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

POWER SWITCH!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3

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

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

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

........4 Figure 4..2 Figure 4.......................................................................................8 Figure 4..............43 Energy Mix....23 Practical Small Hydro Resources in the Philippines......... 1999-2001................1 Figure 4....45 National Energy Planning Process .....................58 Figure 4.........................................8 Figure 3...................................................55 Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario.................4 Figure 3..............................................................39 Electricity Consumption........7 Figure 4................. 1999-2001 ........ Gross Domestic Product and Population.............................2 Figure 3..........6 Figure 3.....5 Practical Wind Resources in the Philippines ..............9 Figure 4.........................................2 Figure 3.39 Electricity Generation by Grid......... UPEEE Foundation page iii .....................45 Energy Mix and Carbon Dioxide Emissions..................................POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2...59 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas...........49 Generation under the Low Economic Growth Scenario............ Inc........ 1991-2001 .................................9 Figure 4......... 1991-2001 ....41 Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type........................................................7 Figure 3.......................................5 Figure 3.............40 Total Installed Generating Capacity by Source................................................... 1991-2001... 19912001...................51 Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario........................40 System Peak by Grid.....................................................3 Figure 4..................................................................................... 2001.......50 DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the Low Economic Growth Scenario.......56 Generation under the High Economic Growth Scenario................................27 Electricity Consumption by Sector....................................6 Figure 4....................3 Figure 3................. 1999-2001 ..................................................53 Coal and Oil-Based vs............ Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario...57 DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the High Economic Growth Scenario ..........................................1 Figure 2........44 Share of Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy in the Energy Mix........................................53 Fossil Fuel Consumption for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario.............................................................1 Figure 3.................................................................. 19992001......................10 Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario.

..........8 Figure 5........20 CO2 Emissions for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario......................78 Figure 5................................................................14 Fossil Fuel Consumption for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario..............................................1 Figure 5................ Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario ....74 Figure 5...................................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...................................................................9 Installed Generating Capacity for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario..... Inc..................66 Coal and Oil-Based vs........................................ Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario.....11 Installed Generating Capacity for the HEGS-MWPP Scenario..................................................................19 Fuel Consumption for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario..............13 Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario.................................78 Figure 5..........13 Coal and Oil-Based vs............71 Figure 5...............................7 Figure 5........................17 Energy Mix for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario .........73 Figure 5.....POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Figure 4.........................3 Figure 5.......................73 Figure 5.....69 Energy Mix for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario ....................................62 Figure 5....5 Figure 5.......70 Fossil Fuel Consumption for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario.........2 Figure 5................................................15 CO2 Emissions for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario........................4 Figure 5.12 Energy Mix for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario.......... Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario ........... Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario ...66 Fossil Fuel Consumption for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario.............10 CO2 Emissions for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario ................77 Figure 5................6 Figure 5............................................... UPEEE Foundation page iv ..79 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.........................................................................................................................................................18 Coal and Oil-Based vs........................................67 Installed Generating Capacity for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario.......................60 Figure 4........................16 Installed Generating Capacity for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario......................................75 Figure 5...........69 Coal and Oil-Based vs...............74 Figure 5..................60 Figure 4.70 Figure 5.....................................12 Fossil Fuel Consumption for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario.....................65 Energy Mix for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario ....................................................................67 CO2 Emissions for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario..............................

...........1 Table 1.......................42 NPC Average Electricity Rates........................13 1994 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Philippine Energy Sector ................................................1 Table 2...................17 Table 3................... 2 1994 Philippine Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector ......................................2 Table 3..... UPEEE Foundation .............................POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines LIST OF TABLES Table 1....................................3 Table 3...............................................4 Table 3...32 Cost Comparison of Power Plants.13 Table 2.........................................................................10 Table 2...................2 Table 2...................5 Cost Comparison of Power Plants........................31 Philippine Natural Gas Resources........46 NPC and IPP Production Cost at 1990 Constant Prices.....................34 Value of Air Emissions Reductions in California .......... Inc...42 Historical Environmental Emissions for the Philippine Power Sector .................22 Practical Wind Resources in the Philippines ...........25 Philippine Small Hydro Electric Potential ..........7 Table 2...........6 Table 2.5 Table 2..36 Carbon Dioxide Emissions of Different Power Plant Types ...............................16 Table 2.........38 Reserve Margin...........................8 Table 2....2 Table 2..................................33 Typical Capacity Factors of Power Plants and Levelized Generation Costs..................26 Practical Small Hydro Resources in the Philippines.....28 Philippine Bagasse Electric Potential............15 Table 2...... 1991-2001 ...............47 page v University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas........................................1 Table 3................26 Small Hydro Power Sites Verified by the DOE ..................................36 Emission Factors for Various Power Plants ............................................................................................12 Table 2................................. 1991-2001 .....11 Table 2...........30 Available Geothermal Resources for Power Generation.................................. 1991-2001 .................................. 2 Typical Capacity Factors of Power Plants and Levelized Generation Costs......................................................13 Philippine Wind Electric Potential ......14 Table 2..............................................26 Projected Supply of Biomass Resources ..................4 Table 2...........22 Available Large Hydro Resources ...........36 Energy Consumption by Sector........3 Table 2...9 Table 2........

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

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

given that clean energy technologies and resources are available. Of the energy sector GHG emissions. Although it ranks only second to the transport sub-sector in terms of GHG emissions. 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. UPEEE Foundation page 1 . mainly the power industry.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 1 1.038 million tonnes of the 100. Improved coal technologies. b) Hydroelectric Power Plants. d) Geothermal Power Plants. the energy sector accounted for 50.. Despite the high potential of technology measures that reduce energy intensity. renewable energy technologies and cleaner fossil-based technologies such as natural gas). 1. Hence.738 million tonnes. such as the circulating fluidized bed combustion system. Clean Energy Technologies For the clean energy technologies. accounts for more than thirty (30) percent as a result of the burning of fossil fuels. the assessment focused on technology measures that reduce carbon intensity of energy (e. cost and environmental performance (particularly GHG emissions) of the power sector. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. which could be treated as a resource in energy planning. it is not used in this study because data available in the Philippines is insufficient to do so. these technologies will be at the bottom of the list.g. or roughly 47 percent. and e) Natural Gas-Fired Power Plants. c) Biomass Energy Conversion Systems. In 1994.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction An area that has great potential for greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction is the power sector. 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. Inc. The following are the clean energy technologies that could be utilized for clean power development in the Philippines: a) Wind Energy Conversion Systems. the power sub-sector represents a large opportunity for carbon emissions reduction and sequestration. This study focuses on reliability. 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. of total net GHG emissions in the country.

150 – 1.750 – 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.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Cost Comparison of Power Generation Technologies The economics of power generation technologies depends on several factors.000 450 . Inc. years 30 20 20 20 30 30 20 50 30 50 20 Investment Cost. Table 1. $/MWh 41.200 – 1.2277 1.400 1.0602 2. UPEEE Foundation page 2 .800 1.0794 0. and (d) the level of generation (also called capacity factor).500 1.2282 2.0405 0.10 11.1: 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.250 2.500 700 – 900 Annual Fixed O & M Cost.750 – 1.7153 5. market risks.68 Table 1.550 700 – 900 550 – 650 1.0557 2. (c) fuel cost.1059 0.2282 2. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.12 0 0 3.5219 1 A discount rate of 12% was used to derive levelized generation costs.8236 4. including: (a) investment cost.3644 6.2: 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. Table 1.93 32. Actual industry discount rates may be higher depending on the following factors: required equity return. regulatory risks. (b) operation and maintenance cost.0494 0.04 49. $/kWa 850 – 1.000 – 1.8174 3.53 0 36.1 below shows the costs used in this study.0512 0. capacity factor) were developed based on the life cycle of each power generation technology and the four economic factors mentioned above.0405 0.1101 0. Screening curves (costs per kWh vs.4376 12.56 73. country risks and availability of financing.0625 0.000 – 3.800 1.

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

Of all the biomass resources in the country.404 MW potential. the UPSL identified 236 small hydro sites in the country with an aggregated capacity of about 2.092 with an aggregate potential of 14. UPSL considered only bagasse from sugarcane processing as practical resource for grid connection. storage. In addition to existing geothermal power facilities. For the purposes of this study. Selecting only the sites with capacities of 5 MW or more as criterion.935 GWh annually can be obtained from additional verified geothermal sites in the Philippines.. Using the second screening criterion similar to that use in the wind resource assessment. Inc.442 GWh. construction of transmission lines) will cost up to 25% of the total life-cycle cost were considered.e. 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.323 MW. A second criterion that relates to grid connection costs was also used. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.3 Historical Performance of the Philippine Power Sector The performance (in terms of reliability. The application of the second criterion further reduced the number of sites to 1. This accounts for 14% and 22% of the total installed capacity and total generation. Additional screening criteria were imposed to determine practical and viable wind power sites. cost and environmental emissions. The Philippines power sector largely depends on geothermal energy to meet the demand and energy requirements of the country. an estimated capacity of 1.731 billion cubic feet (BCF). the most significant of which is that found in Malampaya and San Martin in Palawan. In 2001. 1. The Philippine government is considering plans to develop a local natural gas industry.. UPEEE Foundation page 4 . UPSL estimates the electric power potential of bagasse at 235. A few natural gas finds in the Philippines have been made. If this pushes through. and competing uses to be viable for large-scale power generation. (i.200 MW that could generate about 8. which generated a total of 10. a re-analysis of the NREL wind mapping data was conducted. This potential is spread all over the country where sugar centrals are situated. local natural gas production would be supplemented by imported natural gas.931 MW. limiting the transmission investment cost to 25% of total investment cost) resulted to the elimination of three sites from the small hydro resource pool. Other biomass resources are still facing problems or issues like collection. A re-analysis of the NREL small hydro resource assessment was also conducted. Only those sites whose connection (i.771 to 4.7 MW.200 GWh of electricity per year. This include considering only sites with power density of at least 500 W/m2.308 MW.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 195. This first criterion reduced the number of wind sites to 2.e.) of the Philippine power sector from the period beginning 1991 to 2001 was also assessed in this study. with a combined estimated reserves of 2.038 with 7. total geothermal installed capacity amounted to 1. respectively in the country.

Inc. Historical Reliability Performance To analyze the reliability performance of the power system in the Philippines. However. The rates of NPC appear to be increasing annually except for the year 2001 when R. Geographically.402 MW in 2001. accounting for 31% and 29% energy share for the year 2001. In 2001 for example. Visayas and Mindanao. that the generating capacity of the power system in the Philippines can be considered highly reliable. the reserve margin (i. the Philippines power sector performance went to the other extreme of having excessive capacity compared to the demand. respectively.789 MW in 1991 to 13.3% annually from 1991 to 2001. Bulk of the energy demand and consequently the generation comes from the main island of Luzon.049 GWh energy generation which represents 77% of the requirements of the country. In order to meet the growing demand for electricity. therefore. The interruptions that the country has been experiencing can be attributed to the unreliable transmission and distribution systems and their operations.A. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. from mid 1990’s onward. 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). The industrial and residential sectors. are the biggest users of electricity. Visayas and Mindanao share the remaining balance almost equally.5% while that of the residential sector grew by 11.. these rates were unbundled into 76% and 24% for generation and transmission. the Luzon Grid has a share of 36. It was noted that the rates of NPC is for its bundled generation and transmission services. losses and miscellaneous uses. generating capacity compared to the system peak) from 1991 to 2001 was determined from historical data. For purposes of this study. respectively. 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. UPEEE Foundation page 5 .e. It should be noted however. that the industrial sector demand grew only by 5. the installed generating capacity in the country doubled in 11 years with 6.184 GWh of the total 47.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Energy Demand and Installed Capacity The Philippines electricity consumption posted a moderate growth rate of 8. The analysis has shown that the generating facilities in the early 1990’s were performing very badly from the point of view of reliability.7% annually for the 11-year period. the energy demand in the country was distributed among the three (3) main islands of Luzon. 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. Historical Cost Performance This study also assessed the power development in the Philippines by analyzing the cost of electricity. The rest are attributed to own use. It can be concluded. The commercial sector accounts for 21% of the total consumption for 2001.

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.541 tons in 1991 to 7. Looking into the energy mix to link the environmental performance of the power sector.9% in 1991 to 21.279 tons in 1991 to 10. many power plants were installed even though there were already excess generation capacity in the system. it can be concluded that that non-renewable energy have remained greatly dominant over renewable energy as source of fuel for power generation. However. coal contribution increased more than fivefold. there is difference of PhP 1. It is also worthwhile to note that with the existence of the Non-NPC IPPs (permitted to operate through Executive Order 215). The share of non-renewable sources in the energy mix even increased from 57. and not towards the utilization of renewable resources. on the other hand.00 to PhP 6. Accounting the changes in oil and coal.00 per kWh. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Comparing the average rate of NPC with that paid by the consumers. Over the period considered. renewable hydro share decreased from 20% to 5% over the same period. coal power plants are the major contributors. particularly those owned by electricity distributors like Manila Electric Company (MERALCO).9% in 2001. This scenario allowed the continued dominance of non-renewable fuels. Clearly.71% in 2001. Historical Environmental Performance The environmental performance of the Philippine power sector from 1991 to 2001 (measured in terms of the amount of gases and particulates that are emitted by the electric power generating plants) shows that CO2 emissions increased by 74 percent while the rest of the air emissions increased by 10 to 169 percent. particularly the NPC.471. generation share from oil-based power plants declined from 49. UPEEE Foundation page 6 . This explains why the emissions of the power sector almost doubled in only 11 years. the shift is only towards the use of coal. the net increase in CO2 for the 11-year period is 73%.00 per kWh.222 tons in 2001. which emits more greenhouse gases. 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. which range from PhP 4.00 to PhP 3. Inc.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. Its contribution increased almost ten times from 1. CO2 emissions from oil-based power plants. The main culprit here is that the IPPs’ return on investments were guaranteed by the take-or-pay contracts with NPC and the distribution utilities.082. 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. In addition. decreased by 21 percent from its level of 9. from 8% in 1991 to 40% in 2001.236.338.665 tons in 2001.49% in 1991 to 62. For the CO2 emissions.

3 million tonnes. the Purchased Power Adjustment (PPA) component in the electricity bills of the end users is still expected to result in higher cost due to the high reserve margins. The contribution of non-renewable energy sources to the energy mix. The increase in demand will be met mostly by increases in coal power plants (3. it is still unrealistic to expect that cost of electricity in the Philippines in the near term will decrease under this scenario.57% annually. Inc. renewable energy’s share will decrease to only 22% in 2012.2012 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. 91. with the continued dominance of coal plants. Reliability. respectively. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.828 million (UPSL estimate at 2002 present value). the reserve in 2003 will be 66%.263 billion cubic feet (BCF) of natural gas.5 million barrels fuel oil equivalent (MMBFOE) of oil. While the generation cost for this scenario is estimated at PhP 3. Total installed capacity of 14.4 Scenarios under the Philippine Energy Plan 2003 . Although this is expected to decline to 22% by 2012. natural gas and oil-based sources in the energy mix which is 34%. No additional capacity addition for natural gas is expected in the period. The increase in the use of coal will account to contributing 55% of the total CO2 emissions for the period. 65 MW wind and a 40 MW geothermal capacity additions. For example. Of these amounts. based on the low economic growth projections of NEDA. this scenario would require 124.368 million in abatement cost.16/kWh. Oil-based and natural gas plants will contribute 17% and 26% to the CO2 emissions.430 GWh in 2012) over the entire period at an average rate of 7. 124. shows that energy generation will increase by 93% (55. on the other hand will increase by 24%. the planned capacity additions will result in high reserve margins.5 MMBFOE of oil and 80. From a share of 37% in 2003.632 GW for 2003 will increase to 20. The environmental emissions resulting from DOE’s generation plan for the low economic growth scenario would result in an increase in CO2. SOx and other emissions.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 1.500 MW) and oilbased plants (1. respectively for year 2003. To meet the energy requirements.2 million tonnes of coal would have to be imported.775 MW). Capacity additions. The increase in the share of renewable energy generating capacity will come from a 795 MW large hydro. environmental emissions and costs were calculated similar to that of the historical performance assessment. UPEEE Foundation page 7 .142 GWh in 2003 to 106. Total CO2 emissions for the DOE plan for the low economic growth scenario is 309.9 million tonnes of coal and 1.706 MW by 2012. operations and maintenance and fuel would require a total cost $ 23. 24% and 4%. These emissions will be the direct result of the share of coal. In terms of reliability. This scenario will require $ 29. Geothermal plants will contribute only 2%. PDP for the Low Economic Growth Scenario The PEP.

biomass. and will require $ 32.E.24% in 2003 decrease to 17% in 2012 With the continuous decline in the share of renewable energy. Inc.5% in 2003 increase to 16% in 2012 .16% in 2003 increase to 47% in 2012 .995 million in abatement cost. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. nor the scenario for the low economic growth. 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.37% in 2003 decrease to 20% in 2012 Natural gas .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.556 GWh in 2003 to 118.632 MW in 2003 to 22. . 1. capacity addition and utilization of renewable energy (geothermal.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. Notably. The following performance indicators can be expected if this scenario push through: a) Installed capacity: 14.756 MW in 2012 (56% increase for the 10-year period) b) Energy generation: 55. PDP for the High Economic Growth Scenario The DOE also prepared a power development plan based on high economic growth projections of NEDA. greenhouse emissions is expected to further soar. increasing by 195% from 2003 to 2012. wind and hydro power) and natural gas plants are given priority over that of non-renewable plants for power generation. These strategies are the following: • Moderate Clean Power Development (CCPD) Plan In this plan. Total installed capacity of wind power plants is allowed to reach a maximum of 5% of the peak demand. UPEEE Foundation page 8 .5 Clean Power Development Options for the Philippines Using the clean energy technologies and resources. 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. within the planning period. 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.

The natural gas contribution will also increase from 24% to 31%. For all the plans. Assuming a five-year lead-time for the planning to commissioning of the additional power plants. The plans that correspond to the High Economic Growth Scenario are detailed in Chapter 5. The share of renewable energy in the energy mix will increase from 37% to 41%. which serve as frequency regulating plants for the wind power plants.983 MW in 2012). Cost penalties for intermittent power plant capacity beyond 5% (based on peak demand) was also imposed to account for the additional ancillary services. that these reserve margins do not take into account the ancillary diesel engines.16/kWh.685 MW in 2012) and the natural gas plant capacity by 117% (from 2. this plan will save $235 million in the planning period. O&M and fuel costs. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. only the power development plan to meet the Low Economic Growth Scenario of the PEP 2003 – 2012 is presented. UPEEE Foundation page 9 . The additional natural gas requirement will be supplemented by imports from the neighboring Asian countries and other natural gas producers until new local resources are developed. the strategy is to utilize all the practical renewable energy resources where possible without caps.6 million tonnes. It was assumed in these plans that the local natural gas industry will be able to supply fuel for up to 3. the 2003 to 2007 capacity additions were based solely on the PEP list of committed projects. In this summary. respectively. which is PhP 3.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines • Aggressive Clean Power Development (ACDP) Plan For this plan. from the period 2003 to 2012.800MW natural gas power plants (maximum generation of 23. this plan will increase the renewable energy plant installed capacity by 95% (from 4. The share of coal and oil in the mix will be reduced by about 11% at the end of the period. Inc. Total CO2 reduction as compared with the PEP is 44. as compared with the PEP. This plan will reduce the GHG emissions and abatement costs for the Low GDP Scenario by 14% and 21%. however. The percentage installed reserve margin for the years 2008 onwards is kept as close as possible to the corresponding PEP reserve margins for comparison. the capacity additions starts only in 2008. Considering the investment. This will translate to a 72% total share of clean energy in the energy mix by 2012.12/kWh.592 million and the average generation cost is PhP 3. Note. This average generation cost is even cheaper than that of the PEP Low GDP scenario.000 GWh annually) for the next twenty years. 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.763 MW in 2003 to 5.450 MW in 2003 to 8. The total cost calculated for this plan is $23.

The natural gas contribution will also increase from 24% to 31%. In addition. There are even opportunities that can create additional dollar income from carbon trading and local employment. Inc. The total cost calculated for this plan is $23. 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. new natural gas sites must be identified and developed. natural gas importation may be pursued. as was done in this study.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. While the PEP has tried to address these problems.05) per kWh more expensive than the Moderate Clean Power Development Plan due to the additional ancillary services for the intermittent wind power supply.520 MW in 2012) and the natural gas plant capacity by 95% (from 2. This translates to a 79% total installed capacity for the combined natural gas and renewable energy plants. respectively.16/kWh but five centavos (PhP 0. This translates to a mitigation cost of $0. This is comparable to the PEP Low GDP scenario. the country has to resort to biomass. The share of coal and oil in the mix will be reduced by about 20% at the end of the period. This study has assessed the technologies and resources in the Philippines that could be tapped for clean power development.67/tonne of CO2. the ACPD plan will increase the renewable energy plant installed capacity by 159% (from 4. small hydro. To avoid significant amounts of GHG emissions in the future. 1.763 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. At the current CO2 prices ($5 per tonne) in the market. from the period 2003 to 2012. UPEEE Foundation page 10 . With the current price of CO2 at $2 . This study also offers two alternative paths (moderate and aggressive) through the alternative clean power development plans. Considering the investment.881 million and the average generation cost is PhP 3. wind and natural gas technologies. this plan will create an opportunity for the country in the carbon market. The share of renewables in the energy mix will increase from 37% to 48%. This will translate to a 79% total share of clean energy in the energy mix by 2012. To support power switching. this plan will cost an additional $41M in the planning period compared to the PEP low GDP plan.450 MW in 2003 to 11.$10 per tonne.17/kWh. O&M and fuel costs. These alternative plans are comparable to the PEP in terms of costs. it fails to consider the implications of the activities in this sector to the environment that could even be more important if only the externalities will be considered in the economics of energy supply. This plan will reduce the GHG emissions and abatement costs under the PEP Low GDP Scenario by 18% and 27%.383 MW in 2012). which is PhP 3.

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

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

the energy industries. Manufacturing Industries 3.738 ktonnes.497 15.094 7.190 226. Fuel Combustion Activities 1.72 9. accounts for more than thirty (30) percent as a result of the burning of fossil fuels. the power sub-sector represents a large opportunity for carbon emissions reduction and sequestration.890 3. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Inc.548 ktonnes of CO2 for the Energy Industries for the year 1994.2.130 7. Commercial/Institutional 5.359 1.59 216. Energy Industries 2.774 55.458 8.1.801 3.87 227 217 10 50.738 Source: The Philippines’ Initial National Communication on Climate Change Table 2. Although it ranks only second to the transport in terms of GHG emissions.980 15.330 954 245 14. Of the energy sector GHG emissions. as shown from Table 2. Oil TOTAL EQUIVALENT CO2 EMISSIONS * does not include emissions from biomass Source: The Philippines’ Initial National Communication on Climate Change CO2 47.335 15.2: 1994 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Philippine Energy Sector* (equivalent ktonne CO2) SECTOR A. mainly the power industry.509 9.038 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.811 15. or roughly 47 percent.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.140 2.335 N2O 717 0 12. UPEEE Foundation page 13 .368 2.985 7 20. given that clean energy technologies and resources are available. as shown in Table 2.185 3 CH4 1.1: 1994 Philippine Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector (equivalent ktonne CO2) SECTOR Energy Industry Agriculture Waste Land Use & Forestry TOTAL EQUIVALENT CO2 EMISSIONS CO2 47.038 ktonnes of the 100.094 100.335 10.544 1. In 1994. Residential 6. Agriculture B.603 33. Table 2.529 2 N2O 717 40 347 43 0 285 3 Total 49.403 31.246 Total 50. Coal Mining 2. The UPSL came up with 13. the energy sector accounted for 50.596 0 -2. of total net GHG emissions in the country. Transport 4.800 6.369 4.759 11 170 45 1 1. Fugitive Emissions from Fuels 1.157 CH4 1.038 10.

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are: 1. 14 UNIDO. The following sections will quantify the amount of clean energy resources in the Philippines.000 GWh/yr. Mindoro.equivalent to an annual average wind power of 300 W/m2 or greater12 (wind speeds of 6. Cebu. 6. 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. 3. however.9 MW. The NREL study identified around 10. According to the study13. 5. and adjacent islands. would more than double total installed capacity to 173. capacity/km = 6. with good to excellent resource levels .POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 2.600 MW bringing the total estimated power generation from wind to 361. the higher interior terrain of Luzon. turbine spacing = 10D by 5D. In contrast to the optimistic estimate of the NREL.000 installed capacity. Assessment of Technical. UPEEE Foundation page 20 2 . 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. Samar. amounting to 97. 12 In one of the NREL scenarios. the wind corridors between Luzon and Mindoro (including Lubang Island). Inc.055 km2 or roughly 3. occupying a total area of 11. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. rotor diameter = 38 m.4 m/s or greater). the Batanes and Babuyan islands of north Luzon. Leyte. hub height = 40 2 m. The study. between Mindoro and Panay (including the Semirara Islands and extending to the Cuyo Islands). was not able to include factors such as transmission and grid accessibility constraints in the assessment.2 Resource Assessment The technologies described above would be rendered useless without the energy resource required to run them. Palawan. the northwest tip of Luzon (Ilocos Norte). (1994).200 GWh/yr. 13 Assumptions used by NREL to come up with estimates are: 500 kW turbine size. well-exposed east-facing coastal locations from northern Luzon southward to Samar. 4.600 MW of installed capacity and generate 195. 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. 2.34% of total Philippine land area. which will then be subsequently used for the generation of power switching scenarios. Financial and Economic Implications of Wind Energy Applications for Power Generation. Including sites with moderate wind resource levels. Panay. Negros. The NREL study identified six regions in the country where the best wind resource in the country are located. these sites could support at least 76.000 sites in the country. eastern Mindanao.

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

527 7.4 summarize the results of the re-analysis. GWh/yr Luzon 1. MWe Estimated Annual Generation. with an aggregate potential of 14.092 2.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines For the purposes of the present study.400 MW potential.4: Practical Wind Resources in the Philippines (with wind power density ≥ 500 W/m2 and transmission cost constraint) Luzon 686 753 4. km 2 Potential installed capacity. UPEEE Foundation page 22 .038 1. Power density of at least 500 W/m2. km 2 Potential installed capacity. Locations of these sites are shown in Figure 2. To compute for transmission cost. 2. Table 2.865 Mindanao 64 66 455 1.092.1. MWe Estimated Annual Generation.3 and 2.668 1.168 6. a re-analysis of the NREL data was conducted by the UPSL using the following criteria to screen for viable wind power sites: 1. The first criteria reduced the number of wind sites to 2.738 Mindanao 47 49 336 1.381 35.277 Visayas 305 330 2.032 Philippines 1.132 7.363 44. Tables 2. This distance was multiplied by a factor of 1.397 Philippines 2.5 to adjust for topography and other factors that may affect the routing of the transmission system. as well as its corresponding estimated electric capacity and annual generation.206 14. the UPSL computed for the linear distance between the wind site and the nearest existing substation.3: Philippine Wind Electric Potential (with wind power density ≥ 500 W/m2) Number of sites Total area. GWh/yr University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.437 Visayas 360 385 2.900 15. 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. Appendix A identifies the provinces where these wind resources are located. The application of the second criteria further reduced the number of sites to 1.363 MW.755 11. Inc.047 Number of sites Total area.699 Table 2.404 23.038 with 7.

900 MWe Estimated Annual Generation: 15. UPEEE Foundation page 23 .277 GWh Visayas Number of sites: 305 Potential Installed Capacity: 2. Inc.738 GWh Mindanao Number of sites: 47 Potential Installed Capacity: 336 MWe Estimated Annual Generation: 1.168 MWe Estimated Annual Generation: 6.032 GWh Figure 2.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Luzon Number of sites: 686 Potential Installed Capacity: 4.1: 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.

the UPSL identified 239 small hydro sites in the country with an aggregated capacity of about 2. Inc. a total of 2.7 shows the results of the application of the criteria mentioned above.6 and 2.5 lists down identified sites for large hydro16. Run-of-river systems.104 GWh.. make use of the natural flow of a rivers as head. selecting sites with capacities of 5 MW or more. sites whose transmission line components needed to connect to the existing grid must not exceed twenty five percent of the levelized combined generation and transmission investment costs.518 MW of hydro power is installed in the Philippines.e.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Hydro Resources Hydro power contributes a large amount of energy to grid-based electricity in the country. UPEEE Foundation page 24 . Using this criterion. The UPSL made a re-analysis of the small17 hydro resource assessment made by the NREL. 16 Two of these sites. while Figure 2.327 MW. 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. a number of large hydro sites in country to be used as candidate power plants for energy planning.8. In addition to the existing hydro power generation facilities. 15 Impoundment dams involve the impounding of a large volume of water in or upstream of power plants by use of reservoirs or dams. as listed in Table 2. These resulted to the elimination of three sites from the small hydro resource pool. i. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. These hydro power facilities range in size from 1 to 360 MW and includes reservoir type (dams) and run-of-river systems15. Table 2. with an annual production of 7. Tables 2. are committed projects. By the end of 2001. on the other hand. 17 As per WEC definition. An additional screening criterion was used. The DOE has verified a number of these small hydro sites. Kalayaan and San Roque.

8 29 29 108.338.6 to 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.140.3 Negros Oriental Negros Oriental Aklan Antique 33 17.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2. UPEEE Foundation page 25 . Inc.5: Available Large Hydro Resources Site LUZON Abuan Addalam Agbulo Aglubang Amburayan Bakun A/B Binongan Catuiran Diduyun Kalayaan PS Kanan Lamut Matuno Nalatang Pasil B/C Saltan A/B San Roque Tanudan D Tinglayan B Total Luzon VISAYAS Pacuan Sicopong Timbaban Villasiga Total Visayas MINDANAO Agus III Bulanog-Batang Lanon Hydro Lake Mainit Liangan Pugo D/BA Pulangi V Tagoloan Total Mindanao Lanao del Norte Bukidnon South Cotabato Agusan del Norte Lanao del Norte Agusan North Cotabato Bukidnon 225 150 21 22 11.189.8 Province Estimated Capacity (MW) 60 46 360 13.9 44 300 68 841.9 3.387.3 to 3.6 93 45 175 24 332 350 113 12 52 to 250 45 42 34 345 27 21 2.

7: Practical Small Hydro Resources in the Philippines (sites with power capacity ≥ 5 MW and transmission cost constraint) Luzon 131 1.4 3.0 1.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2.308 12.686 Visayas 9 58 305 Mindanao 96 978 5.2 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. MWe Estimated Annual Generation.327 12.8: 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 2.0 4.0 5.140 Philippines 236 2.6: Philippine Small Hydro Electric Potential (sites with power capacity ≥ 5 MW) Luzon 134 1.786 Visayas 9 58 305 Mindanao 96 978 5.4 14. UPEEE Foundation page 26 . Inc.6 28.8 7.8 44.291 6. GWh/yr Table 2.0 1.272 6.0 4.0 4.231 Number of sites Potential installed capacity.4 10. GWh/yr Table 2. MWe Estimated Annual Generation.131 Number of sites Potential installed capacity.0 3.

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

accounting for 14% and 22% of the total installed capacity and total generation.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Because of problems with such issues like collection.7 7.11.8 32. Despite sugar mills’ own use of bagasse for fuel. respectively. In addition to existing geothermal power facilities. Unlike other biomass fuels. 700 MW. additional geothermal resources could be expected in the future as the Philippines has nearly used most of its geothermal resource sites. and 120 MW come from Luzon.8 235.935 GWh can be obtained from the verified geothermal source candidates in the Philippines. if any.9 5. this study only looks on the potential of bagasse for grid-connected electricity generation. In 2001.6 127.10: 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. Inc. bagasse has traditionally been used in large quantities.2 3. Very small.931 MW and geothermal generation was 10. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.442 GWh. as listed in Table 2. UPEEE Foundation page 30 . Table 2.1 14.7 TOTAL PHILIPPINES Geothermal Power The Philippines power sector largely depends on geothermal energy to meet the demand and energy requirements of the country. particularly to fuel boilers in sugar mills.6 17. storage and competing uses. which the mills have to dispose.200 MW and energy of 8. 380 MW. Of the total estimated capacity. an estimated capacity of 1. Visayas and Mindanao respectively. total geothermal installed capacity amounted to 1.0 22. which are like associated with the use of biomass fuels for large scale power generation.0 4. there usually remains a considerable amount of this waste material.

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. The Philippine government is considering plans to develop a local natural gas industry. local natural gas production would be supplemented by imported natural gas that would come from the Trans ASEAN Gas Pipeline to meet demand. page 31 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.200 Negros Occidental Negros Oriental Leyte Leyte Biliran Central Leyte Central Leyte Zamboanga del Sur Davao del Norte Natural Gas A few natural gas finds in the Philippines have been made. Table 2. Natib Mabini Batong Buhay Buguias-Tinoc Total Luzon VISAYAS Northern Negros* Dauin Mt.12 lists down identified natural gas fields in the country and their corresponding resource sizes. the most significant of which is that found in Malampaya and San Martin in Palawan26. If this pushes through. Inc.771 to 4.731 billion cubic feet (BCF).11: Available Geothermal Resources for Power Generation Name LUZON Bacman I Rangas Tanawon Manito Montelago Daklan Mt. Source: PEP 2002-2011. with a combined estimated reserves of 2. UPEEE Foundation .POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2. which will involve the laying down of a natural gas pipeline network in Luzon and the construction of liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities at different points in the country. 26 These are proven fields. Cabalian Leyte Optimization Biliran Mt.

The costs shown in Table 2. renewable energy-based plants have high investment costs.277 454 2. UPEEE Foundation page 32 . Mathematically.13. the economics of power generation technologies depends on several factors. In addition. Clearly. Furthermore. (c) fuel cost. O & M27 and fuel costs28 comparison of the different types of power plants are shown in Table 2.340 359 4 7.158 322 637 Maximum 4.060 1.538 243 Resource Size (BCF) Prospective 3. coal plants could cost twice as much as diesel plants but the fuel cost for diesel plants could be 2 to 4 times the cost of coal per kWh of electricity generated. In general. 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.e. Renewable energy technologies. The fuel costs used in this study do no include import duties. The fuel costs in Table 2.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2.210 1. and (d) the level of generation (also called capacity factor29).760 hours (i.3 Cost Comparison of Power Generation Technologies The investment. namely: (a) investment cost. it is notable that the technologies that require low investment normally require fuel with high cost.13 include only the costs of the technologies but not the associated site-specific costs that could be more expensive than the plant itself. (b) operation and maintenance (O&M) cost. Screening curves can be developed to determine the optimum power generation plan considering these four factors. renewable energy-based power plants have to address these issues that will ultimately determine the viability of the power projects. in general entail high investment costs.594 2. Being site-specific. Wind and hydro plants do not require fuel but do not run at full capacity due to availability of resources. For fossil-fuel-based power plants..760 518 2.760 hours University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. the prices of fuel are likely to differ at the time this study is released.12: Philippine Natural Gas Resources Gas Field PROVEN Camago-Malampaya San Martin San Antonio POTENTIAL Mindoro-Cuyo Cotabato Cagayan Central Luzon Source: Philippine Natural Gas Plan Minimum 2. Using these curves. Inc. 29 Capacity Factor (CF) refers to the percentage of the rated capacity of the power plant used for 8. the total investment costs vary with site preparation and the required transmission lines to enable the plants to deliver power to the grid. energy production (kWh) CF = × 100 plant capacity(k W) × 8. one year).13 lists for different fuels used for power generation are based on typical power plant efficiencies. 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.720 60 176 78 11. For example.

14 to satisfy the minimum offtake character of the IPP contracts.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines operate as “baseload”. except for Clean Coal Technologies Considering the availability of the resource and reliability of the technologies. $/MWh 41.40 9. 31 Fuel costs for oil. These figures are intended only for relative comparison of the different power plant technologies. Inc. coal and natural gas do not include import duties.12 0 0 3. Geothermal steam and biomass fuel costs also vary. They are however useful in evaluating and developing energy plans.550 700 – 900 550 – 650 1. 30 Investment costs used in this study do not include site preparation.200 – 1. Table 2.000 – 3.750 – 1.800 1.. It should be emphasized that the actual capacity factors that may be achieved in operation may not fall on the v alues given in Table 2.56 73.250 2. medium or low capacity factor) could be determined/selected. “intermediate” or “peaking” plants (i. O&M and fuel costs31 of the different power plant technologies. Table 2.14 also shows the corresponding levelized cost of generation for each power plant type using the typical capacity factors.93 32. years 30 20 20 20 30 30 20 50 30 50 20 Investment Cost.000 – 1.500 700 – 900 Annual Fixed O & M Cost.800 1.53 0 36. Table 2. Deutsche Gessellschaft für technishe. Furthermore. on a life-cycle basis. depending on the site/environment.150 – 1.04 49.10 11.400 1. transmission line and transformer costs.500 1. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. $/kWa 17 – 20 11 – 14 14 – 18 14 – 16 30 – 35 44 – 45 20 – 25 40 – 70 44 – 45 29 – 38 14 – 18 Fuel Cost.750 – 1.e.68 From “ The Environmental Manual for Power Development”.14 shows the typical capacity factors based on the investment30. is competitive in comparison with conventional fossil fuel-based generation.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.000 450 . 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. the prices of fuel are likely to differ by the time this study is released. $/kWa 850 – 1. UPEEE Foundation page 33 . which will operate at high. These values show that electricity generation from renewable sources.

market risks.2282 2.8236 4. Actual industry discount rates may be higher depending on the following factors: required equity return.2277 1. Inc.0602 2.0794 0.0405 0.5219 32 A discount rate of 12% was used to derive levelized generation costs. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.7153 5.0625 0. UPEEE Foundation page 34 .1101 0. country risks and availability of financing. meaning it will be used for load following and/or peaking applications.0557 2.0512 0.0405 0.4376 12.3644 6.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2. 33 The low capacity factor computed for diesel plant is 9%.8174 3.0193 0.1059 0. regulatory risks.0494 0.2282 2.14: Typical Capacity Factors of Power Plants and Levelized Generation Costs32 Power Plant Type Geothermal Coal (Pulverized coal plant) Coal (Pulverized coal plant) Hydro Oil-fired steam turbine Natural gas combined cycle Oil-fired gas turbine Wind Without ancillary services With ancillary services Diesel33 Capacity Factor (%) 88 82 82 57 54 54 31 30 30 9 Levelized Generation Cost $/kWh PhP/kWh 0.

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

10 8.75 11.74 2.99 0.71 San Diego DC 1.82 713.99 4.05 Particulates 0.85 I 13. AC – abatement cost. Inc.02 17.08 0.71 9.04 0. one of the six selfcontained papers included in Sundqvist’s Doctoral Thesis.42 1.96 I 2.84 1.05 1.07 AC 5.03 0.66 0.98 Sacramento Valley DC 0.98 3.30 6.52 0.06 0.66 0.31 PM 31.34 1.85 6.43 Ventura County DC 0.37 12.76 3.72 AC 5. Sundqvist cites the 1992 Electricity Report by the California Energy Commission as the source of these data.59 DC – damage cost.99 4.83 0.53 0.65 0.88 9.05 0.10 0.01 0.04 0.78 1.57 1.15: Value of Air Emissions Reductions in California 36 ($/pound of pollutant) District Pollutant South Coast DC SOx NOx CO ROG 4.01 3.03 0.02 0.87 0. UPEEE Foundation page 36 . p. Luleá University of Technology.51 San Joaquin Valley DC 0.61 763.03 0.02 1.75 0.75 16.31 AC 1.10 867.99 565.44 1.03 0.99 1.02 Source: The Environmental Manual for Power Development.72 11.35 0.00 4.32 3. Deutsche Gessellschaft für technishe 36 Lifted from “What Causes the Disparity of Electricity Externality Estimates?”.45 AC 11.03 0. 2002).00 0.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2.71 5.00 0.07 AC 2.37 0. except for geothermal which was computed from DOE data Table 2. and PM – particulate matter Table 2.83 441.18 15.00 3.85 0. CO – Carbon Monoxide.4 6.16: 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 45.53 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 7.00 0.28 4.03 0.12 12. I – internalized.72 0.00 2.26 0.02 0.45 6.06 0.04 Source: Computed from data give in “The GHG Indicator: UNEP Guidelines for Calculating Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Business and Non-Commercial Organizations. NOx – Nitrogen Oxide.47 3.10 5.55 AC 13.00 0.05 0.00 2. “Power Generation Choice in the Presence of Environmental Externalities.88 Bay Area DC 2.52 1.03 NOx 4.08 10.40 726.01 9.20 2.02 0. 10.08 0.18 AC 4.39 6.98 2. SOx – Sulfur Oxide.55 0. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.01 North Coast DC 0.88 0.73 Environmental Emissions CO CH4 NMVOC N2O 0.02 0.64 2.40 7. ROG – Reactive organic gases.01 0.66 2.

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

223 6.547 10. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. it also had the highest peak demand (5.554 1996 9.1).754 41. with 31% and 29% share respectively.390 6.684 762 1.713 47.901 12.7% annually for the 11-year period.847 9.734 30.072 11.071 25.226 5.432 2000 12. whose demand grew by 108% from 1991 to 2001. UPEEE Foundation page 38 . Table 3.894 9. the gross domestic product and the population growth from 1991 to 2001 demonstrate a strong correlation with the consumption of electricity.3.049 Geographically. Both the economic performance and population growth remain as the main factors driving the consumption pattern of energy of the country.154 4.037 39. that the industrial sector demand grew only by 5. 3.725 12.049 GWh energy generation which represents 77% of the requirements of the country. Figure 3.536 5. Significant also was the growth in the consumption of the commercial sector.086 3.708 1997 10.128 36.849 41. and the whole of the Philippines.132 4.649 1992 6. As shown in Figure 3.267 1.835 MW in 2001).512 13.543 934 1.249 4.725 9. Data for the historical performance of the Philippine Power Sector is given in Appendix B.531 1.444 921 1. It should be noted however. Bulk of the energy demand and consequently the generation comes from the main island of Luzon.950 1.353 10. are the biggest users of electricity (Figure 3.191 957 2. Visayas and Mindanao lag far behind with only 893 and 954 MW peak demand.167 1.345 45.053 4.5% while that of the residential sector grew by 11.184 GWh of the total 47. Visayas and Mindanao grids.339 952 1.452 1. Visayas and Mindanao as shown in Figure 3. or at an average annual growth rate of 7. In 2001 for example.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 2001.578 1999 11. With most of the industrial and commercial activities centered in Luzon. the Luzon Grid consumed 36.875 8.851 1.910 8.132 4. Inc.3% annually from 1991 to 2001 as shown in Table 3.238 26.2.042 2.590 5.098 14.4 shows system peak demand of the power supply system from 1991 to 2001 for the Luzon.471 6. Visayas and Mindanao share the balance energy almost equally.579 1994 7. The system peak for the whole Philippines reached 7.067 1. respectively.395 721 1.6%.477 8.1: Energy Consumption by Sector.081 MW peak demand in 1991.196 5.282 5.865 10.150 7.013 12.936 8. 1991-2001 (GWh) SECTOR Residential Commercial Industrial Others Own Use Losses Total 1991 6.797 1998 11.735 33.340 6.176 25.368 4. the energy demand in the country was distributed among the three (3) main islands of Luzon. Performance is assessed in terms of reliability. environmental emissions.859 823 1.290 2001 13.870 1993 6.459 1995 8.682 MW in 2001. The industrial and residential sectors. This is almost twice of the 4.1.1 Historical Energy Demand and Installed Generating Capacity The Philippines electricity consumption posted a moderate growth rate of 8. and cost.

the installed generating capacity in the country doubled from 6. Inc.2: Electricity Consumption.1: Electricity Consumption by Sector. UPEEE Foundation page 39 .789 MW in 1991 to 13.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Power Losses 12% Utilities Own Use 5% Others 2% Residential 29% Industrial 31% Commercial 21% Figure 3. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. 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 3.5) This corresponds to the growth in demand that also doubled in the same period.402 MW in 2001 (Figure 3. Gross Domestic Product and Population. 1991-2001 In order to meet the growing demand for electricity.

3: Electricity Generation by Grid.000 35.000 15.000 30.000 40.4: System Peak by Grid.000 5.000 20.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 50. 1991-2001 (GWh) 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 Luzon 1995 Visayas 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 MW Mindanao Philippines Figure 3.000 10. 1991-2001 (MW) University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 Luzon 1995 Visayas 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Mindanao Philippines Figure 3.000 45.000 GWH 25. Inc. UPEEE Foundation page 40 .

Hence. The reserve margin based on dependable capacity shows that there is indeed a large excess generating capacity in the Philippines.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. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. This criterion is considered high but is needed to support their industries. To analyze further the generating capacity vis-à-vis the system peak.. UPEEE Foundation page 41 . people complain of high cost of electricity allegedly due to over supply as there is “too much” installed 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.A. Table 3.000 14.000 MW 8. In the Philippines.2 presents the reserve margin of the power system from 1991 to 2001. the National Power Corporation has to resort to rotating “brownouts”. In developing countries. Today.000 12. In other countries such as the U.000 2.000 10. Inc. the generating capacity reliability criteria of one day per ten years (1 day/10 year) of Loss-of-Load Probability (LOLP) translates to about 20% reserve margin. the National Power Corporation since the power crisis has adopted 1day/year LOLP. There was not enough generating capacity.000 0 1991 1992 1993 Oil-Based 1994 Coal 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Hydro 2000 2001 Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 3.S.000 4.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 16. 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. 1991-2001 (MW) 3. the reliability criterion is very much lower compared to that in developed countries.000 6.5: Total Installed Generating Capacity by Source.

989 2001 Level 18. A complete list of emissions for each year from 1991 to 2001 is provided in Appendix B.3.93 92.807 20.687 8.36 61.45 85.296 6.60 83.124 587 975 415 10.193 1997 6.48 53.18 74.611 % Increase 74 64 150 29 54 10 103 169 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. therefore.46 8.621 7.91 3.402 66.185 2001 7.762 189. 1991-2001 (%) 1991 Peak (MW) Installed Capacity (MW) Percentage Reserve Margin (installed) Dependable Capacity (MW) Percentage Reserve Margin (dependable) 4.99 79.363 11.96 78.725 58.411.17 78.796 904 1.76 37.352 11. Table 3. This part of the study has quantified the environmental emissions of the power plants in the country.949 1993 4. The CO2 emissions increased by 74 percent while the rest of the air emissions increased by 10 to 169 percent.075 842 29.76 70.666 11.55 45.72 11.931 1999 6.729 146. Table 3.908 12.431 2000 7.209 35.726 16.762 1998 6.816 11.789 1992 4.808 9.450 9. that the generating capacity of the power system in the Philippines can be considered highly reliable.98 91.2: Reserve Margin.682 13. Inc.732 1996 5. UPEEE Foundation page 42 .081 6.400 13.497 11.3 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.3.212 1995 5.014 1994 4.291 9. The environmental performance of the Philippine power sector from 1991 to 2001 is summarized in Table 3.580.233 115. The interruptions that the country has been experiencing can be attributed to the unreliable transmission and distribution systems. Historical Environmental Emissions for the Philippine Power Sector (tonne) Environmental Emissions CO2 SO2 NOx CO CH4 NMVOC N2O Particulates 1991 Level 10.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines It can be concluded.

49% in 1991 to 62.222 tons in 2001. The energy mix indicates the intensity of contribution of renewable energy resources as fuel for power generation.000.000.000 8. UPEEE Foundation page 43 .000 18. Over the period considered.29% during the same period. Inc.7 and 3.000.9 shows how carbon dioxide emissions varied with the energy mix within the 1991 to 2001 period.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines For the CO2 emissions.000 6.000. decreased from 42. The net increase in CO2 due to the changes in oil and coal is 74%. on the other hand. the percentage share of oil-based power generation declined by 58%. Figure 3. Its contribution increased almost ten times from 1.541 tons in 1991 to 7. Figures 3. Figure 3.000 tonne CO2 12. it is necessary to look at the power development as measured by the energy mix.000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Figure 3.8 show that nonrenewable energy have remained greatly dominant over renewable energy as source of fuel for power generation.6 shows that the coal power plants are the major contributors in greenhouse gases.236.000 2. In order to analyze the factors that brought about the environmental performance of the power sector.000.000.000 14.665 tons in 2001. The CO2 emissions however from oil-based power plants decreased by 21 percent from its level of 9.000.082. 20. 1991-2001 (tonne) The share of non-renewable sources in the energy mix even increased from 57.51% to 37.000.000 4. Note from this figure how much the CO2 emissions decreased and increased with the generation from oil-based and coal power plants.279 tons in 1991 to 10. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000.6: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type.000.71% in 2001. This scenario allowed the continued dominance of non-renewable fuels.000 10. the share of coal-based generation increased by 427%. However.338.000 16. The share of renewable sources.471.

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

000.000 tonne CO2 12. 1999-2001 (%) 50.000 14. Inc.000.000.8: Share of Coal and Oil-Based vs.000.000 0 Figure 3.000 30.000.000 20.000 10.000 16.000 45.000 5.000.000.000 6.000 18.000 15.000.000.000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro CO2 20.000.000 8.000 40.000 10.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Coal and Oil-Based Renewable and Natural Gas Figure 3.000 2.000 35.9: Energy Mix and Carbon Dioxide Emissions. Renewable Energy and Natural Gas in the Energy Mix. 1991-2001 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 4. UPEEE Foundation page 45 .000 GWh 25.

The average rates and the estimated unbundled generation and transmission rates of NPC from 1995 to 2001 are shown in Table 3. respectively.29 2.00 per kWh. the average rates consist of the actual operating expenses and the financing charges of NPC.08 2. Table 2.08 2. This considerable difference can be attributed to the cost of distribution and to the IPP’s that sell electricity directly to the distributors.25 2.92 3. UPEEE Foundation page 46 .75 2001 3.4.12 2. respectively.77 1.52 1. In addition.62 1999 2. there is difference of PhP 1. many power plants were installed in excess of what was actually needed.47 1997 2. particularly that of the electricity distributors like MERALCO. the rates of NPC were unbundled into 76% and 24% for generation and transmission.23 1.00 to PhP 3.68 2. respectively The average rates of NPC increased annually from 1991 to 2001.85 1. many power plants were installed without the benefit of proper coordination through the centralized planning of the NPC or the government.43 1996 2.77 2. and the cost of which has to be paid off through the Purchased Power Adjustment (PPA).37 0.15 1.02 0.49 0.00 to PhP 6.01 3. Interestingly. It is worthwhile to note that with the existence of the Non-NPC IPP’s (permitted to operate through Executive Order 215).63 0.64 2000 3.02 1.58 1.02 2. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.4: NPC Average Electricity Rates.93 1. Comparing the average rate of NPC with that paid by the consumers.96 0.65 2. For purposes of this study. Inc.67 2. 1991-2001 (PhP/kWh) 1995 1. for the years 1995 to 2001 by fuel type.4 Cost of Electricity This study also assessed the power development in the Philippines by analyzing the cost of electricity.14 1.84 2.44 1. the law has mandates to reduce the rates of electricity in the Philippines.96 1.34 3.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 3. IPP costs were always higher than NPC rates.5 show the production cost of NPC and IPPs. The increase in rates is attributed to the economic performance of the country as measured the exchange rates and allegedly due to the take-or-pay contracts of NPC with Independent Power Producers (IPPs).25 1.90 2.52 Year 1998 2.28 1. 9136 (Electric Power Industry Reform Act) was enacted.35 0.00 per kWh.20 0.70 Luzon Visayas Mindanao Philippines Generation Transmission Note: Generation and Transmission Rates assumed 76% and 24% of the average rate. As a result. except for the year 2001 when R. Table 3.A. It was noted that the average rates of NPC is for its bundled generation and transmission services. which range from PhP 4.

0038 0.0195 0.0100 IPP --0. G.0284 0.0244 0.0125 0.0662 0.0110 0. Inc. N.0538 0.0450 0.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 3.0358 0.0109 0.0092 0.0177 0.0326 0.0281 0.0367 0.0683 Geothermal NPC IPP 0.0462 Hydro NPC IPP 0.5: NPC and IPP Production Cost at 1990 Constant Prices (US$/kWh)* Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Oil-based NPC IPP 0.0303 0.0137 0. Estiva and M.0302 0.0236 0.0232 0.0349 0.0111 0.0369 0.0047 0.0276 0.0394 0.0386 0.0267 0. UPEEE Foundation page 47 .0281 0.0294 --0.0167 0.0150 0. Guzman University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.0360 0.0284 0.0265 0.0198 0.0331 0.0431 0.0230 0.0276 0.0270 0.0252 0.0329 0.0254 0.0212 0.0233 Coal NPC 0.0203 * Lifted from “Renewable Energy Prospects for Supplying Electricity in the Deregulated Market in the Philippines” by J.0428 0.0366 0.0067 0.

Distribution utilities (DU’s). DU’s and EC’s. are considered through the electrification program only. where the power plant type and capacity additions and retirement are indicated. 37 For the scenarios in this chapter as well as in Chapter 5. 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. it is only until the DOE puts in specific goals for the renewable energy sector can it be factored in to the PDP. TRANSO. make their own demand and expansion plans based land-use. Costs computed are for comparative purposes only and may not be e qual to the actual costs. while it is very effective in supporting the national goals. country risks and availability of financing University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.13 and 2. particularly in local environmental protection and power development. UPEEE Foundation page 48 . on the other hand. serve as primary inputs to the Power Development Plan (PDP). Relating this type of approach to the historical performance (as discussed in the previous section) of the renewable energy. which in turn. in particular. is a critical part of the Philippine Energy Plan. Inc. Hinging electricity demand on the country’s economic activity. and projected increase in customers. As illustrated in Figure 4. In the PDP. such as MERALCO and the electric cooperatives (EC’s). O&M and fuel) indicated in Tables 2. which aims to bring electricity to the un-electrified areas. The current top-down approach. power plant costs (investment. Note that the program pertains to the rural electrification program.1. Actual industry discount rates may be higher depending on the following: required equity return. allows limited public and local government participation that espouses their interests. market risks. in which all the main inputs and arguments to the plan are based on the national macroeconomic and the energy sector goals. 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).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 2012.14 in Chapter 2 were used. the national government through the DOE employs a top-down approach. These projections are then used by the National Transmission Corporation (TRANSCO) to plan the transmission requirements of the country.1 National Energy Planning Process In coming up with an energy plan. A discount rate of 12 percent was used. 37 4. regulatory risks. as shown in the above figure. Interestingly. the “least cost” criterion is the primary factor in determining the power plant projects and line-up for the planning period. Small renewable energy projects. renewable energy and other energy resources project planning do not directly form part of the PDP. the plans formulated by the DOE. historical sales. With the existing approach.

62 1.10 1.85 4.80 5. Coal. Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.27 1.24 1. Table 4.552. 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).311.80 5.23 5.387.51 1.467.09 1.69 1.1: Low and High GDP Forecasts for 2003 to 2012 Year Low GDP GDP Growth Rate (billion PhP) (%) 1.60 1.23 5.156.138.82 1. Philippine Energy Plan Top-Down Approach Figure 4.23 High GDP GDP Growth Rate (billion PhP) (%) 1.276.343.23 5.487.70 1. the DOE estimated GDP values based on the average growth rates forecasted by NEDA.642.01 1.48 1.04 5. Inc.59 1. the DOE uses two economic scenarios from which to forecast future energy requirement of the country.80 5.80 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2010 Note: GDP values for 2003 to 2006 are actual NEDA forecasts. For 2007 to 2012.23 5.23 5.203. The GDP projections for the two scenarios.51 6. In this report. 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.1.413.95 1.80 5.44 5. etc.74 1.01 6.14 1.646.29 6.64 5.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Generation Planning (DOE) Transmission Planning (TRANSCO) Distribution Planning (PUs & Ecs) Small Renewable Energy Projects Power Development Program Electrification Program Other Energy Sectors Planning NRE.838.57 5.091.96 5. UPEEE Foundation page 49 .11 1.80 5. as well as the its corresponding growth rates are shown in Table 4.2 Gross Domestic Product Projections In the Philippine Energy Plan for the period 2003-2012.079. Oil.229.1: National Energy Planning Process 4.70 6.732.564.737.91 1.

the DOE formulates generation plans for the two economic scenarios.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines In the PEP. 39 Details of the calculations made for this section are provided in Appendix C.3 DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario Energy Generation Figure 4.57% annually and 93% over the entire period. From 55. 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 2012.2: Generation under the Low Economic Growth Scenario 38 Generation costs were calculated using generic data for investment. transmission and distribution costs. O & M and fuel costs. generation would almost double to 106.2 shows the energy generation projected by the DOE that would meet the future energy requirements in 2003 to 201239. Costs calculated do not include ancillary. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. For this period. In addition. energy generation is projected to increase at an average rate of 7. These plans will be discussed in the following sections. 4.430 GWh in 2012. 120000 100000 80000 60000 GWh 40000 20000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4. UPEEE Foundation page 50 .142 GWh in 2003. Inc.

000 MW 10.000 15. and renewable energy plants. respectively40. committed and indicative capacity additions for each year in the planning period are given.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Installed Generating Capacity Total installed capacity for 2003 is 14. These figures just show the continued preference on the use coal over natural gas. the UPSL assumed that indicative base load capacity will be coal plants while intermediate and peaking plants corresponds to oil-based plants. The increase in the share of renewable energy generating capacity. will be due to a 795 MW hydro capacity.3.2 summarizes the results of the UPSL’s calculation for the DOE’s plan for the LEGS. For indicative plant additions. The table also computes the capacity that would be required if the percentage reserve margin was kept at 20%.000 5. As shown in Figure 4.706 MW by 2012. amounting to 800 MW. this scenario is very similar to how the Philippine power sector performed historically. These high reserve margins would translate to higher electricity prices during the period.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Wind Demand (MW) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4.632 GW and will increase to 20. Inc.000 20. UPEEE Foundation page 51 . which is a more expensive fuel. Notably. 25. Notable are the considerably high reserve margins for 2003 to 2009.775 MW and 3. Reserve Margin and Reliability Table 4. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. the increase in demand requirement will be met mostly by increases in oil-based and coal plant capacities of 1.500 MW. 65 MW wind capacity and a 40 MW geothermal capacity additions.3: DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the Low Economic Growth Scenario 40 In the PEP. No additional capacity addition for natural gas is expected in the period. which are more capital intensive.

565 17.332 13. 2003-2012 Peak Demand (MW) 8. on the other hand will increase to 59% in 2012 to from a value of 38% in 2003.015 16.208 GWh energy production annually.5 million barrels of oil.143 GWh generation. 124.777 20. this scenario would require 124.443 16. Imported fuel would cost $4.869 13.139 11.324 million.393 tonnes of coal would have to be imported41. particularly geothermal and hydro. as it was in 2001. 41 This assumes that: local natural gas production can support 3. From a share of 37% in 2003.813 14. • share of imported coal is 87.033 Installed Capacity (MW) 14. The combined contribution of coal and oil to the energy mix.800 MW capacity of 23. the PEP expects that for the year 2003. Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements. renewable energy’s share decreases to 22% in 2012.405 19. respectively. natural gas and oilbased sources will supply 34%.120 15.066 tonnes of coal and 1. coal. A look at the energy mix (Figures 4.224. • University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. will supply 26% and 11%.833 9.865 16. of the total 55. and.505 18.5) for the planning period indicates minimal thrust towards more use of renewable energy sources and cleaner fuels. of the total generation. Renewable energy sources.263 billion cubic feed (BCF) of natural gas for the whole planning period. Of these amounts. Inc. 91.997 12.600 11.4 and 4.2: Percentage Reserve Margin for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario.756 20.814 15.895.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 4.632 15.5 tonnes of oil and 80.706 Percentage Reserve Margin (%) 66 59 52 42 33 29 27 24 24 22 Capacity Required for 20% Reserve Margin 10. respectively.367 14.615 15.889 17.277 11.423 12. The breakdown of the fossil fuel that would be consumed in the LEGS-PEP scenario is shown in Figure 4.396 15.519 10.576 16. Contribution from wind sources stays insignificant for the whole period.6. Clean fuels’ (renewable energy and natural gas) share in the energy mix decreases from 61% to 41% by 2012.3% of total consumption. 24% and 5%.440 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Energy Mix For the LEGS.576 17. UPEEE Foundation page 52 .

Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.5: Coal and Oil-Based vs.4: Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Coal and Oil-Based Renewable Energy and Natural Gas Figure 4. UPEEE Foundation page 53 .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. Inc.

UPEEE Foundation page 54 . NOx and particulates for the North Coast of California.744. Inc. fuel. as given in Chapter 1. Total CO2 emissions for the period amounts to 309. respectively.189 $ 2. and operations and maintenance costs involved in the operation of the different plants to meet demand and energy requirements for the scenario.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.916 42 Abatement costs values in this chapter and the chapters that follow were computed using abatement costs for SOx . Geothermal plants contribute only 2%.3 shows the values for the years 2003 and 2012 and Figure 4.7 shows the contribution of each type to the CO2 emissions. Table 3. Average generation cost for the period is PhP 3.137. SOx and other emissions.391.828. Coal contributes 55% of the CO2 emissions for the period.376.292 $ 23. Generation Cost The present value of the costs calculated for the PEP-LEGS is given below. along with the assumptions used.434 $ 9. the increase in the use of coal would result in an increase in CO2.454. Total cost of abatement for this scenario is $ 29.368. Appendix C shows the amount of emissions for the whole planning period.707. As would be expected.324.1592 per kWh.479. These generation costs were computed from the values for investment. Table 4.3 million tonnes. These do not take into account the effect on the generation cost by deals made with independent power producers. Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: $ 11.4 lists down the generation costs calculated for each year of the planning period.71642. Oil-based and natural gas plants contribute 17% and 26% to the CO2 emissions. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.

UPEEE Foundation page 55 .000 0 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 4.000.289 112.788 54.000.3: 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 18.000.362 282 1.000 30.000 80.000.000.778.000 40.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100.000.927 Year 2012 46.432 2.000.000 60.000 20.850 159.000 70.821 295. Inc.647 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000.000.000.323 644 3.389 55.000 10.581 952 19.712 21.000 (tonnes) 50.000 90.6: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario Table 4.611 489.669.

000 10.000.0592 0.000.0568 0. UPEEE Foundation page 56 .0553 0. Inc.0553 0.3072 3.000.0601 0.0612 0.000.3636 3.1592 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. 2003-2012 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average Assumptions: Discount rate Inflation rate Fuel escalation rate * $1 = PhP 55 Generation Cost $/kWh 0.000.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 50.2548 3.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4.0584 0.0447 3.000 25.0564 0.000 5.000 40.000 15.000 tonne CO2 30.000 45.7: Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario Table 4.0564 0.1229 3.4: Generation Costs for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario.0409 3.000.000.0997 3.000.1026 3.000.0554 0.2123 3.000 35.000.000 20.0429 3.0574 12% 3% 2% PhP/kWh* 3.

POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 4.470 GWh in 2012.5 lists down the percentage reserve margins for the PEP Plan for the HEGS. Figure 4.8 shows the expected generation under the HEGS.632 MW in 2003 to 22. 140000 120000 100000 80000 GWh 60000 40000 20000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4.9 shows how the installed generating capacity would change from 2003 to 2012. increasing more than 200 percent within the ten-year planning period. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Inc. Figure 4.756 MW in 2012.8: Generation under the High Economic Growth Scenario Installed Generating Capacity Installed generating capacity would increase from 14. generation is expected to increase from 55. A large part of this increase is due to the addition of coal plants. with a minimum value of 26% and a maximum of 65%. Table 4. UPEEE Foundation page 57 . Reserve Margin and Reliability Similar to LEGS.556 GWh in 2003 to 118. the percentage reserve margin in the HEGS is considerably high. corresponding to a 56% increase within the ten-year planning period.4 DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario Energy Generation In the high economic growth scenario.

2003-2012 Peak Demand (MW) 8.790 18.469 11.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25.065 16.756 Percentage Reserve Margin (%) 65 57 49 39 30 25 26 29 30 26 Capacity Required for 20% Reserve Margin 10.5: Percentage Reserve Margin for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario.560 12.883 9.765 18.632 15.000 15. Inc.562 16.806 22.563 13.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Wind Demand (MW) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4.709 14.155 20.031 17.674 20. UPEEE Foundation page 58 .424 12.000 MW 10.308 18.120 15.359 14.854 16.005 21.727 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.633 10.423 15.9: DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the High Economic Growth Scenario Table 4.000 5.000 20.148 21.660 11.615 15.106 Installed Capacity (MW) 14.865 16.378 13.

835. 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. 98.322. While the share of renewable energy declines to 20% by 2012 from 37% in 2003. Inc. this scenario would require 184.120 tonnes of coal and 1. Of these amounts.272 BCF of natural gas for the whole planning period.5 million barrels of oil.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Energy Mix From Figures 4. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. UPEEE Foundation page 59 . Total cost of imported fuel is $5. Coal share remains very significant at 47% in 2012. and natural gas whose contribution ranges from 24% to 17% for the period considered. 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 4.127 million. the share of non-renewable energy increases to 80%.10 and 4.211 tonnes of coal would have to be imported.12.5 million barrels of oil 85.11. 184.

000.000.000 40.11: Share of Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy in the Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario 100.000.000.000 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 4.000. Inc.000.000 (tonnes) 50. UPEEE Foundation page 60 .000 80.12: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 60.000 70.000 90.000.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Non-Renewable Energy (w/o Nat Gas) Renewable Energy with Nat Gas Figure 4.000 10.000.000 20.000.000.000 30.

751 283 1. An estimate of the environmental emissions is provided in Table 4.6: 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 19.7 for energy generation cost for 2003 to 2012.829 631. UPEEE Foundation page 61 . University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. greenhouse has emissions is to further soar.764.236.945 70.758 $ 25.896 Based on the installed capacities and energy generation indicated in the PEP for the HEGS.050.294.211 111.022.913 $ 2.610 778 4. Total abatement cost for the HEG-PEP Scenario is $32.225 $ 10.064 21.995.680.568. the UPSL obtained the following shown in Table 4.843 167.779.132 Generation Cost The PEP-HEGS Scenario will require the following costs: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: $ 12. Total CO2 emissions for the period is 347.13 illustrates the contribution of each energy source to CO2 emissions resulting from the DOE plan for the HEGS.2 million tonnes.059.059.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. Inc.820 61.076. Table 4.6. Figure 4.677 Year 2012 565.409 2.317 326.599 970 19.165.

0543 0.0553 0.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 60.000.0635 0.13: Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario Table 4.0612 0.0175 3.0545 3.7: Generation Costs for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario.3646 3.0542 0.0392 3.1488 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 10.000 20.000 50.0555 0.0573 12% 3% 2% PhP/kWh* 3.2889 3.9853 3.000 40.0640 2.2021 3. UPEEE Foundation page 62 .000.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 4. 2003-2012 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average Assumptions: Discount rate Inflation rate Fuel escalation rate * $1 = PhP 55 Generation Cost $/kWh 0.000.0582 0. Inc.000.000.000.0549 0.0598 0.9810 2.000 tonne CO2 30.0557 0.4908 3.

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

For Mindanao.4 BCF of natural gas for the whole planning period.228 tonnes of coal and 154. Inc. natural gas and renewable energy plant capacities would amount to 69% of the total installed capacity.060 million. Also. renewable energy plant installed capacity is increased by 95% from 4.3. which were used in this option to address the additional power and energy demand. 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%.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 5. which were used in the PEP scenarios. 58. Installed Capacity As shown in Figure 5. 73. respectively.2 and 5.502.1 LEGS-MCPD Scenario In this scenario. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. 64. Total cost of fuel that need to be imported for this scenario is $ 3. This is because more power plants are required to meet Mindanao’s energy demand. Details of this scenario is given in Appendix D.279 tonnes of coal and 1.554.1. The energy mix and share of clean energy for the option are shown in Figure 5.685 MW in 2012. the reserve margin is quite higher at 42% to 48%.8 million barrels of oil. This is shown in Figure 5. By 2012. have lower capacity factors compared to coal power plants. Note also that wind power plants. the Moderate Clean Power Development option is applied to the Low Economic Growth Scenario.8 million barrels of oil. which cannot be addressed with the low dependable capacity of its existing plants. Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements. 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. this scenario would require 58.945. The share of coal and oil in the mix would reduce by about 28% at the end of the period.4.450 MW in 2003 to 8.9 BCF of natural gas would have to be imported. UPEEE Foundation page 64 . Energy Mix The share of renewable energy for the LEGS-MCPD option would increase by 10% from the period 2003 to 2012. however. natural gas capacity would continue to increase until the end of the planning period. Of these amounts.

Inc.508 $ 8.166 million higher than that of the LEGS-MCPD.113.1235 The LEGS-MCPD will achieve a net savings of $ 236 million as compared with the LEGS-PEP.202 million. GHG emissions from the LEGS-MCPD are much lower than that from the LEGS-PEP.6 million tonnes of CO2 as compared to the LEGS-PEP.592.0568 or PhP 3.254 $ 2.955.1: Installed Generating Capacity for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario Environmental Emissions and Abatement Cost As would be expected.507. Figure 5.815 $ 0.053 $ 23.969.755.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Oil-based Hydro Coal Biomass Natural Gas Wind Geothermal Demand (MW) Figure 5.7 million tonnes.000 5. Total cost of abatement of other emissions for this option is $23.5 illustrates the CO2 emissions calculated from this option. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.723. Total CO2 emissions for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario is 264. The LEGS-PEP abatement cost is $6. Generation Cost For this LEGS-MCPD.000 15. computed cost values for the planning period are as follows: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: Average generation cost: $ 12.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25. UPEEE Foundation page 65 . achieving net reduction of 44.479.000 20.000 MW 10.

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

000.000 20.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 80.000 15.000 35.000 60.000.000.5: CO2 Emissions for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. UPEEE Foundation page 67 .000.000 5.000.000 (tonnes) 40.000.000.000.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Coal 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 5.000.4: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario 40.000.000 25. Inc.000.000 70.000.000 30.000.000 10.000 50.000 30.000.000 10.000 20.000.000 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 5.000.

respectively. brings the clean energy generation from 33.2 LEGS-ACPD Scenario In this scenario. Figure 5.520 MW in 2012. Energy Mix Figure 5.10.523.40% of the peak demand.074. The total CO2 emissions for the period is 248. respectively. Figure 5. Total cost of abatement for this option is $ 21. The mix of imported and indigenous fuel is shown in Figure 5.633. Coal importation for this option reaches 58. which is 60. Inc.450 MW in 2003 to 11.4 BCF.731 tonnes. is 53%. brings the CO2 emission level at 321.715. Total cost of fuel that is needed to be imported for this scenario is $ 2. in this option.794 GWh in 2003 to 84. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Environmental Emissions and Abatement Cost The increased utilization of renewable energy resources.860 million. wind power plants take 20. The 30% increase in renewable energy share from 37% to 48% over the planning period. Reserve Margin For Luzon and Visayas.9 million tonnes less than the LEGS-PEP. while importation of oil and natural gas stand at 57. The total CO2 emissions for each year are shown in Figure 5.8 shows the increase in clean energy share in the mix. the Aggressive Clean Power Development Option is applied to the Low Economic Growth Scenario.7 illustrates the energy mix resulting from the LEGS-ACPD option. In this option. the average reserve margins are 33% and 26%.2 million barrels and 139.2 million barrels of oil.34 tonnes/GWh. renewable energy capacity is increased from 4.9. 1471.294.175 tonnes of coal. The average for the country is 34%. Fuel Consumption Total fuel requirement for the LEGS-ACPD is 66.480 MW in 2012 and the further increase in the utilization of geothermal and biomass resources. Installed Capacity In this option. Mindanao’s average reserve margin.7 BCF of natural gas and 57.6 shows the installed capacities for the LEGS-ACPD option.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 5. for 2008 to 2012. This 159% increase in renewable capacity is largely attributable to the increase in wind capacity from zero in 2003 to 3.270 GWh in 2012. UPEEE Foundation page 68 .4 million tonnes.

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 25.7: Energy Mix for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 20. UPEEE Foundation page 69 .000 15.000 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 5.000 MW 10. Inc.

000.000 60.000. UPEEE Foundation page 70 .000 20.000 30. Inc.000.000.000.8: Coal and Oil-Based vs.000 0 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 5.9: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. 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 40.000.000.000 70.000 80.000 (tonnes) 50.000.000.

403. UPEEE Foundation page 71 .057.661.10: CO2 Emissions for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario Generation Cost For this LEGS-ACPD.000 0 2003 2004 Oil-based 2005 Coal 2006 2007 2008 Geothermal 2009 Hydro 2010 Biomass 2011 Wind 2012 Natural Gas Figure 5.000.000 15.000 25.000.1698 This scenario would cost $52 million more than the LEGS-PEP.0576 or PhP 3.000 10.000.603.132. Inc.564 $ 2.094 $ 8.880. Natural gas capacities are increased throughout the period and would account for the biggest share in installed capacity by 2012.000 30.000. computed cost values for the planning period are as follows: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: Average generation cost: $ 12.000.000 5. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 35. Renewable energy capacity accounts for 30% in 2003 and 39% in 2012. the Moderate Clean Power Development option is applied to the High Economic Growth Scenario.11. 5.3 HEGS-MCPD Scenario In this scenario. Installed Capacity The installed capacity for this option is given in Figure 5.671 $ 0.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 40.000.000.000 20.816.012 $ 23.414.000.

781.778.15 shows the CO2 emissions resulting from the HEGS-MCPD option. Figure 5. 64.349. UPEEE Foundation page 72 . Of these amounts. this scenario would require 70.390.4 million tonnes lower than the HEGS-PEP.7 million barrels of oil. 73.857 tonnes of coal and 342.7 million barrels of oil.686.549. which is 63.030 $ 2.302 $ 24. computed cost values for the planning period are as follows: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: Average generation cost: $ 12.718.8 BCF tonnes of natural gas would have to be imported.322 million. renewable energy and natural gas contribution to the energy mix increases from 61% to 74% for 2003 to 2012.940. 70. which falls within 35% to 48%. while Figure 5.1065 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.807.456 $ 0.12 shows the corresponding energy mix for the HEGS-MCPD option.9 BCF of natural gas for the whole planning period. Total abatement cost for this option is $ 24. 2% is contributed by wind power plants.13 illustrates the clean energy mix.8 million tonnes.124 $ 9. Total cost of fuel imports is $ 3. Environmental Emissions Figure 5.271 tonnes of coal and 1.347.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Reserve Margin The effective reserve margin of 27% to 31% for the whole country of the HEGSMCPD option is close to the HEGS-PEP range of 25% to 30% for 2003 to 2012. Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements. Generation Cost For this HEGS-MCPD.0565 or PhP 3. The total CO2 emissions is at 283. Energy Mix With its installed capacities dominating.076.769. This difference is attributable to the inevitable higher reserve margin for Mindanao. Inc. Of this mix.665.580.

000 15.11: Installed Generating Capacity for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 5. UPEEE Foundation page 73 .12: Energy Mix for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 20.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25. Inc.000 MW 10.000 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.

000.000 50.000.000 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 5.000.13: Coal and Oil-Based vs.000.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Coal and Oil-Based Renewable and Natural Gas Figure 5.000 30.000 70.000.000.000 (tonnes) 40. UPEEE Foundation page 74 .000.14: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 10.000 20.000 60.000. Inc. Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario 80.

POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 40.000 15.4 HEGS-ACPD Scenario In this option. UPEEE Foundation page 75 . clean energy share increased by 24% over the planning period. Energy Mix While oil-based and coal share in the energy mix decreased by 38%.15: CO2 Emissions for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario 5.000.16 illustrates this.000. Reserve Margin With the inevitably high reserve margin of 45% to 51% for Mindanao.000 5. Installed Capacity The more aggressive use of renewable energy resources for this option results to a 50% contribution of renewable energy to the total installed capacity in 2012.18 illustrate these changes in the energy mix.000 20.000.000 25.000. the country’s effective reserve margin ranges from 28% to 32%.000. Figure 5.000 35.000.000.17 and Figure 5. the Aggressive Clean Power Development option strategy is applied to the High Economic Growth Scenario. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Figure 5. Inc.000 30.000 10.000.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Coal 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 5.

20.513 million. The cost of abatement for SOx .1 million tonnes.567 $ 9.532.824. All of the oil would have to be imported.1647 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements.19 shows the sharing of the imported and indigenous fossil fuels.182. Environmental Emissions and Abatement Cost Carbon dioxide generation for the HEGS-ACPD option is shown in Figure 5.1 million tonnes lower than that for the HEGS-PEP.842.791. Generation Cost For this HEGS-ACPD.139 tonnes of coal and 276. along with 59. UPEEE Foundation page 76 . computed cost values for the planning period are as follows: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: Average generation cost: $ 12.7 BCF of natural gas. Inc.402.638.0575 or PhP 3.271 $ 25.288.730 $ 2. Total CO2 emissions is at 275.682 tonnes of coal and 1. 72. this scenario would require 90.723.560. Cost of fuel imports is $ 3.458.5 BCF of natural gas for the whole planning period.0 million barrels of oil.199. 67.584.568 $ 0. NOx and particulates for this option is 23. Figure 5.583.

000 MW 10.000 5.17: Energy Mix for the HEGS-ACPD 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 Peak Demand Figure 5. UPEEE Foundation page 77 .000 15. Inc.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 20.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25.

000.000 70.000 30. Inc.000 (tonnes) 40. Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario 80.000. UPEEE Foundation page 78 .000 60.000.000.000 20.000 0 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 5.18: Coal and Oil-Based vs.000 10.000.000.000.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Coal and Oil-Based Renewable and Natural Gas Figure 5.000.000 50.19: Fuel Consumption for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.

000 20.000.000 15.000 25.000.000.000 10.000 5. UPEEE Foundation page 79 .000.000.000.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 40. Inc.000.20: CO2 Emissions for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 35.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Coal 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 5.000.000 30.

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

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

The Philippine Grid and Distribution Code (PGDC) must be clear on its requirements and procedures on the connection. particularly on the required technical analysis and compensating equipment. The Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) should allow such an expansion even if it does not initially show recovery of investment. Inc. Transmission facilities should deliberately be expanded toward locations of promising renewable energy sources. operation and control of nonconventional. 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. renewable energy-based power plants.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines National Energy Plan National Level Centralized System Planning and Integration of Provincial Plans Figure 6.1: Recommended Bottom-Up Approach to Energy Planning 6. UPEEE Foundation page 82 . The System Operator should be allowed to procure ancillary services needed by the Grid to accommodate intermittent wind power and pass on the cost to all users of the Grid.3 • Rules and Regulation The Wholesale Electricity Spot Market (WESM) Rules must provide that intermittent and small-scale grid-connected renewable energy generation systems (such as wind. 6. These plants must “feed-in” the Grid at minimum prices that will guarantee the returns of power developers. This cost mechanism will ensure that all electricity consumers will share the cost of such a development. run-of-river small hydro and biomass) should be given priority in the dispatch of generating units. The cost of such an expansion should be borne by the transmission or distribution utility. most of which are site specific.2 Transmission and Distribution Development Transmission and distribution infrastructure should be developed to increase access to renewable energy sites.

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

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

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

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

280 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. UPEEE Foundation page 1 of 4 .1: Locations of Practical Wind Resources in Luzon Province Abra Albay Aurora Bataan Batangas Benguet Bulacan Cagayan Camarines Norte Camarines Sur Cavite Ifugao Ilocos Norte Ilocos Sur Isabela Kalinga Laguna Mountain Province Nueva Ecija Nueva Vizcaya Pampanga Pangasinan Quezon Quirino Rizal Sorsogon Tarlac Zambales LUZON TOTAL Estimated Estimated Number of Sites Aggregate Capacity Aggregate Annual (MWe) Generation (GWh) 26 183 567 26 183 576 46 320 1.Appendix A POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table A.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. Inc.011 26 169 530 16 104 328 20 137 421 2 41 126 8 80 246 18 117 372 36 234 742 8 87 267 15 98 299 31 265 832 8 52 161 90 620 1.486 686 4906 15.

031 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.170 6.3: Locations of Practical Wind Resources in Mindanao Province Agusan del Norte Agusan del Sur Camiguin Surigao del Norte Surigao del Sur MINDANAO TOTAL No.738 Table A. 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 1.113 169 519 347 1.Appendix A POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table A.2: Locations of Practical Wind Resources in Visayas Province Aklan Antique Biliran Bohol Capiz Cebu Eastern Samar Iloilo Leyte Negros Occidental Negros Oriental Samar Southern Leyte VISAYAS TOTAL Number of Sites 24 41 20 6 1 30 2 12 52 26 48 10 33 305 Estimated Capacity Estimated Annual (MWe) Generation (GWh) 163 517 309 965 144 466 39 120 7 20 202 620 14 43 85 266 357 1.065 75 229 259 795 2. UPEEE Foundation page 2 of 4 .

Appendix A POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table A. Inc. UPEEE Foundation page 3 of 4 .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 1.585 Table A.5.671 6 35 184 3 34 179 15 181 110 4 26 951 3 28 147 19 179 941 1 6 32 129 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.258 6.030 1 10 53 9 79 415 3 32 168 3 22 116 4 40 210 8 72 378 30 318 1.

UPEEE Foundation page 4 of 4 .Appendix A POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table A. Inc. Locations of Practical Small Hydro Potential Resources in Mindanao Province Agusan del Norte Bukidnon Davao Davao Oriental Lanao del Norte Lanao del Sur Maguindanao Misamis Oriental North Cotabato Sultan Kudarat Surigao del Sur Zamboanga del Norte MINDANAO TOTAL Number of Sites 3 21 7 18 7 4 6 10 18 1 2 1 98 Estimated Capacity Estimated Annual (MWe) Generation (GWh) 18 95 322 1.692 7 7 18 18 53 279 26 137 58 305 69 363 230 1.6.209 7 37 11 58 7 37 826 4.237 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.

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

237 8.789 6.847 9.567 13.929 19.512 13.734 30.128 36.301 2.663 18.708 1997 10.340 6.399 4.531 1.442 5.162 11.959 9.301 2.914 10.518 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 6.797 41.649 25.579 1994 7.226 5.725 9.791 2. Inc.950 1.862 6.725 12.290 47.713 47.183 16.154 1.066 7.799 9.471 6.Appendix B POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table B.348 2.249 4.345 45.167 1.963 3.341 3.259 2.037 39.931 1.132 4.493 3.257 2.730 11.135 6.232 7.600 1.939 13.927 Coal 405 405 441 550 850 1.855 7.191 957 2.554 1996 9.949 7.296 5.578 1999 11.290 2001 13.417 1.578 41.579 30.754 41.667 6.735 33.2: 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 25.072 11.928 12.301 2.301 2.104 Source: DOE Table B.185 9.973 5.282 5.071 25.086 3.425 5.459 33.030 5.700 5.568 4.015 1.145 4.867 16.534 7.684 762 1.402 Source: DOE Table B.030 6.1: Installed Generating Capacity.254 2.870 26.536 5.078 18.594 11.238 26.212 9.185 13.353 10.942 1.600 2.132 4.452 1.870 1993 6.901 12.797 1998 11.196 5.049 Source: DOE University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.116 18.200 3.067 1.894 9.963 Natural Gas 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 1.844 5.190 11.459 1995 8.288 19.069 5.851 1. 1991-2001 (GWh) Year Year 1991 Residential Commercial Industrial Others Utilities Own Use Power Losses Total 6.320 6.150 7.073 1.649 1992 6.363 9.432 45.155 2.931 1.696 11.390 6. 1991-2001 (MW) Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Fuel Type Oil-based 3.3: Energy Consumption by Sector.590 5.936 8.626 10.875 8.339 952 1.867 1.050 12.301 2.865 10.223 6.432 2000 12.707 39.335 5.098 14.849 41.109 4.839 4.931 Hydro 2.444 921 1.301 2.368 4.154 4.053 4.987 3.789 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 20 16 17 848 5.819 1.840 7.799 7.395 721 1.543 934 1.267 1.440 5.856 1.758 5.176 25.859 823 1. UPEEE Foundation page 1 of 2 .063 Geothermal 888 888 963 1.547 10.042 2.804 13.910 8.477 8.554 36.013 12.388 11.

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 10.666 1999 5.726 67.351.807 CO 16.360 14.396 18.989 12.232.835 893 954 7.665 Coal 1.084 4.413 258.682 Table B.553.291 1996 4.226 789 893 6.521. Inc.578 1999 31.970 527.556 404.396 18.547.233 11.796 CH4 587 643 685 835 963 974 1.231.521.585.376 3.820 474.296 1993 3.688 3.159 13.062 1.962 751.712.337 25.920 591 780 5.233 11.695 33.127 1.725 117.509.698 4.703 47.411.076 792 805 904 NMVOC 975 1.082.633 130. tonne CO2 Year Oil-based 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 9.755 4.347 5.561 551 696 4.083 18.471.245 41. UPEEE Foundation page 2 of 2 .555 30.081 1992 3.147 5.674 480.967 2.4: Peak Demand.Appendix B POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table B.448 16.164 19.109 23.238 106.049 19.554 1996 27.762 Table B.652 4.311 20.831 189.133 1.511 2.029 36.687.848 164.702 7.428.038 973 1.729 NOX 58.351.206 3.530 15.309 146.611 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.283 15.644 328.045 410 626 4.649 Table B.763 25.204 160.116 20.400 2001 5.547.679 5.028 770 868 6.582 11.279 998.124 17.6: Environmental Emissions.705.639 16.745 4.990 99.563 127.964 114.530 15.789 3.733 24.644 13.649 812 939 7.486 20.928 278.411.808 1995 3.854 6.311 10.794 13.290 2001 36.250 473 573 4. 1991-2001 (MW) Year Luzon Visayas Mindanao Philippines Source: DOE 1991 3.903 21.687 1994 3.261 9.780 257.616 28.236.185.582 11.762 SOX 115.365 39.164 19.119.679 8.428.773 727 852 6.932 154.882 149.529 296. 1991-2001 (GWh) 1991 Luzon Visayas Mindanao Philippines Source: DOE 1992 19.671 16.704 18.991 5.352 1998 5.222 Natural Gas 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.553.348 2.902 2.585.6: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Source.359 1.459 1995 25.133 30.343 41.090 16.338.103.345 2.131.579 1994 23.813 3.836 18.414 162.566 3.076 2.362 14.175 5.159 13.566.448 16.580 27.242 1.273 1.678 117.816 1997 4.403 1.864 26.282 286.122.566.175.541 10.808 Fuel Type Geothermal 261.580.908 2000 5.675 10.727 29.870.306 682 828 5.747 25.432 2000 34.671 16.781 24. tonne Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Environmental Emissions CO 2 10.004 101.521 18.163 5.481 5.586 126.286.075 N 2O 415 436 421 469 541 610 711 742 644 734 842 Particulates 10.492 144.004 906 1.131.915 12.094.184 5.5: Generation by Grid.552 135.491.291 1.708 1997 30.290 3.870 1993 19.283 15.872 6.473 523 691 4.580.036 4.704 18.069 84.797 1998 31.708 23.519.441 5.687.896 136.131.464 45.

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

707 1.033 7. UPEEE Foundation page 1 of 16 .477 1.752 7.276 1.277 11.57% Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.139 11.869 13.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.459 1.958 8.548 11.95% 7.2012) (2003 .95% 6. Inc.2012) LUZON 6.31% 7.319 12.91% 7.13% 7.829 1.39% NATIONAL Non-Coincident Peak 8.377 1.833 9.58% VISAYAS 1.673 1.149 13.93% 7.889 17.1a: 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.30% 7.074 1.997 12. 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.519 10.007 1.159 1.254 1.084 1.2007) (2008 .275 7.503 9.592 1.830 10.67% MINDANAO 1.912 2.26% 7.168 1.041 7.034 7.161 9. (2003 .360 1.R.789 1.813 14.855 8.814 15.563 1.

91% 7.924 8.306 7.660 61.726 6.740 7.320 5.754 7.154 59.661 10.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.391 71.57% Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.95% 6.072 49.93% 7.30% 7. UPEEE Foundation page 2 of 16 .452 7. (2003 . Inc. G.411 9.024 85.827 92.342 8.R.31% 7.13% 7.67% MINDANAO 6.95% 7.39% TOTAL 51.604 42.258 6.548 64.26% 7.2007) (2008 .675 46.801 8.875 53.274 7.686 7.260 76.870 66.1c: Electricity Sales Forecasts for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (GWh) YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual Ave.170 6.057 98.564 80.016 9.743 10.2012) LUZON 39.497 9.892 7.58% VISAYAS 5.420 11.539 69.735 57.135 11.103 9.2012) (2003 .182 55.506 74.

781 468 431 281 281 281 281 281 281 182 182 300 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - Visayas Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 12 919 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking VISAYAS TOTAL Oil-based Coal Local Imported 200 - 250 - 100 250 - 200 250 - 300 350 - 400 350 - 500 350 - 600 350 - 1.308 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 11.217 2.831 15.067 2.308 2005 2443 3758 450 3.617 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.141 12.381 11.607 616 - 1.907 616 200 200 - 2.308 2004 2443 3758 450 3.308 616 200 200 - 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 1.807 616 200 200 - 1.207 616 200 200 - 2.208 616 200 200 - 2. Inc.131 13.141 12.707 616 200 200 - 1.141 12.1d: DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (MW) Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Local Imported Year 2003 2443 3758 450 3.717 1.657 616 - 1. UPEEE Foundation page 3 of 16 .796 12.308 2011 1583 3758 450 3.367 2.308 2010 1583 3758 450 3.604 546 - 1.017 2.441 13.308 2008 2443 3758 450 3.517 2.308 2009 2233 3758 450 3.107 616 200 200 - 2.308 2012 1583 3758 450 3.308 2007 2443 3758 450 3.647 1.267 2.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.817 2.308 2006 2443 3758 450 3.031 15.

563 2007 3.970 65 350 - 2.865 16.350 300 2.120 15.563 Philippines Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 2.519 1.163 600 3.563 2009 3.615 15.505 18.763 2.563 2011 2.650 750 2.970 65 3.363 2006 3.963 600 3.340 3.130 4.163 600 3.214 1.756 20.563 2008 3. UPEEE Foundation page 4 of 16 .Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Local Imported Year 2003 3.214 1.970 65 2.706 Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.763 3.214 1.363 2005 3.163 600 3.214 1.763 3.869 1.340 4.763 3.163 600 3.763 3. Inc.763 3.340 4.214 1.763 3.381 4.970 65 150 350 - 2.963 600 3.970 65 400 650 - 2.970 65 300 - 2.930 - 2.500 1.363 2004 3.950 750 2.163 600 3.970 65 - 2.457 3.214 1.970 65 1.632 15.963 600 3.163 600 3.763 2.405 19.565 17.480 4.763 3.563 2010 2.950 900 Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking PHILIPPINES TOTAL 14.214 1.490 3.300 1.340 4.015 16.163 600 3.563 2012 2.214 1.350 1.763 3.970 65 550 1.381 4.

100 2006 2007 Midrange 2008 Midrange 2009 Peaking 300 690 690 990 Panay Midrange Panay Baseload Cebu Baseload Negros Baseload 600 300 1. Inc. UPEEE Foundation page 5 of 16 .350 1.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.150 Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.190 Cebu Baseload Panay Baseload 990 Baseload Plant 100 970 7.440 Cebu Baseload Negros Baseload 50 50 50 50 890 Baseload Plant 150 870 6.200 290 390 490 Mindanao Coal Baseload Plant Baseload Plant 200 50 150 370 420 570 1.500 2.050 San Roque Hydro 2005 345 690 240 Diesel Plant from Luzon Midrange Plant 70 100 170 1.1e: 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 4.240 Cebu Baseload 4.200 5.890 Cebu Baseload Panay Baseload Bohol Midrange Baseload Plant 2010 Midrange Peaking Baseload Plant 2011 Midrange Baseload Plant 2012 Peaking 600 300 450 900 300 600 150 3.750 690 Baseload Plant 50 620 3.

776 3.265.503 1.844 147.163 437.808 40.928 31.429 181.812 32.264 8.307.536.600.635 582.449 685.020 289.086 8.855 133.710 128.958.061 35.289 28.965 83.712 117.138 38.785 39.453 Table C.284 24. UPEEE Foundation page 6 of 16 .177 685.220 8.303 265.297 33.445 Oil-based 21.491.422 335.887.317 211.316.103 21.982.435 81.125.936.821 2.660 169.939 26.921.330 25.536 Oil-based 12.464 Natural gas 104 125 134 143 152 157 159 158 156 157 1.951.676 685.051.941 384.032 392.997 Table C.762 94.528 31.988 213.188 139.897 189.687 16.495 685.273 7.093 679.462 27.402.985 42.521 36.803 103.939 Natural gas 21.849 7.870 225.937 148.816.304.416 21.669.802.876.975 14.644 7.452 685.866.918 Coal 10.242 75.782 13.352.493 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.076.568 115.188.251 128.633 164.534 8.317.631.477 203.275.1h: 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 78.171 29.797 3.086.609 10.680 489.450 295.821 2.060.1g: 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 137.760.894 22.289 159.840 51.850 20.897.340 238.803.573.465 5.185 32.113 283.011 2.963 15.577.676 6.855 246.100 8.019 TOTAL 112.571.201 30.896 9.519 TOTAL 18.599 168.927 8.981 303.788 1.962 16.279 28.833.088 TOTAL 159.828 345.324 28.249.410 40.114.624 7.177 92.030 2.865 683.991 33.313 685.158.532 39.869.460 34.491 97.388.531 14. Inc.792 8.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.908 32.091 57.229 8.778.809.837 18.993 46.1f: Total CO2 Emissions by Fuel Type for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total for period Geothermal 641.410 89.827.820.611 309.927 8.922 Natural gas 5.829 222.203 265.770 25.497 195.151 243.722 685.113.095 Oil-based 2.045.820.764.652 182.

581 1.971 12.193 121.121 54.049 Natural gas 8.454 Oil-based 163 195 267 238 302 449 713 770 755 802 4.554 12.1i: 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 9.776 10.873 9.758 42.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.586 1.060 6.425 1.008 2.562 1.069 14.1j: 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 1.241 28.254 1.810 2.595 46.341 1.575 13.432 25.268 11.274 13.373 2.519 1.355 26.228 Natural gas 1.319 13.730 Natural gas 145 174 186 198 211 218 220 219 217 218 2.602 16.157 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 4.176 17.548 Table C.586 50.078 165.714 3.630 2.363 36.053 76.323 362.571 14.134 3.963 3.586 10.529 11.385 11.671 Table C.337 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.758 24.712 28.414 Oil-based 2.571 1.966 32.1k: 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 1.362 23. Inc.999 7.240 4.580 1.207 TOTAL 21.397 3.285 13. UPEEE Foundation page 7 of 16 .763 13.656 12.250 3.620 20.045 1.655 TOTAL 1.925 4.125 13.196 13.

15 4.923 7.67 2.653 49.02 0.008 TOTAL 952 1.072 7.620 274.50 0.39 0.01 0.209 43.778 1.044 Natural gas 836 1.176 2.66 429.387 TOTAL 19.175 1.41 4.02 0.01 0.50 0.256 11.35 2.031 46.589 9.836 7.34 0.160 25.06 3.25 2.01 2.01 0.122 1.1n: Environmental Emissions per Unit Generation (tonne/kWh) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Environmental Emissions CO2 340.256 34.60 NOX 2.140 1.57 2.78 CO 0.952 38.250 1.97 421.89 4.36 0. UPEEE Foundation page 8 of 16 .50 SOX 2.140 22.073 1.257 1.97 2.43 0.1m: 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 16.52 3.342 Natural gas 313 376 402 428 456 471 476 474 469 471 4.42 0.466 41.46 0.917 17.04 1.927 20.353 55.995 Table C.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.24 3.563 Oil-based 2.40 0.858 29.221 3.03 0.52 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.589 1.50 0.389 15.684 7.02 0.394 15.686 Table C.41 0.216 1.969 2.336 Oil-based 79 95 121 108 142 202 305 320 308 328 2.275 1.244 26.424 1.49 0.39 410.02 0.01 0.698 3.02 0.01 0.84 3.55 338.03 N2O 0.01 0.02 Particulates 0.36 390.03 0.003 1.399 1.39 373.51 CH4 0.647 338.264 1.1l: 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 1.78 346.01 0.01 0.14 2.02 0.139 4. Inc.700 24.42 0.01 NMVOC 0.47 0.559 21.03 0.69 2.02 0.02 0.771 53.44 0.37 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.39 0.528 3.02 0.01 0.89 2.66 358.03 0.979 29.03 0.03 0.013 1.973 33.35 0.514 5.45 2.37 438.268 1.

994 8.512 1.23% Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Inc.883 9.562 16.400 1.194 1.186 10.543 1.469 11.94% 8.13% 8.788 7.186 NATIONAL Non-Coincident Peak 8.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.424 12.313 1.428 1.757 1. G.815 VISAYAS 1.378 13.675 1.92% 8.22% 8.2012) (2003 .2012) LUZON 6.359 14.953 2.59% 7.357 7.2a: DOE Plan for Power Generation for the High Economic Growth Scenario (GWh) Type Oil-Based Fuel Oil Diesel Coal Local Imported Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal Wind Others Baseload Midrange Peaking 2003 2865 2465 400 18893 3082 15811 13349 6324 14126 0 0 0 0 0 2004 3614 3018 596 18850 1363 17487 16084 6893 15000 153 0 0 0 0 2005 3484 2956 528 21243 2323 18920 17439 7932 15076 153 937 0 937 0 2006 3899 3725 175 26016 2507 23509 18578 7952 15101 153 952 0 952 0 72650 Year 2007 6367 6021 345 27836 2923 24912 19791 8020 15104 153 1883 1142 741 0 79153 2008 6225 6074 151 29335 3158 26177 20221 8027 15104 153 6743 3435 3308 0 85807 2009 5758 5555 203 30518 3372 27146 20260 8073 15101 153 13254 5158 8062 33 93115 2010 3494 3339 155 29734 3242 26492 20192 8069 15104 153 24128 13769 10345 14 100874 2011 3009 2944 64 28946 3042 25904 19965 8043 15105 153 34095 22932 11154 10 109316 2012 4246 4088 157 30604 3338 27267 20122 8093 15106 152 40147 24783 15028 336 118470 TOTAL 55556 60595 66263 Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 Table C.034 2.992 11.60% 8.891 2.09% 8.804 13.633 10.176 1.R.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.438 10.081 1.73% 7.099 1.014 1.106 MINDANAO 1.630 1.2007) (2008 .281 1.90% 8.862 12. (2003 .711 9.809 1.423 15. UPEEE Foundation page 9 of 16 .106 8.65% 7.790 18.46% 8.

805 9. (2003 .363 59. UPEEE Foundation page 10 of 16 .2c: Electricity Sales Forecasts for the High Economic Growth Scenario (GWh) YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual Ave.64% 7.392 83.888 51.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.22% 5.46% 6.73% 7.847 12.R.555 90.156 46.807 6.938 7.848 9. G.104 81.094 55.814 43.60% 8. Inc.469 55.155 8.015 11.2012) (2003 .658 66.033 8.465 8.59% 7.233 11.814 60.732 8.711 77.2012) 39.300 6.542 8.148 97.888 8.09% 8.92% 8.474 69.555 10.187 71.266 104.355 5.746 64.497 10.305 6.90% 8.578 75.2007) (2008 .124 8.149 8.314 11.13% 51.94% 8.23% Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.851 7.

557 616 200 200 - 2.604 546 - 1.067 2.758 450 3.717 1. Inc.658 616 200 200 - 2.500 900 2.758 450 3.796 12. UPEEE Foundation page 11 of 16 .763 2.205 907 65 2.758 450 3.308 2008 2.443 3.441 13.017 2.758 450 3.700 1.767 2.308 2007 2.763 1.758 450 3.443 3.205 907 65 2.510 907 - 2.205 907 65 2.300 750 LUZON TOTAL Oil-based Coal Local Imported 11.707 616 200 200 - 1.763 2.763 2.583 3.381 11.860 907 65 2.800 3.763 2.443 3.758 450 3.817 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 1.308 2010 1.131 468 205 150 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 - 1.583 3.141 12.308 2011 1.800 3.367 2.007 616 200 200 - 2.857 616 200 200 - 2.443 3.431 14.308 2004 2.443 3.763 2.567 2.443 3.308 2009 2.647 1.763 2.583 3.141 12.2d: DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the High Economic Growth Scenario (MW) Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Local Imported Year 2003 2.308 2006 2.657 616 - 1.881 16.308 2005 2.763 2.205 907 65 2.205 907 65 2.317 2.758 450 3.205 907 65 2.763 2.205 907 65 2.141 12.758 450 3.763 1.308 Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 2.205 907 65 Luzon Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking 300 1.758 450 3.300 1.867 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.308 2012 1.607 616 - 1.233 3.357 616 200 200 - 2.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.758 450 3.

Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Local Imported Year 2003 3.763 3.970 65 Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking 300 350 150 400 450 800 700 2.163 600 3.214 1.340 4.563 Philippines Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 2.806 22.963 600 3.869 1.763 3.214 1.490 3.214 1.850 3.970 65 2.214 1.480 4.500 0 3.340 4.340 3.763 2.763 3.563 2011 2.120 15.381 4.970 65 2.163 600 3.163 600 3.763 3.214 1.563 2008 3.150 0 1.763 3.763 3.250 750 PHILIPPINES TOTAL 14.519 1.163 600 3.963 600 3.163 600 3.765 18.250 0 3.214 1.756 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.457 3.200 4.963 600 3. UPEEE Foundation page 12 of 16 .163 600 3.632 15.363 2005 3.563 2010 2.214 1.340 4.615 15.214 1.970 65 2.970 65 2.970 65 2.970 65 2.163 600 3.155 20. Inc.363 2004 3.381 4.970 65 2.563 2007 3.130 4.970 65 2.563 2012 2.000 4.930 - 2.763 2.865 16.763 3.763 3.563 2009 3.065 16.005 21.363 2006 3.

850 2009 Negros Baseload Cebu Midrange Bohol Midrange Baseload Plant 900 1.200 2.200 Peaking 2012 750 6. UPEEE Foundation page 13 of 16 . Inc.340 Baseload Plant Midrange Plant 150 50 1.350 1.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.140 940 590 290 440 Midrange Plant 100 2006 2007 Midrange 2008 300 690 690 Panay Midrange Panay Baseload Panay Midrange Mindanao Coal Baseload Plant 200 50 370 420 1.150 Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.540 Cebu Baseload Panay Baseload 1.790 Cebu Baseload Negros Baseload Cebu Midrange 50 50 100 50 50 1.200 4.300 2010 Midrange Baseload Plant 2011 Midrange 900 600 5.070 8.2e: 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 1.290 Cebu Baseload Bohol Midrange Baseload Plant Midrange Plant 100 50 870 6.100 2005 150 50 50 100 50 50 50 50 100 50 50 50 100 150 50 1.190 Cebu Baseload Panay Baseload Baseload Plant 50 720 3.170 9.250 Midrange 1.550 990 Cebu Baseload Cebu Midrange Negros Baseload Baseload Plant Midrange Plant 200 50 670 2.440 Baseload Plant 100 1.

Inc.689 Oil-based 9.465.254 191.221 109.722 685.033 8.792.202 74.866 288.173 56.172 22.688 221.070 305.820.043 41.000 684.341 26.743.370.450 685.167.636 Natural gas 104 126 136 145 155 158 159 158 156 157 1.735.677 174.351 79.207 14.267 121.106.895 12.779 15.863.434 28.239 10.941 30.399.796 44.582 40.862 11.035 TOTAL 19.300.533 32.198 192.897.849 7.822 23.456 Oil-based 27.877 20.806.859 7.253.297 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.839 182.840.877.787.042 17.198.178.294.534.829 347.620.897.639 34.921.064 118.537 16.927 8.094 104.661 30.180 42.686 347.793 3.710 546.785.590 Table C.572.864 2.250 284.945 1.664.264 8.2g: Total SOx Emissions by Fuel Type for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total for period Geothermal Coal 139.812 33.784 157.396 154.683 61.645.124 8.299 33.734.625 1.234.653 27.951.701 Natural gas 5. UPEEE Foundation page 14 of 16 .297 33.945 479.258.767 685.050.828.383 326.824 13.002 321.965 19.300 Table C.609 28.812 6.073.322 12.198.897 409.2f: 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 641.211 173.021.706 153.808 243.673 35.891 8.879 Oil-based 2.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.499 TOTAL 167.989.890.843 20.2h: Total NOx Emissions by Fuel Type for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total for period Geothermal Coal 79.526 33.226 7.125.017 30.220 8.713 217.490 157.708 137.415 Natural gas 21.912 293.296 1.518 77.233 33.808 139.529 5.208.934.630 162.891 11.888 232.293 82.014 42.437 242.585 685.488.970.498 130.435 2.060.585 685.887 197.939 26.774 12.316 257.317 3.055 2.873 49.124 11.634 149.909 224.744.741 631.922 383.686 Coal 10.206 180.704.498 264.052 418.051 8.722 685.722 685.473 51.185 32.170 89.862.912.194 TOTAL 111.320 681.565.518 214.

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

491 2.491 2.678 547 108 997 1.011 3.149 559 205 956 12 1.312 3.422 400 14.963 2.963 2.633 2.763 1.213 5.652 3.781 4.512 2.732 647 108 997 1.759 2.758 3.404 130 12.871 1.752 3.763 1.255 12 20 2.211 650 15.942 112 850 21.797 525 14.053 3.831 92 315 17.191 3.758 3.983 2.917 4.971 3.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.763 907 1.491 2.194 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.652 3.804 509 205 956 12 1.895 2.127 4.213 2.491 2.287 3.758 3.467 12 60 2.697 4.214 80 65 16.205 65 12.213 3.429 545 205 916 12 1.985 5.531 3.419 609 205 1.583 3.758 3.583 2.011 1.214 25 15.398 647 250 228 1.758 2.267 2.901 655 205 1.189 559 205 956 12 50 1.269 647 250 228 1.227 2.415 12 40 2.283 2.925 112 520 18.146 647 250 188 1.404 235 13.583 1.758 3.711 4.747 4.952 3.383 977 2. Inc.763 1.758 3.510 11.671 92 170 16.287 4.263 4.213 4.205 25 12.971 2.266 73 100 100 2.682 547 108 997 1.002 3.583 947 2.116 37 100 60 2.283 1. UPEEE Foundation Visayas page 2 of 16 .763 1.931 2.763 907 2.971 3.491 1.971 3.163 2.923 2.697 3.782 647 200 108 997 1.138 2.912 647 250 128 1.963 2.763 907 2.869 25 15.983 1.763 907 2.775 2.763 1.624 2.101 629 205 1.941 605 205 1.917 4.871 5.213 5.558 12 80 2.213 5.066 12 80 40 2.583 2.547 3.758 3.661 1.011 1.313 4.658 12 100 2.862 647 250 108 997 2.694 609 205 986 12 80 20 1.758 3.1a: 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 2.860 25 11.383 2.216 63 100 80 2.012 647 250 148 1.942 5.214 50 65 15.758 3.418 112 685 19.519 14.061 3.205 65 12.763 907 1.189 609 205 956 12 80 1.

536.857 27.831 2.596 1.897.797 3.477 12.644 1.289 106.092 15.087 19.641 6.865 683.710 18.113.571.152.573.174. UPEEE Foundation page 3 of 16 .908 Coal 10.452 685.249.343 16.101 Fuel Type Geothermal 641.653 821.020.415 20.1d: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.360 92.943 27.580 74.687 16.449 685.383 Natural Gas 5.901.061 27.181 69.017 17.324 6.089.849 7.216 13.125. Inc.659 27.884 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 0 645 785 785 785 Wind 0 153 153 153 153 153 843 1.215.148 1.210 19.523 4.654 29.720 3.060 33.125.963 0 0 0 200 50 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 2.229 8.953 24.821 2.462 27.484 1.141 18.906 27.098 15.783 15.521 27.271 21.143 59.133.374 30.550 30.1b: Annual Capacity Additions (MW) Year Oil-based Current Installed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3.495 639.579 1.456 758.235 1.113.623.519 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 1.045.763 0 0 0 0 0 820 800 900 300 400 1.813 19.893 7.869.896 9.778.402.609 10.590 1.835 Natural Gas 13.636 99.465 5.975 14.297 Hydro Biomass Wind Total 18.528 31.583 0 0 300 0 50 0 0 20 75 50 Coal 3.764 6.706 1.952 3.121 14.209 Total Addition Table D.534 8.757 846.372 64.652 1.074 24.958.837 15.943 7.093 679.689 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.151.011 2.931 0 40 0 0 0 90 130 340 180 70 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 2.349 16.784 15.894 22.313 1.936.099 14.820.1c: Power Generation (GWh) Year Oil-based 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.982.629 18.076.915 Coal 18.937 1.281.094.782 13.272 Total 55.951 31.001 16.948 80.816.284 24.624 7.158.114.979.927 8.430 Table D.438 86.833.757 30.589 27.097 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 14.388.100 18.213 1.975 15.247 3.577.263 14.968 8.916.333.177 685.928 7.275.085 16.391 1.054 15.850 20.760.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.776 3.086 11.576 14.

289 159.916.35 1.542 Table D.03 0.03 0.840 217.726 215.97 2.06 0.01 0.535 Particulates 19.02 8.422 217.01 2.110 35.06 0.113.38 0.09 314.584 2.02 0.24 3.70 304.36 390.37 0.27 Table D.39 0.83 1.02 0.12 3.936.01 0.013 1.147 943.01 0.50 8.03 0.01 0. Inc.03 0.90 1.927 20.34 0.03 N2O 0.894 22.275 Environmental Emissions CO 21.66 358.01 0.06 0.01 NMVOC 0.06 PhP/kWh 3.52 2.839 27.32 299.951 31.37 0.01 0.02 0.451 943.06 0.589 775.238 N 2O 952 1.380 169.981 3.140 22.712 117.35 0.966 32.06 0.810 2.363 36.04 3.40 0.87 Particulates 0.988 213.402.39 323.779 2.355 26.52 2.17 2.32 0.98 10.06 3.55 338.10 3.36 0.373 2.157 2.284 24.044 CH 4 282 314 346 379 423 470 443 470 497 536 NMVOC 1.06 3.215.69 2.06 0.677 28.43 0.152.528 31.630 2.689 SOX 159.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.122 1.42 0.687 38.01 0.850 20.03 0.397 943.362 23.73 1.36 0.06 0.778.03 0.251 128.78 346.160 25.14 2.241 28.973 33.650 218.02 0.581 1.18 9.151 243.758 32.05 3. UPEEE Foundation page 4 of 16 .39 373.88 SO X 2.029 NOX 112.429 181.02 0.249.01 0.897 189.03 0.536 27.01 0.1e: Environmental Emissions (tonne) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 18.008 2.36 0.462 27.04 1.05 NOX 2.654 29.982.137 171.06 0.42 0.1g: Generation Cost Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Generation Cost US$/kWh 0.31 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.937 148.30 0.424 1.03 0.10 3.599 168.061 27.35 2.20 3.901.89 2.69 Environmental Emissions CO CH 4 0.952 27.275 1.1f: Environmental Emission per Unit Generation (tonne/GWh) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 340.19 3.03 0.41 0.84 3.05 3.757 30.46 0.979 29.06 0.39 0.113 283.28 0.954 180.442 34.317 164.25 2.

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

782 647 200 108 997 1.856 609 205 1.758 3.287 3.213 5.931 2.491 2.213 3.697 3.429 545 205 916 12 1.561 3.925 117 2.531 1.583 3.658 12 335 3. UPEEE Foundation page 6 of 16 .763 1.763 1.205 25 12.265 13.168 4.869 25 15.104 19.510 11.071 3.968 2.283 647 250 228 1.011 1.205 65 12.763 2.149 559 205 956 12 1.865 14.213 3.922 647 250 128 1.488 1.480 23.763 1.652 3.189 609 205 956 12 80 1.411 18.747 4.163 2.797 25 2.964 977 2.146 37 80 60 2.214 25 15.778 4.758 3.633 907 2.763 2.682 547 108 997 1.758 3.752 3.558 12 262 2.735 1.963 2.214 50 65 15.860 25 11.718 609 205 996 12 80 20 1.991 4.491 2.213 2.467 12 179 2.952 3.758 3.491 2.758 3.063 2.548 4.763 2.053 947 2.758 3.213 4.763 1.065 17.205 65 12.415 12 106 2.189 559 205 956 12 50 1.267 4.011 1.168 4.743 2.011 3.519 14.732 647 108 997 1.868 609 205 1.758 3.917 4.807 21.825 510 205 1.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D. Inc.369 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.697 4.2a: Installed Capacity (MW) Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Luzon Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind LUZON TOTAL Oil-based Coal Visayas Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind VISAYAS TOTAL Oil-based Coal Mindanao Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind MINDANAO TOTAL Oil-based Philippines Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind PHILIPPINES TOTAL Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.468 2.130 2.127 4.267 2.465 16.932 117 3.758 2.671 102 718 16.963 2.548 2.136 647 250 188 1.841 4.404 10 665 12.418 117 2.291 510 205 1.547 3.325 3.138 907 2.661 1.678 547 108 997 1.862 647 250 108 997 2.763 1.002 3.063 3.255 12 33 2.422 25 1.211 25 3.831 117 1.346 63 80 80 2.213 4.404 25 1.971 3.758 3.804 509 205 956 12 1.491 2.968 5.214 80 65 16.413 647 250 228 1.221 3.476 63 80 80 2.227 2.491 1.042 647 250 148 1.652 3.957 2.971 3.963 2.971 2.778 2.971 3.578 2.923 907 2.763 3.096 12 80 40 2.468 907 1.763 2.759 907 1.871 1.758 3.

229 8.655 20.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.602 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.158.345 16.975 15.388.113.764 4.385 2.580 74.436.317 16.125.545 16.141 18.948 80.079 2.284 24.942 19.198 29.573.2b: Annual Capacity Additions (MW) Year Oil-based* Currently Installed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3.622 7.132.891 26.732 12.968 15.651 1.372 64.104 20.885 32.181 69.263 6.694 Fuel Type Geothermal 641.704 1.776 3.897.922 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 14.158 14.919 3.045.477 12.082 Natural Gas 5.270 21.849 7.333.249.647 13.332 919.545.054 15.247 3.720 3.856 14.958.550 26.016.387 1.737.245 Natural Gas 13.908 Coal 10.324 6.758.136 2.820.528 26.385 3.117 10.778.2d: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type (tonne) Year Oil-based 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.676.975 14.093 679.760.437 86.349 16.943 7.982.415 18.076.452 685.557.790 1.687 14.708 27.449 597.103.746 23.114.203.032.928 7.952 3.143 59.894 22.692 27.953 24.287 9.2c: Power Generation (GWh) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.172.170 867.896 9.365 *includes capacities of diesel engines used as ancillary to wind power plants Table D.770 5.386 649.927 8.624 7.320.281 2.157.936.121 14.709 1.462 27.361 10.791.430 Table D.992.850 20.534 21.821 2.741 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 715 820 820 436 259 Wind 0 153 153 153 153 1.797 3. UPEEE Foundation page 7 of 16 .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 2.017 17.529 26.583 0 0 300 0 50 548 548 488 538 528 Coal 3.138 26.778.536.963 0 0 0 200 50 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 2.433 2.629 18.915 Coal 18.289 106.659 27.636 99.654 1.816.011 2.360 92.375 24.609 10.833.210 19.092 15.893 7.534 8.341 22.523 4.465 3.931 0 40 0 0 0 100 150 340 280 150 2.087 19.809 13.177 685.919 Hydro Biomass Wind Total 18.815 19.577. Inc.865 683.961.973 769.369 11.763 0 0 0 0 0 300 715 770 420 500 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 1.098 13.085 Total 55.782 13.178.

73 1.979 29.03 0.30 0.54 261.33 0.06 0.529 26.01 3.03 0.138 26.03 0.35 0.676.849 3.301 985.791.06 0.06 3.63 271.23 3.24 2.973 28.284 24.020 22.966 32.275 1.599 168.14 2.249.311 525.35 0.00 0.065 214.54 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.03 N2O 0.52 NOX 2.35 0.692 27.40 0.38 3.02 0.01 0.45 308.90 288.897 155.160 25.06 0.05 0.03 0.36 0.363 29.94 Particulates 0.48 2.107 Environmental Emissions CO 21.66 358.02 0.06 0.373 2.48 1.01 2.39 0.89 2.02 0. UPEEE Foundation page 8 of 16 .00 0.00 NMVOC 0.251 128.12 3.936.05 3.086 24.2e: Environmental Emissions (tonne) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 18.25 1.64 5.69 2.01 0.528 26.013 1.778.852 Table D.702 32.01 0.06 0.475 31.01 0.63 1.737 148.151 243.34 0.442 21.84 3.37 0.03 0.679 2.289 159.78 346.140 22.39 0.157 2.546 150.150 312.39 Environmental Emissions CO CH 4 0.01 0.731 171.06 0.10 3.06 PhP/kWh 3.2f: Environmental Emission per Unit Generation (tonne/GWh) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 340.97 2.113.93 1.539 185.68 11.810 2.06 0.55 338.241 28.223 151.75 1.362 23.37 0.34 0.125 985.937 148.988 213.891 26.675 146.26 0.02 0.581 1.426 33.894 22.008 2.03 0.04 1.2g: Generation Cost Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Generation Cost US$/kWh 0.03 0.739 161.906 CH 4 282 314 346 379 423 389 418 444 462 492 NMVOC 1.05 3.850 20.355 26.376 30.927 20.89 2.961.462 27.154 2.13 SO X 2.03 0.00 0.23 0.602 SOX 159.073 N 2O 952 1.113 232.04 3.42 0.15 3.29 2.39 373.737.859 NOX 112. Inc.583 Particulates 19.41 0.21 Table D.429 181.02 10.982.424 859.010 26.06 0.36 325.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.712 117.00 1.00 0.41 10.32 0.178.03 0.43 0.122 1.407 2.

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

763 2.526 73 100 105 2.922 717 200 128 1.518 100 739 22.862 717 200 108 997 2.892 2. Inc.758 3.963 2.804 509 205 956 12 1.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.022 3.941 2.691 4.931 2.011 1.971 4.367 2.583 3.758 3.383 907 1.763 2.491 2.357 4.429 545 205 916 12 1.163 2.043 907 2.758 3.214 25 15.763 1.073 947 2.763 1.963 2.797 565 16.759 907 1.183 7.758 3.491 2.433 7.163 3.832 717 200 108 997 2.860 25 11.467 49 2.276 37 100 65 2.733 6.583 4.163 7.682 547 108 997 1.703 907 2.971 100 904 22.581 605 205 1. UPEEE Foundation page 10 of 16 .652 3.183 2.758 3.971 3.122 717 200 148 1.116 100 574 20.732 717 108 997 1.832 2.510 11.963 2.291 629 205 1.383 3.652 3.491 1.163 4.763 2.871 1.663 717 200 228 1.971 3.189 609 205 956 12 50 1.758 3.404 130 12.476 63 100 85 2.583 2.817 4.491 2.809 609 205 1.883 80 364 18.763 1.333 4.433 2.163 6.987 4.971 3.511 1.138 907 2.763 2.311 717 200 188 1.227 2.547 3.758 3.758 3.267 2.022 3.767 3.658 89 2.341 655 205 1.763 3.383 4.758 2.434 1.519 14.763 1.412 3.869 25 15.211 690 17.301 3.287 3.422 440 15.404 275 13.205 25 12.945 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.011 1.763 1.007 1.491 2.214 80 65 16.197 4.822 3.149 559 205 956 12 1.534 717 200 228 1.163 7.205 65 12.214 50 65 16.658 69 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 2.205 65 12.687 109 2.011 3.163 2.176 12 80 40 2.694 609 205 996 12 80 20 1.971 2.678 547 108 997 1.733 2.041 4.071 3.783 80 150 17.817 4.758 3.661 1.189 609 205 956 12 80 1.027 977 2.581 2.

734.745 912.964 Natural Gas 13.115 100.101 15.051 10.897.722 2.850 7.578 19.020 16.471 Table D.650 79.108 20.879 3.163 30.519 0 350 345 0 0 569 100 233 402 453 Biomass 0 0 0 0 50 30 0 0 20 0 0 Wind 0 0 25 0 40 0 85 214 210 165 165 Total Addition 14.404 13.146 29.859 3.208.076 15.386 678.3c: Power Generation (GWh) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.973 27.777 34.420 4.349 16.479 27.320 681.840.602 17.672.791 23.849 7.065 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 14.324 6.952 8.932 7.252.646 2.763 0 0 0 0 0 820 1.964 26.3d: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type (tonne) Year Oil-based 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.785.103 16.321 14.595 66.897.496 5.773.694 2.439 18.555.984 30.885 23.209 26.864 3.188.919 33.934 17.126 15.128.891 8.218.153 85.503 42.448 Hydro Biomass Wind Total 19.458 Natural Gas 5.877 1.000 15.033.768 3.263 72.226 7.704.978 27.169 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.252 2.407.028 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 561 561 701 343 701 Wind 0 153 153 153 153 402 974 1.226.749 2.000 684.125.317 Total 55.640.367 2.016 28.458 14.747 Coal 18.130 20.3b: Annual Capacity Additions (MW) Year Oil-based Currently Installed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3.272 Fuel Type Geothermal 641.722 597.019 814.874 109.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.931 0 40 0 0 0 100 230 390 280 70 2.585 685.858 1.450 685.893 7.920.042 15.110 2.535 1.124 8.700 750 200 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 1.556 60.744.315 118.141.234.107 4.537 18.463 2.991 Coal 10.893 18.766 19.496 14.573 1.574 1.106.158 14.928. UPEEE Foundation page 11 of 16 .916.756 31.534. Inc.050.891 11.850 21.946 20.739 26.239 10.672 938 Table D.640.465 37.258.585.859.208 14.150 1.190 3.807 93.862.695.649 6.769 22.671 14.269 36.243 26.484.104 13.600 16.615 4.664.828.907 937.207 14.156.569.963 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 2.583 0 0 370 50 0 0 0 20 75 50 Coal 3.779 15.673 29.084 17.759 0 415 715 340 30 1.855.

01 0.859.3f: Environmental Emission per Unit Generation (tonne/GWh) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 370.274 3.44 0.733 174.15 2.01 0.617 413.06 NOX 2.546 36.21 2.304 36.24 2.41 0.4193 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.500 132.130 20.01 0.04 0.41 SO X 3.407.44 0.3138 3.02 0.266 191.264 200.359 842.0544 0.0541 0.38 0.284 27.10 3.46 Table D.42 0.44 2.03 0.984 30.916.202 173.599 1.37 0.294 244.0578 0.18 2.79 385.0554 0.024 N 2O 970 1.48 0.01 NMVOC 0.0549 0.307 2.755 181.43 0.156.61 2.099 Table D.686 239.885 23.050.163 30.0868 3.71 8.756 31.169 S OX 167.141.04 N2O 0.1790 3.3e: Environmental Emissions (tonne) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 19.0495 3.01 1.734 179.38 0.389 NOX 111.01 0.32 2.04 0.828.186 1.01 0.97 1.151 31.858 2.506 45.07 9.17 351.25 8.0536 2.25 3.684 207. Inc.268 674.10 354.139 288.559 3.055 1.0175 3.873 215.199 33.596 2.430 43.56 0.062 118.45 0.39 2.494 23.676 20.02 0.02 0.673 29.0555 0.50 0.69 4.272 41.10 2.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.04 0.845 Particulates 19.928.9923 2.30 3.677 42.750 24.672.447 153.01 0.91 376.42 0.3g: Generation Cost Generation Cost US$/kWh PhP/kWh 0.711 48.16 2.68 429.50 0.12 2.9744 3.02 8.344 45.03 0.887 173.03 3.44 0.096 27.166 37.03 0.39 0.428 38.620 4.636 217.372 842.566 674.35 4.01 0. UPEEE Foundation page 12 of 16 .343 31.13 373.54 367.51 0.98 Environmental Emissions CO CH 4 0.591 216.099 214.0561 0.0542 0.18 351.101 CH 4 283 321 358 402 456 453 509 540 592 655 NMVOC 1.90 406.065 2.04 Particulates 0.03 0.862.04 0.421 Environmental Emissions CO 21.269 36.43 0.0603 0.777 34.43 0.377 1.02 0.01 0.03 0.0622 3.9785 2.739 26.024 3.01 0.

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 .

763 907 2.011 3.817 4.227 2.336 717 200 188 1.519 14.978 2.287 3.817 4.491 2.758 3.758 3.869 25 15.180 2.987 4.652 3.763 907 2.991 4.763 907 1.465 16.404 15 3.763 907 1.759 2.871 1.841 4.429 545 205 916 12 1.783 977 2.163 2.214 50 65 16.723 13.783 2.804 509 205 956 12 1.163 2.333 2.822 3.281 20.011 1.422 25 1.073 3.971 137 3.163 3.703 2.863 609 205 996 22 80 30 1.983 1.096 22 80 110 2.548 665 1. Inc.346 73 100 314 2.765 95 609 205 1.011 1.832 717 200 108 997 2.155 125 2.163 5.682 547 108 997 1.043 2.963 2.763 907 2.678 717 200 228 1.763 1.491 2.605 5.297 5.758 3.547 3.022 3.197 4.404 15 4.758 3.763 1.205 25 12.690 510 205 1.265 12.510 11.971 3.963 2.548 717 200 228 1.163 4.758 3. UPEEE Foundation page 14 of 16 .138 2.491 2.741 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.758 3.860 25 11.063 947 2.149 559 205 956 12 1.757 2.214 25 15.4a: 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 2.189 609 205 956 12 80 1.540 152 2.865 15.942 717 200 128 1.763 1.460 3.557 125 3.763 1.491 2.491 1.214 80 65 16.333 1.971 2.862 717 200 108 997 2.333 2.205 65 12.963 2.687 12 336 3.715 23.205 65 12.583 3.652 3.656 510 205 1.163 5.758 2.238 4.966 95 Visayas 771 1.687 262 3.071 3.971 3.687 186 2.337 4.763 1.094 2.732 717 108 997 1.063 2.124 18.983 2.333 1.065 17.971 3.238 4.041 22.758 3.267 2.122 717 200 148 1.661 1.221 3.476 73 100 314 2.931 2.527 17.339 76 2.561 4.678 547 108 997 1.189 609 205 956 12 50 1.291 609 205 1.163 3.767 3.758 3.022 3.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.146 47 100 230 2.758 3.797 25 2.211 25 3.

443.538 4.865.016 17.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.850 7.252.050.118 31.956.519 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 2.317 16.200 350 0 1.942 19.450 685.126 15.386 649.107 6.527.382 1.704.630.418 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. UPEEE Foundation page 15 of 16 .104 13.984 30.653 Total 55.864 3.170 867.326.650.045 26.867 Coal 10.897.239 21.471 3.387 1. Inc.993 Natural Gas 5.885 23.763 0 0 0 0 0 300 720 1.239 10.426 20.062 2.673 28.158 14.768 3.897.326.644 34.320 681.639 16.208.4c: Power Generation (GWh) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.234.595 66.095 7.263 Fuel Type Hydro 6.963 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 2.850 21.916.4b: Annual Capacity Additions (MW) Year Oil-based* Currently Installed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3.000 684.739 26.735 12.193 16.849 7.076 15.639 Fuel Type Geothermal 641.142 29.744.115 13.952 8.779 15.549 6.978 26.650 79.103 11.734.030 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 666 666 876 876 960 Wind 0 153 153 153 153 2.315 24.042 14.290 36.578 19.840.633.051 9.080 6.779 Total Addition *includes capacities of diesel engines used as ancillary to wind power plants Table D.583 0 0 370 50 0 621 582 549 595 529 Coal 3.511.615 4.130 20.538 2.324 6.104 20.874 109.891 11.315 118.335.263 72.859 4.115 100.618.186 2.953 36.862.600 Coal 18.556 60.722 2.760 23.014 17.193 6.012 Natural Gas 13.292 2.258.919 Hydro Biomass Wind Total 19.932 7.288.893 7.746.036.828.963 22.960 19.953 Geothermal 14.439 18.708.091 33.807 93.891 8.931 0 40 0 0 0 100 150 340 280 150 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 2.973 769.207 14.419 14.101 15.791 21.084 17.153 85.060 4.814.479 10.298.016 28.226 7.209.349 16.508 29.534.000 15.407.496 5.883 9.893 18.409 3.484.398.216 11.125.332 919.020 16.106.722 597.190 3.243 26.471 Table D.664.124 8.4d: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.109 8.585 685.420 4.

79 1.10 3.202 173.02 0.12 2.0175 3.44 2.54 Table D.0549 0.60 0.377 1.1607 3.750 N 2O 970 1.4g: Generation Cost Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Generation Cost US$/kWh 0.862.407.82 11.738 45.374 800.740 1.673 28.676 20.82 1.4f: Environmental Emission per Unit Generation (tonne/GWh) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 370.09 329.03 0.03 0.01 0.51 0.750 24. UPEEE Foundation page 16 of 16 .418 SOX 167.984 30.40 0.916.625 166.01 0.882 164.68 429.0544 0.142 29.2638 3.264 200.500 132.212 174.9785 3.01 0.494 23.01 0.41 0.02 0.18 2.02 10.858 2.53 0.38 0.37 0.036.153.956.41 0.447 153.062 118. Inc.58 11.4234 3.438 1.485 45.48 0.430 46.291 CH 4 283 321 358 402 456 439 479 517 559 634 NMVOC 1.40 0.055 1.746.307 2.03 3.0575 0.69 4.25 3.785 1.19 2.44 0.199 32.91 372.258 34.97 319.45 0.465 36.13 373.118 31.01 0.596 2.720 234.887 168.03 0.052.04 0.04 0.0536 2.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.0555 0.0554 0.0670 PhP/kWh 3.686 246.38 0.01 NMVOC 0.828.151 31.106 170.03 SO X 3.0495 3.679 188.065 2.654 Environmental Emissions CO 21.052.42 0.599 1.18 2.515 212.0550 0.75 2.01 0.263 44.16 2.0228 3.050.0593 0.6854 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.0542 0.4e: Environmental Emissions (tonne) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 19.03 0.09 1.47 0.096 27.508 29.90 406.284 27.04 0.68 10.0622 0.30 3.03 Environmental Emissions CO CH 4 0.546 36.03 0.355 Table D.739 26.777 Particulates 19.34 9.733 174.186 1.479 3.02 0.00 1.885 23.644 34.42 0.00 Particulates 0.31 358.343 31.073 174.9923 2.39 0.44 0.139 288.01 0.566 800.425 2.04 N2O 0.50 0.511.294 38.01 0.248 42.81 2.01 0.294 244.67 NOX 2.771 3.79 385.32 2.814.997 56.52 329.02 0.03 0.196 3.754 NOX 111.130 20.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful