 GWh generation.800 MW capacity of 23.889 17. will supply 26% and 11%.6. natural gas and oilbased sources will supply 34%.139 11.405 19. as it was in 2001.865 16. 41 This assumes that: local natural gas production can support 3.5 million barrels of oil.4 and 4.066 tonnes of coal and 1. 91.263 billion cubic feed (BCF) of natural gas for the whole planning period.5) for the planning period indicates minimal thrust towards more use of renewable energy sources and cleaner fuels.756 20. • University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.033 Installed Capacity (MW) 14. the PEP expects that for the year 2003. Clean fuels’ (renewable energy and natural gas) share in the energy mix decreases from 61% to 41% by 2012. 2003-2012 Peak Demand (MW) 8.443 16. Renewable energy sources.015 16.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 4.895.600 11.813 14.120 15. particularly geothermal and hydro.2: Percentage Reserve Margin for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario.869 13.208 GWh energy production annually.505 18. 24% and 5%. 124.5 tonnes of oil and 80. Imported fuel would cost $4. coal.814 15. renewable energy’s share decreases to 22% in 2012. Contribution from wind sources stays insignificant for the whole period. and. The combined contribution of coal and oil to the energy mix. respectively. UPEEE Foundation page 52 . this scenario would require 124.332 13. of the total 55. From a share of 37% in 2003.393 tonnes of coal would have to be imported41.224.367 14.519 10. Of these amounts.565 17. on the other hand will increase to 59% in 2012 to from a value of 38% in 2003.615 15.997 12.777 20.423 12.576 17.440 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Energy Mix For the LEGS. of the total generation. Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements. respectively.576 16. The breakdown of the fossil fuel that would be consumed in the LEGS-PEP scenario is shown in Figure 4. Inc.632 15.3% of total consumption. • share of imported coal is 87.706 Percentage Reserve Margin (%) 66 59 52 42 33 29 27 24 24 22 Capacity Required for 20% Reserve Margin 10.277 11.324 million.396 15. A look at the energy mix (Figures 4.833 9.

Inc. UPEEE Foundation page 53 . Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.4: Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Coal and Oil-Based Renewable Energy and Natural Gas Figure 4.5: Coal and Oil-Based vs.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.

391.376.189 $ 2. as given in Chapter 1. along with the assumptions used.3 million tonnes. Total CO2 emissions for the period amounts to 309. Generation Cost The present value of the costs calculated for the PEP-LEGS is given below.479.7 shows the contribution of each type to the CO2 emissions. These generation costs were computed from the values for investment. Inc.744. Coal contributes 55% of the CO2 emissions for the period. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.368. Total cost of abatement for this scenario is $ 29. These do not take into account the effect on the generation cost by deals made with independent power producers. Table 4. Average generation cost for the period is PhP 3. UPEEE Foundation page 54 . respectively.324.3 shows the values for the years 2003 and 2012 and Figure 4.707. As would be expected. NOx and particulates for the North Coast of California.828.292 $ 23.1592 per kWh.434 $ 9. Geothermal plants contribute only 2%.137. Appendix C shows the amount of emissions for the whole planning period. fuel. Table 3.916 42 Abatement costs values in this chapter and the chapters that follow were computed using abatement costs for SOx .4 lists down the generation costs calculated for each year of the planning period. Oil-based and natural gas plants contribute 17% and 26% to the CO2 emissions. Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: $ 11. and operations and maintenance costs involved in the operation of the different plants to meet demand and energy requirements for the scenario.71642. the increase in the use of coal would result in an increase in CO2.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Environmental Emissions and Abatement Costs The environmental emissions resulting from DOE’s generation plan for LEGS are calculated in this report. SOx and other emissions.454.

611 489.000 90.000.788 54.000.000 40.6: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario Table 4.000.000 0 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 4.581 952 19.000 30.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100.712 21.3: Environmental Emissions for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (tonnes) Emission Type CO2 SO2 NOX CO CH4 NMVOC N2O Particulates Year 2003 18.000.647 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.289 112.000 20.000.000 80. UPEEE Foundation page 55 .000.927 Year 2012 46.000. Inc.000 10.000 (tonnes) 50.362 282 1.323 644 3.000 60.669.850 159.821 295.389 55.000.778.000 70.432 2.000.000.

000.1592 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.0554 0.1026 3.000 40.000.0564 0.000 45.000 20.000 tonne CO2 30.1229 3.0584 0.2123 3.3072 3.0429 3.3636 3.000.000. 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 0.4: Generation Costs for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario.000 35. Inc.0553 0.000 25.0997 3.2548 3.0574 12% 3% 2% PhP/kWh* 3.0601 0.000 5.0612 0.000.0564 0.0447 3.0553 0. UPEEE Foundation page 56 .000 10.000 15.0409 3.000.000.7: Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario Table 4.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 50.0592 0.000.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4.000.000.0568 0.

Figure 4. with a minimum value of 26% and a maximum of 65%.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 4. Table 4.4 DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario Energy Generation In the high economic growth scenario.8: Generation under the High Economic Growth Scenario Installed Generating Capacity Installed generating capacity would increase from 14. Inc. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.5 lists down the percentage reserve margins for the PEP Plan for the HEGS. Reserve Margin and Reliability Similar to LEGS.470 GWh in 2012.756 MW in 2012.556 GWh in 2003 to 118.8 shows the expected generation under the HEGS. Figure 4. corresponding to a 56% increase within the ten-year planning period. UPEEE Foundation page 57 . A large part of this increase is due to the addition of coal plants.9 shows how the installed generating capacity would change from 2003 to 2012. generation is expected to increase from 55.632 MW in 2003 to 22. increasing more than 200 percent within the ten-year planning period. the percentage reserve margin in the HEGS is considerably high. 140000 120000 100000 80000 GWh 60000 40000 20000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4.

469 11.790 18.000 20.423 15.000 MW 10. UPEEE Foundation page 58 .660 11.005 21. Inc.563 13.9: DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the High Economic Growth Scenario Table 4.560 12.031 17.000 5.756 Percentage Reserve Margin (%) 65 57 49 39 30 25 26 29 30 26 Capacity Required for 20% Reserve Margin 10.359 14.854 16.632 15. 2003-2012 Peak Demand (MW) 8.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Wind Demand (MW) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4.765 18.000 15.883 9.562 16.148 21.106 Installed Capacity (MW) 14.065 16.633 10.5: Percentage Reserve Margin for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario.865 16.615 15.155 20.727 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25.120 15.424 12.806 22.378 13.709 14.308 18.674 20.

98. While the share of renewable energy declines to 20% by 2012 from 37% in 2003.120 tonnes of coal and 1.10 and 4.272 BCF of natural gas for the whole planning period.322. this scenario would require 184.12. 184. The breakdown of fossil fuels that will be used in the HEGS-PEP scenario is shown in Figure 4. it is quite evident that dependence on non-renewable energy for power generation remains strong. Much of the increase in the share of non-renewable energy may be attributed to oil whose shares increase from 5% to 17%.10: Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements. 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 4.5 million barrels of oil. Inc.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Energy Mix From Figures 4.11. the share of non-renewable energy increases to 80%.211 tonnes of coal would have to be imported. and natural gas whose contribution ranges from 24% to 17% for the period considered.5 million barrels of oil 85. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.127 million. Total cost of imported fuel is $5.835. UPEEE Foundation page 59 . Coal share remains very significant at 47% in 2012.

000.000.000.000 30.000 (tonnes) 50.000 70.000.000.000 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural 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. UPEEE Foundation page 60 . Inc.000.000 80.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 4.000.000 60.000 90.000 20.000.12: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 10.000 40.000.

236.829 631.751 283 1.165.913 $ 2.820 61.945 70.13 illustrates the contribution of each energy source to CO2 emissions resulting from the DOE plan for the HEGS.050. the UPSL obtained the following shown in Table 4. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.2 million tonnes. Figure 4.843 167. Inc.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.610 778 4.779.022.995.064 21.076. An estimate of the environmental emissions is provided in Table 4.059.764.132 Generation Cost The PEP-HEGS Scenario will require the following costs: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: $ 12.294. Total abatement cost for the HEG-PEP Scenario is $32. greenhouse has emissions is to further soar.317 326. UPEEE Foundation page 61 .059.7 for energy generation cost for 2003 to 2012.568. Table 4.677 Year 2012 565.896 Based on the installed capacities and energy generation indicated in the PEP for the HEGS.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 19.409 2.680.6.225 $ 10.211 111.758 $ 25. Total CO2 emissions for the period is 347.599 970 19.

9810 2.13: Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario Table 4.0640 2.0573 12% 3% 2% PhP/kWh* 3.0549 0.0392 3.0545 3. 2003-2012 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average Assumptions: Discount rate Inflation rate Fuel escalation rate * $1 = PhP 55 Generation Cost $/kWh 0.0582 0. Inc.0555 0.000 tonne CO2 30.0598 0.0635 0.9853 3.2021 3.2889 3.0553 0.000 10. UPEEE Foundation page 62 .000.3646 3.0557 0.1488 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.0543 0.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 4.000.000 50.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 60.000.0175 3.4908 3.000.0542 0.000 20.000 40.000.7: Generation Costs for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario.0612 0.000.

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

natural gas capacity would continue to increase until the end of the planning period. Total cost of fuel that need to be imported for this scenario is $ 3.279 tonnes of coal and 1. have lower capacity factors compared to coal power plants. the Moderate Clean Power Development option is applied to the Low Economic Growth Scenario.1 LEGS-MCPD Scenario In this scenario.8 million barrels of oil. however. Inc.4. UPEEE Foundation page 64 . respectively. this scenario would require 58. Of these amounts.8 million barrels of oil. Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements.3. 58.945. By 2012. Also.9 BCF of natural gas would have to be imported. Energy Mix The share of renewable energy for the LEGS-MCPD option would increase by 10% from the period 2003 to 2012.502. the reserve margin is quite higher at 42% to 48%. For Mindanao. Note also that wind power plants. 73.1.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 5.450 MW in 2003 to 8. This is because more power plants are required to meet Mindanao’s energy demand.554. natural gas and renewable energy plant capacities would amount to 69% of the total installed capacity.4 BCF of natural gas for the whole planning period. which were used in this option to address the additional power and energy demand. renewable energy plant installed capacity is increased by 95% from 4. which cannot be addressed with the low dependable capacity of its existing plants. Reserve Margin The 2008 to 2012 installed capacity reserve margins for the LEGS-MCPD option for Luzon and Visayas fall within the LEGS-PEP range of 22% to 29%.2 and 5. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. The energy mix and share of clean energy for the option are shown in Figure 5.228 tonnes of coal and 154. This is shown in Figure 5.685 MW in 2012. 64. Installed Capacity As shown in Figure 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. which were used in the PEP scenarios. The share of coal and oil in the mix would reduce by about 28% at the end of the period.060 million. Details of this scenario is given in Appendix D.

479.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25.254 $ 2.508 $ 8. Inc.7 million tonnes.000 MW 10. achieving net reduction of 44.969.000 20.113. GHG emissions from the LEGS-MCPD are much lower than that from the LEGS-PEP.955.1: Installed Generating Capacity for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario Environmental Emissions and Abatement Cost As would be expected.6 million tonnes of CO2 as compared to the LEGS-PEP. Generation Cost For this LEGS-MCPD.0568 or PhP 3.815 $ 0.723.000 5.000 15.1235 The LEGS-MCPD will achieve a net savings of $ 236 million as compared with the LEGS-PEP.592.166 million higher than that of the LEGS-MCPD.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Oil-based Hydro Coal Biomass Natural Gas Wind Geothermal Demand (MW) Figure 5. Total cost of abatement of other emissions for this option is $23.507. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. The LEGS-PEP abatement cost is $6. Figure 5. computed cost values for the planning period are as follows: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: Average generation cost: $ 12.755.202 million.5 illustrates the CO2 emissions calculated from this option. Total CO2 emissions for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario is 264. UPEEE Foundation page 65 .053 $ 23.

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

000.000.000 30.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Coal 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 5.000 20.000.000.000.000.000 50.4: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario 40.5: CO2 Emissions for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000.000 5.000.000.000 15.000.000 30.000.000 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 5.000 35.000.000 60.000 25. Inc.000.000.000 10.000 10.000 70.000.000.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 80. UPEEE Foundation page 67 .000 (tonnes) 40.000 20.

University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. UPEEE Foundation page 68 . Inc. the average reserve margins are 33% and 26%.523.450 MW in 2003 to 11.9. Mindanao’s average reserve margin. brings the clean energy generation from 33.40% of the peak demand.10.34 tonnes/GWh. Total cost of fuel that is needed to be imported for this scenario is $ 2.731 tonnes.520 MW in 2012.2 million barrels of oil.294. The total CO2 emissions for the period is 248. Reserve Margin For Luzon and Visayas.2 million barrels and 139. This 159% increase in renewable capacity is largely attributable to the increase in wind capacity from zero in 2003 to 3. the Aggressive Clean Power Development Option is applied to the Low Economic Growth Scenario. Energy Mix Figure 5.9 million tonnes less than the LEGS-PEP. In this option. while importation of oil and natural gas stand at 57.480 MW in 2012 and the further increase in the utilization of geothermal and biomass resources.794 GWh in 2003 to 84. respectively. Figure 5. Installed Capacity In this option. which is 60. Total cost of abatement for this option is $ 21.2 LEGS-ACPD Scenario In this scenario.8 shows the increase in clean energy share in the mix. The mix of imported and indigenous fuel is shown in Figure 5. is 53%.4 million tonnes.175 tonnes of coal. The total CO2 emissions for each year are shown in Figure 5. Coal importation for this option reaches 58. respectively.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 5. Fuel Consumption Total fuel requirement for the LEGS-ACPD is 66.270 GWh in 2012.860 million.6 shows the installed capacities for the LEGS-ACPD option. Environmental Emissions and Abatement Cost The increased utilization of renewable energy resources. renewable energy capacity is increased from 4.7 illustrates the energy mix resulting from the LEGS-ACPD option.4 BCF. in this option. wind power plants take 20. The average for the country is 34%.7 BCF of natural gas and 57.715. 1471. Figure 5.074. for 2008 to 2012. brings the CO2 emission level at 321.633. The 30% increase in renewable energy share from 37% to 48% over the planning period.

000 15.000 5.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Oil-based Hydro Coal Biomass Natural Gas Wind Geothermal Demand (MW) Figure 5.000 20.7: Energy Mix for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. UPEEE Foundation page 69 . Inc.000 MW 10.6: 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.

000.000.000.000 80.000.000 (tonnes) 50. Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario 90.000 10.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Coal and Oil-Based Renewable and Natural Gas Figure 5.000.000 30.9: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 60.000 20. Inc.000 40.000 0 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 5. UPEEE Foundation page 70 .8: Coal and Oil-Based vs.000 70.000.000.000.000.

000 25.000. Natural gas capacities are increased throughout the period and would account for the biggest share in installed capacity by 2012. Inc.000.3 HEGS-MCPD Scenario In this scenario.000. the Moderate Clean Power Development option is applied to the High Economic Growth Scenario. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. computed cost values for the planning period are as follows: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: Average generation cost: $ 12.000 30.000 10.000 20. Renewable energy capacity accounts for 30% in 2003 and 39% in 2012.000.012 $ 23.000 0 2003 2004 Oil-based 2005 Coal 2006 2007 2008 Geothermal 2009 Hydro 2010 Biomass 2011 Wind 2012 Natural Gas Figure 5.1698 This scenario would cost $52 million more than the LEGS-PEP.0576 or PhP 3.661.094 $ 8.11.671 $ 0. 5. Installed Capacity The installed capacity for this option is given in Figure 5.000.000 35.000 5.880.000.603.132.403.10: CO2 Emissions for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario Generation Cost For this LEGS-ACPD.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 40.000.000.414.816.057.564 $ 2. UPEEE Foundation page 71 .000 15.

124 $ 9. 70. Inc.076. which is 63.15 shows the CO2 emissions resulting from the HEGS-MCPD option. This difference is attributable to the inevitable higher reserve margin for Mindanao.1065 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. 64.4 million tonnes lower than the HEGS-PEP.347. Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements. 73. Total cost of fuel imports is $ 3.9 BCF of natural gas for the whole planning period. which falls within 35% to 48%.349. Figure 5. renewable energy and natural gas contribution to the energy mix increases from 61% to 74% for 2003 to 2012.769.7 million barrels of oil. Generation Cost For this HEGS-MCPD.390. Of these amounts. The total CO2 emissions is at 283.8 BCF tonnes of natural gas would have to be imported.7 million barrels of oil.8 million tonnes. 2% is contributed by wind power plants.456 $ 0.781.807. Energy Mix With its installed capacities dominating. computed cost values for the planning period are as follows: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: Average generation cost: $ 12.322 million.302 $ 24. Total abatement cost for this option is $ 24.718. Environmental Emissions Figure 5.13 illustrates the clean energy mix.549.12 shows the corresponding energy mix for the HEGS-MCPD option.940.857 tonnes of coal and 342. while Figure 5.271 tonnes of coal and 1.686.778. Of this mix.030 $ 2.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. this scenario would require 70.580.665. UPEEE Foundation page 72 .0565 or PhP 3.

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 5.12: Energy Mix for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.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. UPEEE Foundation page 73 .000 20.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25.000 MW 10. Inc.000 5.000 15.

000 10.000 50.000 20.000 30.000 (tonnes) 40.000 60.000.000. Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario 80.14: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Inc.000 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 5.000 70.000.000.000. UPEEE Foundation page 74 .000.13: Coal and Oil-Based vs.000.000.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Coal and Oil-Based Renewable and Natural Gas Figure 5.

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. clean energy share increased by 24% over the planning period.000 35.000.000. the Aggressive Clean Power Development option strategy is applied to the High Economic Growth Scenario. the country’s effective reserve margin ranges from 28% to 32%.17 and Figure 5.000.000.000 10.000. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.18 illustrate these changes in the energy mix.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 40. Inc.000 15. Figure 5.000 20. UPEEE Foundation page 75 .4 HEGS-ACPD Scenario In this option.000 5.16 illustrates this. Figure 5.000.000 25.000 30. Energy Mix While oil-based and coal share in the energy mix decreased by 38%.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Coal 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 5. Reserve Margin With the inevitably high reserve margin of 45% to 51% for Mindanao.15: CO2 Emissions for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario 5.

7 BCF of natural gas. Generation Cost For this HEGS-ACPD. Inc. The cost of abatement for SOx . NOx and particulates for this option is 23. All of the oil would have to be imported.567 $ 9.723.0575 or PhP 3. 72.5 BCF of natural gas for the whole planning period.730 $ 2.271 $ 25.0 million barrels of oil.513 million. Figure 5.1 million tonnes.682 tonnes of coal and 1.288. Total CO2 emissions is at 275.532. 67.584.20.19 shows the sharing of the imported and indigenous fossil fuels. Environmental Emissions and Abatement Cost Carbon dioxide generation for the HEGS-ACPD option is shown in Figure 5.638.560.402.824. along with 59.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements. Cost of fuel imports is $ 3.791.583.1647 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.568 $ 0. UPEEE Foundation page 76 .458.182.842. computed cost values for the planning period are as follows: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: Average generation cost: $ 12.1 million tonnes lower than that for the HEGS-PEP.199. this scenario would require 90.139 tonnes of coal and 276.

000 5.16: Installed Generating Capacity for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 5.000 15. UPEEE Foundation page 77 .17: Energy Mix for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 20. Inc.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25.000 MW 10.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Oil-based Hydro Coal Biomass Natural Gas Wind Geothermal Peak Demand Figure 5.

000. Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario 80.000 10. Inc.000 60.000.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Coal and Oil-Based Renewable and Natural Gas Figure 5.000 0 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 5.000.000 30.19: Fuel Consumption for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000.000 50.000.000.000.000 20.000.000 (tonnes) 40. UPEEE Foundation page 78 .000 70.18: Coal and Oil-Based vs.

Inc.000 15.000. UPEEE Foundation page 79 .000 10.000.000 30.000.000.000 20.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Coal 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 5.000 35.000.20: CO2 Emissions for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000.000.000 25.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 40.000 5.000.

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

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

2 Transmission and Distribution Development Transmission and distribution infrastructure should be developed to increase access to renewable energy sites. Transmission facilities should deliberately be expanded toward locations of promising renewable energy sources. 6. Private Sector Proposals Provincial Energy Plan Provincial Level Resource Assessment and Local Supply and Demand Balance City/Municipality Level City/Municipality Energy Plan Electrification Planning • • University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Inc. most of which are site specific.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. The Philippine Grid and Distribution Code (PGDC) must be clear on its requirements and procedures on the connection. run-of-river small hydro and biomass) should be given priority in the dispatch of generating units. The Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) should allow such an expansion even if it does not initially show recovery of investment. 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. particularly on the required technical analysis and compensating equipment. operation and control of nonconventional. This cost mechanism will ensure that all electricity consumers will share the cost of such a development.1: Recommended Bottom-Up Approach to Energy Planning 6.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. renewable energy-based power plants. The cost of such an expansion should be borne by the transmission or distribution utility. UPEEE Foundation page 82 . These plants must “feed-in” the Grid at minimum prices that will guarantee the returns of power developers.

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

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

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

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

011 26 169 530 16 104 328 20 137 421 2 41 126 8 80 246 18 117 372 36 234 742 8 87 267 15 98 299 31 265 832 8 52 161 90 620 1. Inc.922 21 158 484 5 40 125 5 33 100 20 151 478 43 315 971 7 46 143 17 125 382 11 86 263 21 165 509 15 98 307 24 163 509 4 40 123 117 796 2.Appendix A POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table A.1: Locations of Practical Wind Resources in Luzon Province Abra Albay Aurora Bataan Batangas Benguet Bulacan Cagayan Camarines Norte Camarines Sur Cavite Ifugao Ilocos Norte Ilocos Sur Isabela Kalinga Laguna Mountain Province Nueva Ecija Nueva Vizcaya Pampanga Pangasinan Quezon Quirino Rizal Sorsogon Tarlac Zambales LUZON TOTAL Estimated Estimated Number of Sites Aggregate Capacity Aggregate Annual (MWe) Generation (GWh) 26 183 567 26 183 576 46 320 1. UPEEE Foundation page 1 of 4 .280 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.486 686 4906 15.

738 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 1.3: Locations of Practical Wind Resources in Mindanao Province Agusan del Norte Agusan del Sur Camiguin Surigao del Norte Surigao del Sur MINDANAO TOTAL No.170 6.113 169 519 347 1.065 75 229 259 795 2.031 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Inc. 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. UPEEE Foundation page 2 of 4 .Appendix A POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table A.

UPEEE Foundation page 3 of 4 .Appendix A POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table A.585 Table A.4. Locations of Practical Small Hydro Potential Resources in Luzon Province Abra Aurora Benguet Ifugao Ilocos No rte Ilocos Sur Isabela Kalinga La Union Mountain Province Nueva Vizcaya Pangasinan Quezon Quirino Tarlac LUZON TOTAL Number of Sites Estimated Capacity Estimated Annual (MWe) Generation (GWhr) 20 196 1. Locations of Practical Small Hydro Potential Resources in Visayas Province Aklan Eastern Samar Negros Occidental Negros Oriental VISAYAS TOTAL Number of Sites Estimated Capacity Estimated Annual (MWe) Generation (GWh) 1 5 2 1 9 5 33 13 7 58 26 173 68 37 304 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.030 1 10 53 9 79 415 3 32 168 3 22 116 4 40 210 8 72 378 30 318 1.5. Inc.671 6 35 184 3 34 179 15 181 110 4 26 951 3 28 147 19 179 941 1 6 32 129 1.258 6.

692 7 7 18 18 53 279 26 137 58 305 69 363 230 1. Inc.237 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.6.209 7 37 11 58 7 37 826 4. UPEEE Foundation page 4 of 4 . Locations of Practical Small Hydro Potential Resources in Mindanao Province Agusan del Norte Bukidnon Davao Davao Oriental Lanao del Norte Lanao del Sur Maguindanao Misamis Oriental North Cotabato Sultan Kudarat Surigao del Sur Zamboanga del Norte MINDANAO TOTAL Number of Sites 3 21 7 18 7 4 6 10 18 1 2 1 98 Estimated Capacity Estimated Annual (MWe) Generation (GWh) 18 95 322 1.Appendix A POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table A.

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

030 5.335 5.190 11.758 5.735 33.851 1.963 Natural Gas 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 1.927 Coal 405 405 441 550 850 1.649 25.870 26.867 1.259 2.348 2.579 30.015 1.568 4.929 19.353 10.063 Geothermal 888 888 963 1.536 5.840 7.865 10.432 2000 12.862 6.859 823 1.154 4.191 957 2.531 1.797 41.042 2.301 2.959 9.754 41.183 16.388 11.797 1998 11.3: Energy Consumption by Sector.037 39.791 2.167 1.078 18. UPEEE Foundation page 1 of 2 .368 4.663 18.725 9.135 6.072 11.901 12.185 13.554 36.363 9.459 33.725 12.Appendix B POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table B.049 Source: DOE University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.849 41.402 Source: DOE Table B.254 2.684 762 1.734 30.819 1.855 7.2: 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 25.799 9.257 2.212 9.910 8.579 1994 7.116 18.708 1997 10.196 5.567 13. Inc.856 1.477 8.150 7.296 5.050 12.086 3.973 5.132 4.185 9.987 3.789 6.578 1999 11.936 8.073 1.345 45.534 7.417 1.066 7.128 36.155 2.847 9.950 1.232 7.713 47.554 1996 9.223 6.942 1.162 11.600 1.590 5.071 25.626 10.914 10.928 12.320 6.867 16.543 934 1.594 11.931 1. 1991-2001 (GWh) Year Year 1991 Residential Commercial Industrial Others Utilities Own Use Power Losses Total 6.799 7.288 19.249 4.931 Hydro 2.339 952 1.875 8.931 1.707 39.098 14.267 1.649 1992 6.109 4.399 4.667 6.301 2.700 5.282 5.395 721 1.390 6.518 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 6.425 5.963 3.442 5.154 1.844 5.730 11.578 41.789 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 20 16 17 848 5.804 13.432 45.440 5.237 8.030 6.053 4.226 5.069 5.949 7.301 2.547 10.145 4.341 3.870 1993 6.290 2001 13.067 1.459 1995 8.939 13.013 12.132 4.238 26.512 13.894 9.696 11.301 2.493 3.471 6. 1991-2001 (MW) Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Fuel Type Oil-based 3.600 2.200 3.839 4.301 2.340 6.176 25.104 Source: DOE Table B.290 47.444 921 1.452 1.301 2.1: Installed Generating Capacity.

082.127 1.004 101.530 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 10.580 27.967 2.928 278.428.131.747 25.688 3.704 18.521 18.682 Table B.989 12.273 1.633 130.131.311 20.836 18.511 2.970 527.808 1995 3.725 117.109 23.Appendix B POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table B.671 16.175.553.282 286.509.492 144.083 18.872 6.403 1.727 29.352 1998 5.781 24.075 N 2O 415 436 421 469 541 610 711 742 644 734 842 Particulates 10.250 473 573 4.530 15.762 SOX 115.521. tonne CO2 Year Oil-based 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 9.049 19.233 11.964 114.411.119.644 13.726 67.556 404.311 10.164 19.808 Fuel Type Geothermal 261.360 14.076 792 805 904 NMVOC 975 1.816 1997 4.090 16.038 973 1. tonne Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Environmental Emissions CO 2 10.133 1.870 1993 19.473 523 691 4.695 33.870.991 5.362 14.566 3.147 5.578 1999 31.283 15.585.854 6.236.566.639 16.552 135.413 258.586 126.283 15.932 154.486 20.309 146.411.585.705.261 9.175 5.081 1992 3.649 Table B.674 480.773 727 852 6.359 1.908 2000 5.004 906 1.703 47.351.733 24.290 2001 36.122.163 5.159 13.519.028 770 868 6.563 127.094.915 12.291 1996 4. UPEEE Foundation page 2 of 2 .459 1995 25.521.708 1997 30.414 162.464 45.755 4.432 2000 34.902 2.076 2.396 18.290 3.343 41.365 39.611 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.448 16.554 1996 27.471.185.882 149.687 1994 3.649 812 939 7.286.807 CO 16.666 1999 5.164 19.131.069 84.702 7.124 17.448 16.687.820 474.555 30.729 NOX 58.062 1.351.337 25.553.291 1.679 8.675 10.920 591 780 5.671 16.763 25.226 789 893 6.428.835 893 954 7.348 2.678 117.712.580.990 99.848 164.103.084 4.045 410 626 4.306 682 828 5.491.582 11. Inc.547.376 3.232.184 5.708 23.652 4.5: Generation by Grid.797 1998 31.547.6: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Source.233 11.896 136.159 13.204 160.481 5.245 41.541 10.441 5.347 5.029 36.644 328.582 11.242 1.780 257.864 26.745 4. 1991-2001 (GWh) 1991 Luzon Visayas Mindanao Philippines Source: DOE 1992 19.6: Environmental Emissions.4: Peak Demand.580.789 3.698 4.133 30.296 1993 3.903 21.762 Table B.206 3.566.813 3.962 751.704 18.679 5.561 551 696 4.794 13.687.338.231.616 28. 1991-2001 (MW) Year Luzon Visayas Mindanao Philippines Source: DOE 1991 3.400 2001 5.116 20.345 2.796 CH4 587 643 685 835 963 974 1.222 Natural Gas 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.579 1994 23.665 Coal 1.529 296.036 4.831 189.279 998.238 106.396 18.

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

833 9.91% 7.869 13.707 1.161 9.912 2.830 10.275 7.814 15.889 17.30% 7.034 7.519 10.159 1.254 1.95% 7.R.041 7.752 7.007 1.57% Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.084 1.277 11.58% VISAYAS 1.26% 7.67% MINDANAO 1.459 1. G.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.673 1.95% 6.39% NATIONAL Non-Coincident Peak 8.563 1.139 11. Inc.477 1.997 12.829 1.2012) (2003 .93% 7.13% 7.1a: 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.855 8.033 7.074 1.168 1.360 1.2012) LUZON 6.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.2007) (2008 . UPEEE Foundation page 1 of 16 . (2003 .958 8.377 1.276 1.592 1.548 11.789 1.319 12.813 14.31% 7.503 9.149 13.

Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C. (2003 . Inc.924 8. UPEEE Foundation page 2 of 16 .274 7.497 9.420 11.58% VISAYAS 5.13% 7.R.564 80.93% 7.506 74.57% Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.91% 7.31% 7.154 59.875 53.258 6.182 55.39% TOTAL 51.135 11.740 7.320 5.95% 6.016 9.67% MINDANAO 6.072 49.260 76.548 64.391 71.870 66.2007) (2008 .726 6.452 7.686 7.743 10.801 8.827 92.170 6.661 10.103 9.892 7.306 7.342 8.26% 7.675 46.057 98.30% 7.660 61.2012) LUZON 39.95% 7.539 69.604 42. G.735 57.754 7.2012) (2003 .1c: Electricity Sales Forecasts for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (GWh) YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual Ave.411 9.024 85.

207 616 200 200 - 2.717 1.308 2012 1583 3758 450 3.308 2009 2233 3758 450 3.607 616 - 1.217 2. UPEEE Foundation page 3 of 16 .141 12.308 2005 2443 3758 450 3.657 616 - 1.141 12.707 616 200 200 - 1.781 468 431 281 281 281 281 281 281 182 182 300 205 150 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 - 1.367 2.604 546 - 1.267 2.031 15.308 Luzon Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 2763 1510 907 - 2763 1860 907 65 - 2763 2205 907 65 - 2763 2205 907 65 - 2763 2205 907 65 - 2763 2205 907 65 - 2763 2205 907 65 2763 2205 907 65 2763 2205 907 65 2763 2205 907 65 Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking LUZON TOTAL Oil-based Coal Local Imported 600 1500 2100 900 1200 1500 1500 300 750 750 900 11.308 2010 1583 3758 450 3.308 2008 2443 3758 450 3.107 616 200 200 - 2.017 2.1d: DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (MW) Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Local Imported Year 2003 2443 3758 450 3.308 2011 1583 3758 450 3.831 15.807 616 200 200 - 1.441 13.617 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.381 11.647 1.131 13.067 2.817 2.308 616 200 200 - Natural Gas Mindanao Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 997 104 - 997 104 - 997 104 100 - 997 104 100 - 997 104 50 100 - 997 104 200 100 - 997 104 250 100 - 997 104 350 100 - 997 104 500 100 - 997 104 600 100 - Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking MINDANAO TOTAL 1.907 616 200 200 - 2.796 12.308 2007 2443 3758 450 3.308 2004 2443 3758 450 3.517 2.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.141 12.308 2006 2443 3758 450 3. Inc.208 616 200 200 - 2.

563 2012 2.214 1.963 600 3.163 600 3.563 2008 3.480 4.363 2005 3.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Local Imported Year 2003 3.163 600 3.563 Philippines Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 2.615 15.214 1.970 65 350 - 2.340 3.214 1.970 65 300 - 2.015 16.457 3.763 2. Inc.120 15.869 1.650 750 2.350 1.763 3.214 1.519 1.381 4.763 3.963 600 3.756 20.214 1.163 600 3.950 750 2.214 1.763 3.970 65 550 1.163 600 3.405 19.163 600 3.490 3.163 600 3.363 2004 3.963 600 3.563 2007 3.340 4.300 1.865 16.930 - 2.505 18.163 600 3.763 2.970 65 400 650 - 2.970 65 150 350 - 2.130 4.970 65 - 2.970 65 3.563 2011 2.563 2009 3.970 65 2.563 2010 2.350 300 2.763 3.340 4.763 3.565 17.381 4.950 900 Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking PHILIPPINES TOTAL 14.970 65 1.340 4. UPEEE Foundation page 4 of 16 .763 3.706 Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.214 1.500 1.363 2006 3.763 3.763 3.214 1.632 15.

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 4.150 Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.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.240 Cebu Baseload 4.100 2006 2007 Midrange 2008 Midrange 2009 Peaking 300 690 690 990 Panay Midrange Panay Baseload Cebu Baseload Negros Baseload 600 300 1.500 2.440 Cebu Baseload Negros Baseload 50 50 50 50 890 Baseload Plant 150 870 6.190 Cebu Baseload Panay Baseload 990 Baseload Plant 100 970 7.350 1.050 San Roque Hydro 2005 345 690 240 Diesel Plant from Luzon Midrange Plant 70 100 170 1.200 290 390 490 Mindanao Coal Baseload Plant Baseload Plant 200 50 150 370 420 570 1. Inc. UPEEE Foundation page 5 of 16 .200 5.750 690 Baseload Plant 50 620 3.

828 345.340 238.465 5.324 28.866.303 265.963 15.158.762 94.609 10. Inc.788 1.171 29.264 8.532 39.600.820.051.844 147.849 7.710 128.203 265.1h: 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. UPEEE Foundation page 6 of 16 .936.827.045.927 8.850 20.452 685.188 139.764.251 128.577.410 89.928 31.177 92.088 TOTAL 159.896 9.1g: 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 137.829 222.644 7.865 683.687 16.536.114.908 32.163 437.958.660 169.289 159.531 14.304.778.477 203.894 22.897.019 TOTAL 112.491.086 8.803.833.785 39.188.985 42.937 148.939 Natural gas 21.316.103 21.633 164.624 7.220 8.939 26.435 81.887.330 25.635 582.460 34.011 2.307.869.289 28.242 75.503 1.855 246.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.091 57.464 Natural gas 104 125 134 143 152 157 159 158 156 157 1.770 25.962 16.821 2.521 36.988 213.422 335.918 Coal 10.060.676 6.495 685.086.030 2.816.820.450 295.802.991 33.249.125.449 685.568 115.951.453 Table C.352.416 21.061 35.113.808 40.975 14.536 Oil-based 12.922 Natural gas 5.497 195.265.870 225.297 33.897 189.631.927 8.410 40.669.812 32.1f: 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 641.284 24.837 18.534 8.876.840 51.965 83.676 685.429 181.095 Oil-based 2.792 8.093 679.519 TOTAL 18.185 32.993 46.722 685.680 489.941 384.279 28.712 117.982.138 38.599 168.573.462 27.821 2.782 13.445 Oil-based 21.113 283.760.855 133.317 211.275.797 3.528 31.493 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.273 7.652 182.803 103.809.229 8.313 685.317.100 8.776 3.076.611 309.177 685.402.032 392.020 289.151 243.388.997 Table C.981 303.921.491 97.201 30.571.

268 11.1i: Total CO Emissions by Fuel Type for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total for period Geothermal Coal 9.1j: 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 1.810 2. Inc.712 28.581 1.323 362.656 12.341 1.580 1.1k: 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 1.207 TOTAL 21.571 1.069 14.125 13.337 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.671 Table C.414 Oil-based 2.060 6.758 24.254 1.008 2.655 TOTAL 1.362 23.595 46.454 Oil-based 163 195 267 238 302 449 713 770 755 802 4.078 165.285 13.432 25.519 1.176 17.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.873 9.554 12.562 1.196 13.730 Natural gas 145 174 186 198 211 218 220 219 217 218 2.008 Oil-based 33 40 49 44 59 82 121 129 122 131 810 TOTAL 282 314 346 379 423 470 526 566 598 644 4.240 4.397 3.241 28.776 10.586 50.999 7. UPEEE Foundation page 7 of 16 .548 Table C.971 12.355 26.363 36.049 Natural gas 8.193 121.575 13.620 20.586 1.425 1.373 2.250 3.529 11.319 13.630 2.963 3.714 3.571 14.602 16.274 13.134 3.045 1.053 76.385 11.228 Natural gas 1.966 32.758 42.157 2.586 10.121 54.763 13.925 4.

97 421. UPEEE Foundation page 8 of 16 .175 1.39 410.97 2.01 NMVOC 0.03 0.013 1.01 0.995 Table C.353 55.50 SOX 2.03 0.698 3.01 0.160 25.42 0.140 22.399 1.686 Table C.24 3.01 0.771 53.78 CO 0.256 11.67 2.69 2.01 0.50 0.03 0.044 Natural gas 836 1. Inc.37 0.031 46.02 0.50 0.02 0.221 3.60 NOX 2.43 0.275 1.45 2.563 Oil-based 2.02 0.620 274.140 1.979 29.01 0.559 21.072 7.39 0.528 3.89 4.122 1.42 0.66 358.03 0.52 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.01 0.969 2.03 0.36 390.923 7.35 2.39 373.1l: 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 1.778 1.514 5.589 1.250 1.466 41.836 7.073 1.25 2.03 0.973 33.424 1.14 2.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.36 0.139 4.256 34.01 0.57 2.52 3.50 0.257 1.1n: Environmental Emissions per Unit Generation (tonne/kWh) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Environmental Emissions CO2 340.176 2.264 1.03 0.684 7.66 429.55 338.51 CH4 0.47 0.06 3.41 0.03 N2O 0.01 0.02 0.34 0.37 438.389 15.589 9.78 346.89 2.39 0.41 4.01 2.917 17.209 43.244 26.342 Natural gas 313 376 402 428 456 471 476 474 469 471 4.952 38.04 1.02 0.03 0.49 0.008 TOTAL 952 1.02 0.35 0.394 15.927 20.02 Particulates 0.02 0.858 29.03 0.01 0.647 338.02 0.44 0.02 0.700 24.653 49.268 1.15 4.1m: 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 16.387 TOTAL 19.84 3.003 1.336 Oil-based 79 95 121 108 142 202 305 320 308 328 2.46 0.216 1.40 0.

034 2.633 10.883 9.014 1.73% 7.757 1. Inc.281 1.099 1.630 1.313 1.423 15.2b: System Peak Demand Forecasts for the High Economic Growth Scenario (MW) YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual Ave.186 NATIONAL Non-Coincident Peak 8.R.994 8.186 10.400 1.788 7.543 1.809 1. (2003 .081 1.469 11. UPEEE Foundation page 9 of 16 .424 12.711 9.2012) LUZON 6.2a: 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.23% Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.106 MINDANAO 1.804 13.22% 8.862 12.357 7.13% 8.90% 8.2012) (2003 .59% 7.65% 7.562 16.953 2.428 1.106 8.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.675 1.359 14.94% 8. G.378 13.438 10.194 1.512 1.2007) (2008 .790 18.46% 8.176 1.09% 8.992 11.815 VISAYAS 1.92% 8.60% 8.891 2.

59% 7.355 5.09% 8.46% 6.266 104.2c: Electricity Sales Forecasts for the High Economic Growth Scenario (GWh) YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual Ave.233 11.2012) (2003 .746 64.104 81. G.363 59.149 8.807 6.848 9.497 10.R.305 6.314 11.92% 8.851 7.015 11.469 55.156 46.814 43.2012) 39.888 51.94% 8.033 8.2007) (2008 .542 8.155 8.711 77.148 97.888 8.814 60. UPEEE Foundation page 10 of 16 .094 55.847 12.90% 8.392 83.732 8.124 8.805 9. Inc.555 10. (2003 .23% Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.578 75.658 66.465 8.64% 7.22% 5.60% 8.187 71.555 90.13% 51.474 69.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.300 6.73% 7.938 7.

308 2010 1.308 2005 2.758 450 3.2d: DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the High Economic Growth Scenario (MW) Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Local Imported Year 2003 2.567 2.763 1.205 907 65 2.141 12.205 907 65 Luzon Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking 300 1.443 3.205 907 65 2.443 3.233 3.308 2004 2.500 900 2. Inc.317 2.881 16.758 450 3.763 2.800 3.205 907 65 2.604 546 - 1.700 1.800 3.763 2.308 2009 2.308 2011 1.583 3.583 3.607 616 - 1.510 907 - 2.007 616 200 200 - 2.131 468 205 150 55 - 431 205 150 55 - 281 205 150 55 - 281 205 150 55 - 281 205 150 55 - 281 205 150 55 - 281 205 150 55 - 281 205 150 55 - 182 205 150 55 - 182 205 150 55 - Natural Gas Visayas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 12 919 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking VISAYAS TOTAL Oil-based Coal Local Imported 200 - 250 - 100 300 - 200 350 - 400 500 - 550 550 - 650 650 - 750 650 - 1.867 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.205 907 65 2.205 907 65 2.367 2.758 450 3.758 450 3.767 2.441 13.817 2.763 2.431 14.763 2.707 616 200 200 - 1.758 450 3.067 2.300 750 LUZON TOTAL Oil-based Coal Local Imported 11.141 12.357 616 200 200 - 2.717 1. UPEEE Foundation page 11 of 16 .443 3.657 616 - 1.763 2.557 616 200 200 - 2.860 907 65 2.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.796 12.381 11.308 2007 2.308 2006 2.857 616 200 200 - 2.758 450 3.017 2.763 1.443 3.763 2.758 450 3.443 3.758 450 3.308 2008 2.758 450 3.308 2012 1.308 Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 2.763 2.381 17.758 616 200 200 - 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 1.141 12.763 2.300 1.647 1.758 450 3.443 3.583 3.205 907 65 2.658 616 200 200 - 2.205 907 65 2.

000 4.250 0 3.970 65 2.163 600 3.970 65 2.763 3.214 1.214 1.963 600 3.214 1.214 1.632 15.563 2007 3.214 1.163 600 3.963 600 3.214 1.500 0 3.756 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.563 2011 2.340 4.970 65 2.763 2.763 3.340 4.163 600 3.563 2010 2.214 1.563 2008 3.869 1. Inc.970 65 2.970 65 2.163 600 3.363 2004 3.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Local Imported Year 2003 3.970 65 2.163 600 3.381 4.490 3.519 1.763 3.457 3.120 15.970 65 Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking 300 350 150 400 450 800 700 2.763 3.130 4.963 600 3.563 Philippines Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 2.480 4.340 3.155 20.200 4.763 3.865 16.763 3. UPEEE Foundation page 12 of 16 .850 3.065 16.340 4.763 3.763 3.970 65 2.806 22.765 18.363 2006 3.381 4.214 1.163 600 3.763 2.563 2012 2.150 0 1.363 2005 3.563 2009 3.005 21.970 65 2.250 750 PHILIPPINES TOTAL 14.930 - 2.615 15.163 600 3.

Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.790 Cebu Baseload Negros Baseload Cebu Midrange 50 50 100 50 50 1.140 940 590 290 440 Midrange Plant 100 2006 2007 Midrange 2008 300 690 690 Panay Midrange Panay Baseload Panay Midrange Mindanao Coal Baseload Plant 200 50 370 420 1.100 2005 150 50 50 100 50 50 50 50 100 50 50 50 100 150 50 1.540 Cebu Baseload Panay Baseload 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 1.440 Baseload Plant 100 1.850 2009 Negros Baseload Cebu Midrange Bohol Midrange Baseload Plant 900 1. Inc.300 2010 Midrange Baseload Plant 2011 Midrange 900 600 5.150 Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.550 990 Cebu Baseload Cebu Midrange Negros Baseload Baseload Plant Midrange Plant 200 50 670 2.070 8.170 9.200 Peaking 2012 750 6.200 2.340 Baseload Plant Midrange Plant 150 50 1.190 Cebu Baseload Panay Baseload Baseload Plant 50 720 3.350 1. UPEEE Foundation page 13 of 16 .250 Midrange 1.290 Cebu Baseload Bohol Midrange Baseload Plant Midrange Plant 100 50 870 6.200 4.

653 27.434 28.897.299 33.840.625 1.812 6.689 Oil-based 9.664.000 684.713 217.226 7.211 173.686 Coal 10.206 180.888 232.891 11.437 242.661 30.052 418.793 3.473 51.677 174.033 8.198.180 42.435 2.866 288.909 224.873 49.297 33.2h: 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 79.537 16.498 130.590 Table C.796 44.294.106.258.526 33. UPEEE Foundation page 14 of 16 .170 89.683 61.890.634 149.688 221.708 137.533 32.922 383.383 326.064 118.824 13.518 214.820.934.965 19.636 Natural gas 104 126 136 145 155 158 159 158 156 157 1.035 TOTAL 19.879 Oil-based 2.951.945 479.051 8.317 3.828.989.806.320 681.450 685.895 12.941 30.208.396 154.792.722 685.094 104.055 2.167.585 685.042 17.250 284.178.582 40.021.864 2.706 153.839 182.399.234.735.185 32.744.779 15. Inc.070 305.912 293.499 TOTAL 167.316 257.897 409.897.415 Natural gas 21.300.639 34.863.322 12.202 74.970.645.043 41.891 8.172 22.233 33.877 20.267 121.002 321.859 7.125.774 12.050.207 14.945 1.630 162.498 264.124 8.370.351 79.808 139.862 11.927 8.173 56.220 8.529 5.488.785.341 26.518 77.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.939 26.808 243.014 42.843 20.300 Table C.198 192.722 685.812 33.887 197.686 347.787.877.829 347.722 685.2g: 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 139.572.704.490 157.253.912.609 28.124 11.784 157.767 685.565.297 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.921.734.198.264 8.293 82.221 109.456 Oil-based 27.296 1.741 631.017 30.585 685.194 TOTAL 111.822 23.073.060.849 7.673 35.701 Natural gas 5.465.254 191.239 10.743.534.2f: 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 641.862.710 546.620.

Appendix C

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

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

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

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

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

page 15 of 16

Appendix C

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

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

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

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

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

page 16 of 16

Appendix D
Clean Power Development Options 2003-2012

Appendix D

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

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

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

page 1 of 16

871 1.491 1.287 3.697 3.971 3.901 655 205 1.002 3.383 2.491 2.759 2.191 3.146 647 250 188 1.404 235 13.971 3.263 4.782 647 200 108 997 1.831 92 315 17.189 559 205 956 12 50 1.925 112 520 18.775 2.923 2.661 1.214 50 65 15.971 3.205 25 12.583 2.633 2.583 3.694 609 205 986 12 80 20 1.758 3.531 3.763 1.752 3.758 3.671 92 170 16.963 2.869 25 15.758 3.763 1.266 73 100 100 2.763 907 2.116 37 100 60 2.697 4.312 3.781 4.917 4.189 609 205 956 12 80 1.931 2.194 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.558 12 80 2.983 2.983 1.871 5.216 63 100 80 2.255 12 20 2.963 2.491 2.061 3.763 1.398 647 250 228 1.491 2.467 12 60 2.758 3.283 2.213 5.418 112 685 19.519 14.429 545 205 916 12 1.895 2.652 3.747 4.011 1.287 4.227 2.422 400 14.682 547 108 997 1.758 3.963 2.404 130 12.205 65 12.512 2.763 907 2.804 509 205 956 12 1.383 977 2.942 112 850 21.211 650 15.942 5.985 5.012 647 250 148 1.797 525 14.763 907 1.652 3.763 1.658 12 100 2.763 907 2.583 1.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.583 2.763 1.912 647 250 128 1.053 3.011 1.510 11.267 2.758 3.678 547 108 997 1.415 12 40 2.213 5.758 2.1a: Installed Capacity (MW) Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Luzon Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind LUZON TOTAL Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind VISAYAS TOTAL Oil-based Coal Mindanao Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind MINDANAO TOTAL Oil-based Coal Philippines Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind PHILIPPINES TOTAL Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.101 629 205 1.213 5.419 609 205 1.917 4.313 4.138 2.862 647 250 108 997 2.952 3.758 3.758 3.205 65 12.213 3. Inc.941 605 205 1.213 2.213 4.763 907 1.491 2.066 12 80 40 2. UPEEE Foundation Visayas page 2 of 16 .283 1.214 25 15.624 2.127 4.758 3.711 4.971 2.149 559 205 956 12 1.011 3.860 25 11.214 80 65 16.163 2.547 3.583 947 2.732 647 108 997 1.269 647 250 228 1.

374 30.835 Natural Gas 13.982.869.235 1.324 6.931 0 40 0 0 0 90 130 340 180 70 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 2.821 2.816.215.797 3.383 Natural Gas 5.349 16.641 6.097 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 14.849 7.430 Table D.763 0 0 0 0 0 820 800 900 300 400 1.689 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.760.850 20.094.415 20.576 14.609 10.174.151.659 27.577.915 Coal 18.687 16.953 24.210 19.782 13.519 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 1.636 99.534 8.573.086 11.908 Coal 10.087 19.624 7.757 846.297 Hydro Biomass Wind Total 18.085 16.143 59.462 27.596 1.343 16.372 64.927 8.074 24.121 14.952 3.706 1.449 685.054 15.653 821.1d: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.865 683.948 80.271 21.402.943 27.020.263 14.484 1.125.536.783 15.958.778.216 13.456 758.968 8.857 27.579 1.133.550 30.623.141 18.017 17.100 18.906 27.837 15.583 0 0 300 0 50 0 0 20 75 50 Coal 3.098 15.820.099 14.831 2.213 1.284 24.229 8.275.776 3.1b: Annual Capacity Additions (MW) Year Oil-based Current Installed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3. Inc.644 1.247 3.360 92.979.281.092 15.975 14.181 69.928 7.896 9.093 679.528 31.125.465 5.249.589 27.477 12.764 6.784 15.580 74.177 685.272 Total 55.936.060 33.757 30.521 27.813 19.113.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.438 86.894 22.710 18.495 639.951 31.897.061 27.1c: Power Generation (GWh) Year Oil-based 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.011 2.333.158.943 7.937 1.089.313 1.113.901.289 106.654 29.720 3.001 16.629 18.893 7.963 0 0 0 200 50 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 2.391 1.652 1.388.148 1.452 685.209 Total Addition Table D.101 Fuel Type Geothermal 641.590 1.884 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 0 645 785 785 785 Wind 0 153 153 153 153 153 843 1.975 15.045.076. UPEEE Foundation page 3 of 16 .114.833.571.916.523 4.152.

689 SOX 159.70 304.06 0.28 0.927 20.981 3.52 2.06 PhP/kWh 3.32 0. UPEEE Foundation page 4 of 16 .37 0.38 0.535 Particulates 19.24 3.88 SO X 2.528 31.01 NMVOC 0.02 8.152.03 N2O 0.01 0.02 0.46 0.43 0.936.215.83 1.757 30.06 0.06 0.952 27.289 159.894 22.03 0.424 1.402.06 0.32 299.03 0.84 3.677 28.363 36.36 0.69 2.241 28.27 Table D.122 1.901.03 0.284 24.03 0.650 218.89 2.06 0.462 27.008 2.810 2.937 148.04 1.02 0.20 3.238 N 2O 952 1.536 27.03 0.97 2.029 NOX 112.87 Particulates 0.05 3.19 3.966 32.17 2.50 8.589 775.840 217.02 0.03 0.25 2.151 243.275 Environmental Emissions CO 21.897 189.01 0.05 3.31 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.726 215.157 2.317 164.581 1.442 34.1f: Environmental Emission per Unit Generation (tonne/GWh) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 340.10 3.01 0.113.36 390.01 0.06 0.30 0.06 3.06 0.110 35.36 0.01 2.355 26.34 0.712 117.1e: Environmental Emissions (tonne) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 18.542 Table D.73 1.362 23.10 3.69 Environmental Emissions CO CH 4 0.249.979 29.35 1.01 0.18 9.01 0.39 0.03 0.373 2.78 346.137 171.140 22.35 0.42 0.013 1.35 2.01 0.55 338.01 0.41 0.42 0.03 0.599 168.52 2.044 CH 4 282 314 346 379 423 470 443 470 497 536 NMVOC 1.14 2.1g: Generation Cost Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Generation Cost US$/kWh 0.061 27.01 0.779 2.06 0.654 29.973 33.66 358.687 38.951 31.982.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.39 0.98 10.90 1.02 0.160 25.850 20.778.758 32.40 0.03 0.275 1.630 2.422 217.916.36 0.02 0.113 283.147 943.584 2.451 943.12 3.954 180.06 0. Inc.839 27.429 181.04 3.06 3.380 169.251 128.397 943.09 314.39 373.05 NOX 2.39 323.988 213.37 0.

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

130 2.732 647 108 997 1.758 3.652 3.759 907 1.971 2.932 117 3.758 3.583 3.053 947 2.763 1.971 3.255 12 33 2.063 2.578 2.325 3.211 25 3.862 647 250 108 997 2.758 2.480 23.422 25 1.925 117 2.071 3.957 2.042 647 250 148 1.633 907 2.831 117 1.011 1.002 3.763 1.205 25 12.758 3.758 3.214 25 15.429 545 205 916 12 1.476 63 80 80 2.149 559 205 956 12 1.991 4.163 2.963 2.758 3.146 37 80 60 2.778 4.346 63 80 80 2.063 3.136 647 250 188 1.971 3. UPEEE Foundation page 6 of 16 .652 3.369 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.213 3.763 3.856 609 205 1.465 16.404 25 1.561 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 2.963 2.763 1.763 2.763 2.548 2.841 4.682 547 108 997 1.168 4.214 80 65 16.697 4.971 3.404 10 665 12.531 1.491 2.205 65 12.467 12 179 2.763 1.213 5.287 3.871 1.758 3.763 1.868 609 205 1.411 18.869 25 15.752 3.491 1.510 11.213 2.011 1.968 5.488 1.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.758 3.758 3.213 4.807 21.763 2.825 510 205 1.138 907 2.267 2.468 907 1.065 17.952 3.860 25 11.227 2.931 2.491 2.804 509 205 956 12 1.205 65 12.697 3.547 3.735 1.964 977 2.968 2.265 13.291 510 205 1.491 2.923 907 2.865 14.491 2.743 2.917 4.797 25 2.168 4.758 3.747 4.558 12 262 2.189 609 205 956 12 80 1.678 547 108 997 1.096 12 80 40 2.763 2.011 3.213 3.189 559 205 956 12 50 1.718 609 205 996 12 80 20 1.413 647 250 228 1.922 647 250 128 1.415 12 106 2.418 117 2.104 19.671 102 718 16.213 4.267 4.214 50 65 15.782 647 200 108 997 1.468 2.283 647 250 228 1.548 4.658 12 335 3. Inc.519 14.778 2.661 1.221 3.963 2.127 4.

885 32.076.694 Fuel Type Geothermal 641.082 Natural Gas 5.893 7. UPEEE Foundation page 7 of 16 .138 26.143 59.708 27.782 13.125.764 4.704 1.333.896 9.229 8.741 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 715 820 820 436 259 Wind 0 153 153 153 153 1.737.609 10.894 22.636 99.529 26.177 685.577.654 1.948 80.919 Hydro Biomass Wind Total 18.170 867.332 919.651 1.963 0 0 0 200 50 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 2.856 14.809 13.178.092 15.602 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.113.790 1.891 26.545 16.557.973 769.528 26.349 16.345 16.136 2.103.477 12.385 3.820.647 13.387 1.361 10.580 74.117 10.263 6.181 69.093 679.132.289 106.365 *includes capacities of diesel engines used as ancillary to wind power plants Table D.927 8.141 18.341 22.158.465 3.534 21.968 15.249.198 29.922 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 14.284 24.369 11.931 0 40 0 0 0 100 150 340 280 150 2.415 18.079 2.534 8.687 14.676.054 15.943 7.104 20.324 6.928 7.386 649.659 27.203.952 3.815 19.975 15.437 86.452 685.953 24.045.032.778.270 21.720 3.760.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.958.816.758.550 26.655 20.172.776 3.865 683.622 7.2d: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type (tonne) Year Oil-based 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.462 27.430 Table D.942 19.624 7.982.436.732 12.016.961.287 9.2c: Power Generation (GWh) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.897.372 64.850 20.281 2.821 2.583 0 0 300 0 50 548 548 488 538 528 Coal 3.908 Coal 10. Inc.975 14.709 1.087 19.763 0 0 0 0 0 300 715 770 420 500 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 1.919 3.573.992.121 14.375 24.317 16.210 19.098 13.692 27.360 92.936.778.536.770 5.158 14.157.320.833.011 2.791.247 3.519 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 2.915 Coal 18.545.433 2.797 3.2b: Annual Capacity Additions (MW) Year Oil-based* Currently Installed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3.114.245 Natural Gas 13.523 4.449 597.085 Total 55.746 23.849 7.017 17.385 2.629 18.388.

731 171.897 155.675 146.936.113 232.01 0.289 159.38 3.599 168.69 2.284 24.90 288.160 25.03 0.03 0.702 32.25 1.02 0.41 10.02 0.2f: Environmental Emission per Unit Generation (tonne/GWh) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 340.679 2.35 0.961.583 Particulates 19.475 31.06 0.32 0.973 28.66 358.739 161.35 0.937 148.94 Particulates 0.04 1.21 Table D.64 5.05 0.00 1.00 0.03 0.93 1.241 28.37 0.013 1.859 NOX 112.48 2.008 2.791.12 3.539 185.06 0.363 29.89 2.894 22.113.68 11.03 N2O 0.39 373.546 150.966 32.29 2.712 117.073 N 2O 952 1.010 26.529 26.06 0.927 20.00 0.223 151.154 2.810 2.84 3.376 30.362 23.63 1.692 27.36 0.05 3.251 128.06 0.107 Environmental Emissions CO 21.150 312.23 0.26 0.442 21.249.979 29.00 0.43 0.10 3.065 214.01 2.373 2.75 1.30 0.34 0. Inc.429 181.05 3.737 148.03 0.23 3.122 1.06 0.45 308.48 1.424 859.988 213.97 2.906 CH 4 282 314 346 379 423 389 418 444 462 492 NMVOC 1.311 525.02 10.39 Environmental Emissions CO CH 4 0.41 0.462 27.03 0.982.36 325.06 3.01 0.06 0.849 3.03 0.01 3.125 985.355 26.14 2.63 271.33 0.020 22.89 2.35 0.737.2g: Generation Cost Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Generation Cost US$/kWh 0.42 0.03 0.581 1.24 2.676.39 0.02 0.178.426 33.778.78 346.01 0.850 20.13 SO X 2.2e: Environmental Emissions (tonne) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 18.54 261.157 2.528 26.37 0.275 1.54 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.06 0.00 0.40 0.03 0.01 0.00 NMVOC 0.01 0.15 3.891 26.03 0.602 SOX 159.086 24.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.34 0.852 Table D.02 0.140 22.39 0.52 NOX 2.06 0.06 PhP/kWh 3.73 1. UPEEE Foundation page 8 of 16 .151 243.04 3.138 26.407 2.55 338.301 985.

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

197 4.163 7.691 4.583 2.758 3.205 65 12.581 605 205 1.163 2.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.429 545 205 916 12 1.767 3.491 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 2.122 717 200 148 1.758 3.301 3.041 4.758 3.763 2.652 3.758 3.476 63 100 85 2.758 3.971 3.547 3.583 3.931 2.510 11.945 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.214 80 65 16.404 130 12.963 2.941 2.763 2.971 3.163 6.971 100 904 22.176 12 80 40 2.832 717 200 108 997 2.163 4.694 609 205 996 12 80 20 1.809 609 205 1.333 4.687 109 2.763 1.758 3.116 100 574 20.922 717 200 128 1.804 509 205 956 12 1.211 690 17.758 2.678 547 108 997 1.682 547 108 997 1.732 717 108 997 1.183 7.011 1.971 2.581 2.138 907 2.073 947 2.832 2.869 25 15.511 1.534 717 200 228 1.658 69 2.189 609 205 956 12 80 1.311 717 200 188 1.071 3.759 907 1.971 4.007 1.291 629 205 1.027 977 2.467 49 2.011 3.763 1.518 100 739 22.422 440 15.661 1.214 50 65 16.163 3.163 2.703 907 2.860 25 11.733 2.892 2.817 4.763 1.383 907 1.357 4.491 2.797 565 16.526 73 100 105 2.758 3.491 2.163 7. Inc.433 7.433 2.733 6.367 2.758 3. UPEEE Foundation page 10 of 16 .652 3.763 2.404 275 13.189 609 205 956 12 50 1.822 3.491 1.963 2.763 3.011 1.276 37 100 65 2.763 2.434 1.043 907 2.783 80 150 17.583 4.519 14.883 80 364 18.763 1.022 3.963 2.149 559 205 956 12 1.341 655 205 1.987 4.183 2.862 717 200 108 997 2.383 3.205 25 12.227 2.491 2.412 3.022 3.763 1.817 4.758 3.214 25 15.663 717 200 228 1.658 89 2.287 3.205 65 12.383 4.971 3.871 1.267 2.

108 20.766 19.555.916.028 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 561 561 701 343 701 Wind 0 153 153 153 153 402 974 1.169 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.209 26.931 0 40 0 0 0 100 230 390 280 70 2.934 17.991 Coal 10.773.315 118.496 14.640.101 15.879 3.583 0 0 370 50 0 0 0 20 75 50 Coal 3.104 13.519 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 14.458 Natural Gas 5.226.744.535 1.874 109.458 14.578 19.125.465 37.739 26.920.141.807 93.756 31.208.585 685.420 4.858 1.673 29.897. UPEEE Foundation page 11 of 16 .649 6.695.448 Hydro Biomass Wind Total 19.759 0 415 715 340 30 1.650 79.243 26.106.704.115 100.463 2. Inc.188.439 18.885 23.602 17.163 30.779 15.484.671 14.496 5.849 7.646 2.897.952 8.234.893 7.124 8.963 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 2.320 681.862.479 27.734.537 18.763 0 0 0 0 0 820 1.978 27.747 Coal 18.694 2.840.749 2.150 1.126 15.317 Total 55.859.051 10.272 Fuel Type Geothermal 641.146 29.050.722 2.130 20.042 15.208 14.850 21.000 15.585.891 11.471 Table D.891 8.3c: Power Generation (GWh) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.791 23.828.855.239 10.615 4.110 2.321 14.386 678.768 3.065 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 14.033.932 7.534.672.269 36.367 2.569.503 42.595 66.263 72.850 7.928.107 4.258.019 814.877 1.252.103 16.020 16.218.573 1.964 Natural Gas 13.226 7.404 13.574 1.777 34.984 30.349 16.640.207 14.722 597.859 3.000 684.3d: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type (tonne) Year Oil-based 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.407.672 938 Table D.919 33.076 15.907 937.324 6.700 750 200 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 1.084 17.556 60.745 912.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.252 2.128.864 3.769 22.893 18.156.450 685.600 16.153 85.158 14.785.664.946 20.973 27.016 28.3b: Annual Capacity Additions (MW) Year Oil-based Currently Installed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3.190 3.964 26.

01 0.98 Environmental Emissions CO CH 4 0.0541 0.01 0.42 0.0622 3.591 216.984 30.50 0.151 31.0536 2.3138 3.04 0.45 0.12 2.733 174.43 0.04 0.269 36.97 1.9744 3.01 0.54 367.48 0.024 3.02 0.755 181.828.099 Table D. Inc.858 2.421 Environmental Emissions CO 21.859.0554 0.873 215.599 1.620 4.163 30.272 41.566 674.734 179.096 27.559 3.01 1.03 0.06 NOX 2.684 207.17 351.1790 3.30 3.284 27.79 385.32 2.01 0.447 153.10 3.10 2.0603 0.407.0175 3.506 45.101 CH 4 283 321 358 402 456 453 509 540 592 655 NMVOC 1.672.24 2.16 2.500 132.01 0.0561 0.0544 0.46 Table D.03 0.51 0.596 2.44 0.3g: Generation Cost Generation Cost US$/kWh PhP/kWh 0.344 45.711 48.756 31.18 351.01 0.202 173.50 0.186 1.169 S OX 167.3f: Environmental Emission per Unit Generation (tonne/GWh) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 370.359 842.3e: Environmental Emissions (tonne) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 19.02 0.01 NMVOC 0.887 173.91 376.636 217.44 0.389 NOX 111.928.43 0.39 2.18 2.130 20.673 29.04 N2O 0.294 244.0578 0.166 37.546 36.02 0.677 42.0555 0.099 214.307 2.264 200.777 34.9785 2.845 Particulates 19.03 0.42 0.686 239.4193 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.0542 0.44 2.35 4.03 3.750 24.156.04 Particulates 0.01 0.04 0.430 43.266 191.43 0.25 3.04 0.01 0.38 0.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.41 0.37 0.050.25 8.0495 3.617 413.68 429.03 0.199 33.9923 2.494 23.862.21 2.268 674.062 118.61 2.141.428 38.69 4.377 1.39 0.0868 3.03 0.10 354.916.024 N 2O 970 1.44 0.71 8.01 0.41 SO X 3.065 2.0549 0.90 406.38 0.055 1.676 20.304 36.56 0.343 31.885 23.15 2. UPEEE Foundation page 12 of 16 .274 3.02 0.372 842.139 288.739 26.07 9.13 373.02 8.

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

022 3.491 2.214 50 65 16.763 907 1.297 5.971 3.971 2.214 80 65 16.527 17.963 2.687 262 3.763 907 2.267 2.336 717 200 188 1.983 2.422 25 1.767 3.804 509 205 956 12 1.333 2.460 3.163 5. Inc.163 4.163 3.163 3.146 47 100 230 2.732 717 108 997 1.561 4.862 717 200 108 997 2.963 2.687 186 2.063 947 2.163 2.656 510 205 1.163 5.966 95 Visayas 771 1.703 2.205 65 12.065 17.758 3.180 2.817 4.715 23.011 1.404 15 4.429 545 205 916 12 1.333 1.189 609 205 956 12 50 1.214 25 15.871 1.652 3.022 3.763 907 2.763 1.491 1.491 2.163 2.4a: Installed Capacity (MW) Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Luzon Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind LUZON TOTAL Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind VISAYAS TOTAL Oil-based Coal Mindanao Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind MINDANAO TOTAL Oil-based Coal Philippines Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind PHILIPPINES TOTAL Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.765 95 609 205 1.510 11.758 3.763 1.333 1.741 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.783 977 2.094 2.149 559 205 956 12 1.519 14.043 2.291 609 205 1.540 152 2.758 3.096 22 80 110 2.155 125 2.971 3.860 25 11.822 3.548 665 1.723 13.605 5.073 3.931 2.758 3.557 125 3.942 717 200 128 1.759 2.763 907 1.265 12.971 3.687 12 336 3.690 510 205 1.333 2.763 1.682 547 108 997 1.339 76 2.491 2.063 2.797 25 2.763 1.763 1.758 3.963 2.491 2.227 2.404 15 3.476 73 100 314 2.205 65 12.758 2.124 18.652 3.548 717 200 228 1.138 2.763 907 2.757 2.041 22.205 25 12.337 4.983 1.547 3.678 547 108 997 1.758 3.465 16.991 4.869 25 15.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.817 4.197 4.011 3.122 717 200 148 1.678 717 200 228 1.783 2.011 1.832 717 200 108 997 2.238 4.221 3.987 4.758 3.189 609 205 956 12 80 1.071 3.346 73 100 314 2.841 4.583 3.211 25 3.863 609 205 996 22 80 30 1.971 137 3.758 3.287 3.978 2.758 3.865 15. UPEEE Foundation page 14 of 16 .661 1.238 4.281 20.

443.760 23.883 9.931 0 40 0 0 0 100 150 340 280 150 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 2.216 11.859 4.549 6.450 685.060 4.000 15.115 13.050.850 7.814.193 16.615 4.650 79.618.042 14.209.739 26.326.600 Coal 18.519 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 2.239 21.963 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 2.919 Hydro Biomass Wind Total 19.746.585 685.080 6.118 31.326.332 919.125.084 17.867 Coal 10.239 10.791 21.538 2.324 6.984 30.170 867. Inc.012 Natural Gas 13.963 22.862.653 Total 55.527.036.511.768 3.153 85.014 17.076 15.891 11.865.226 7.335.407.193 6.650.508 29.045 26.952 8.386 649.578 19.095 7.734.897.158 14.630.387 1.290 36.252.496 5.103 11.916.960 19.051 9.722 597.298.107 6.735 12.243 26.664.840.708.398.234.722 2.583 0 0 370 50 0 621 582 549 595 529 Coal 3.439 18.484.109 8.207 14.807 93.673 28.186 2.115 100.893 18.104 20.874 109.258.091 33.124 8.4b: Annual Capacity Additions (MW) Year Oil-based* Currently Installed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3.471 3.864 3.942 19.106.932 7.897.471 Table D.419 14.850 21.828.263 72.030 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 666 666 876 876 960 Wind 0 153 153 153 153 2.953 36.208.973 769.849 7.263 Fuel Type Hydro 6.016 17.000 684.016 28.779 15.409 3.4d: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.763 0 0 0 0 0 300 720 1.292 2.953 Geothermal 14.142 29.349 16.190 3.534.639 Fuel Type Geothermal 641.893 7.101 15.891 8.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.130 20.062 2.426 20.704.556 60.288. UPEEE Foundation page 15 of 16 .315 24.479 10.020 16.320 681.633.993 Natural Gas 5.420 4.744.382 1.104 13.595 66.200 350 0 1.317 16.956.639 16.885 23.978 26.538 4.315 118.644 34.4c: Power Generation (GWh) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.418 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.126 15.779 Total Addition *includes capacities of diesel engines used as ancillary to wind power plants Table D.

9923 2.2638 3.0550 0.81 2.10 3.916.51 0.04 N2O 0.673 28.494 23.03 Environmental Emissions CO CH 4 0.38 0.09 329.0544 0.118 31.44 0.41 0.596 2.862.4g: Generation Cost Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Generation Cost US$/kWh 0.9785 3.58 11.720 234.199 32.739 26.44 2.09 1.02 0.733 174.130 20.0593 0.750 N 2O 970 1.01 0.0175 3.055 1.465 36.68 429.45 0.566 800.355 Table D.6854 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.644 34.0555 0.858 2.19 2.50 0.599 1.41 0.676 20.97 319.212 174.18 2.984 30.151 31.02 0.106 170.01 0.1607 3.04 0.294 244.885 23.050.828.37 0.0542 0.13 373.186 1.16 2.42 0.02 0.430 46.03 SO X 3.52 329.777 Particulates 19.4234 3.374 800.997 56.01 0.264 200.03 0.284 27.771 3.30 3.04 0.785 1.01 0.00 Particulates 0.036.291 CH 4 283 321 358 402 456 439 479 517 559 634 NMVOC 1.44 0.887 168.01 NMVOC 0.0670 PhP/kWh 3.096 27.01 0.343 31.052.53 0.679 188. Inc. UPEEE Foundation page 16 of 16 .196 3.248 42.065 2.073 174.0549 0.062 118.882 164.500 132.738 45.0575 0.307 2.814.79 385.34 9.32 2.654 Environmental Emissions CO 21.25 3.511.68 10.485 45.48 0.4e: Environmental Emissions (tonne) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 19.03 0.82 1.740 1.03 0.04 0.956.01 0.01 0.42 0.142 29.01 0.82 11.418 SOX 167.18 2.438 1.01 0.0228 3.40 0.746.686 246.407.294 38.03 0.479 3.31 358.67 NOX 2.00 1.38 0.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.69 4.02 10.377 1.052.4f: Environmental Emission per Unit Generation (tonne/GWh) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 370.546 36.0554 0.79 1.91 372.139 288.03 0.0622 0.625 166.40 0.02 0.153.750 24.12 2.0495 3.03 0.0536 2.258 34.447 153.03 3.47 0.90 406.508 29.75 2.202 173.39 0.263 44.60 0.754 NOX 111.515 212.425 2.54 Table D.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful