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

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

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

...........62 Figure 5............................................................................1 Figure 5..........66 Fossil Fuel Consumption for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario......60 Figure 4........74 Figure 5....15 CO2 Emissions for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario..........69 Coal and Oil-Based vs...........................19 Fuel Consumption for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario......................POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Figure 4...73 Figure 5...............3 Figure 5......................78 Figure 5....................................... Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario........78 Figure 5......17 Energy Mix for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario ...........................................13 Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario...............................................................................12 Energy Mix for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario........................11 Installed Generating Capacity for the HEGS-MWPP Scenario............................13 Coal and Oil-Based vs....................16 Installed Generating Capacity for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario.....................................10 CO2 Emissions for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario ...66 Coal and Oil-Based vs...77 Figure 5......................................................................................................9 Installed Generating Capacity for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario................................................................... UPEEE Foundation page iv ............75 Figure 5.67 CO2 Emissions for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario.....................12 Fossil Fuel Consumption for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario................8 Figure 5.......74 Figure 5.............67 Installed Generating Capacity for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario.......79 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas....................................65 Energy Mix for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario ...... Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario .......73 Figure 5........................................2 Figure 5.................................................................................................................6 Figure 5.......71 Figure 5......................................60 Figure 4...5 Figure 5..................................... Inc..........................18 Coal and Oil-Based vs.......69 Energy Mix for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario .............20 CO2 Emissions for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario............. Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario ...........70 Figure 5........................................................................................14 Fossil Fuel Consumption for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario...........11 Share of Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy in the Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario ............70 Fossil Fuel Consumption for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario...............4 Figure 5.............7 Figure 5........ Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario .......................77 Figure 5...............................................................................................................

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

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

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

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

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

2282 2.2282 2.150 – 1.04 49.0794 0.0494 0.400 1.800 1.0193 0.53 0 36. UPEEE Foundation page 2 .2: Typical Capacity Factors of Power Plants and Levelized Generation Costs1 Power Plant Type Geothermal Coal (Pulverized coal plant) Coal (Pulverized coal plant) Hydro Oil-fired steam turbine Natural gas combined cycle Oil-fired gas turbine Wind Without ancillary services With ancillary services Diesel Capacity Factor (%) 88 82 82 57 54 54 31 30 30 9 Levelized Generation Cost $/kWh PhP/kWh 0. $/kWa 17 – 20 11 – 14 14 – 18 14 – 16 30 – 35 44 – 45 20 – 25 40 – 70 44 – 45 29 – 38 14 – 18 Fuel Cost. $/kWa 850 – 1. Inc.56 73. Actual industry discount rates may be higher depending on the following factors: required equity return.0405 0.93 32. (c) fuel cost.000 – 3.8174 3.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.4376 12.800 1. Screening curves (costs per kWh vs.750 – 1.750 – 1. Table 1.000 450 .1059 0.2277 1.200 – 1. including: (a) investment cost.7153 5.5219 1 A discount rate of 12% was used to derive levelized generation costs. and (d) the level of generation (also called capacity factor). capacity factor) were developed based on the life cycle of each power generation technology and the four economic factors mentioned above.3644 6. market risks.1 below shows the costs used in this study.500 1.250 2.1101 0. Table 1.000 – 1.12 0 0 3.0602 2. country risks and availability of financing.500 700 – 900 Annual Fixed O & M Cost. (b) operation and maintenance cost.40 9.0405 0.10 11. $/MWh 41.68 Table 1.0557 2.0512 0. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.8236 4.1: 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. years 30 20 20 20 30 30 20 50 30 50 20 Investment Cost.0625 0.550 700 – 900 550 – 650 1. regulatory risks.

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

POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 195. The Philippines power sector largely depends on geothermal energy to meet the demand and energy requirements of the country. and competing uses to be viable for large-scale power generation.771 to 4.731 billion cubic feet (BCF).931 MW. which generated a total of 10. If this pushes through.e.3 Historical Performance of the Philippine Power Sector The performance (in terms of reliability. Using the second screening criterion similar to that use in the wind resource assessment. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. The Philippine government is considering plans to develop a local natural gas industry. cost and environmental emissions.323 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..200 MW that could generate about 8. Of all the biomass resources in the country. This include considering only sites with power density of at least 500 W/m2. a re-analysis of the NREL wind mapping data was conducted. A few natural gas finds in the Philippines have been made. with a combined estimated reserves of 2. an estimated capacity of 1. This accounts for 14% and 22% of the total installed capacity and total generation. UPSL considered only bagasse from sugarcane processing as practical resource for grid connection.442 GWh. In addition to existing geothermal power facilities. the most significant of which is that found in Malampaya and San Martin in Palawan.e. This first criterion reduced the number of wind sites to 2. Inc. construction of transmission lines) will cost up to 25% of the total life-cycle cost were considered.200 GWh of electricity per year. (i. Other biomass resources are still facing problems or issues like collection. Only those sites whose connection (i. The application of the second criterion further reduced the number of sites to 1. A second criterion that relates to grid connection costs was also used.092 with an aggregate potential of 14. storage. In 2001. respectively in the country. the UPSL identified 236 small hydro sites in the country with an aggregated capacity of about 2.308 MW.404 MW potential. 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.935 GWh annually can be obtained from additional verified geothermal sites in the Philippines. For the purposes of this study. 1. A re-analysis of the NREL small hydro resource assessment was also conducted. UPSL estimates the electric power potential of bagasse at 235. total geothermal installed capacity amounted to 1. This potential is spread all over the country where sugar centrals are situated.. Additional screening criteria were imposed to determine practical and viable wind power sites. UPEEE Foundation page 4 .7 MW. local natural gas production would be supplemented by imported natural gas.038 with 7. Selecting only the sites with capacities of 5 MW or more as criterion.) of the Philippine power sector from the period beginning 1991 to 2001 was also assessed in this study.

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

236. This explains why the emissions of the power sector almost doubled in only 11 years. on the other hand.00 per kWh. there is difference of PhP 1. This considerable difference can be attributed to the cost of distribution and to the PPA of IPP’s that sell electricity directly to the distributors.222 tons in 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. the shift is only towards the use of coal. generation share from oil-based power plants declined from 49. Accounting the changes in oil and coal.49% in 1991 to 62. Its contribution increased almost ten times from 1.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. it can be concluded that that non-renewable energy have remained greatly dominant over renewable energy as source of fuel for power generation. many power plants were installed even though there were already excess generation capacity in the system.279 tons in 1991 to 10. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. 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. and not towards the utilization of renewable resources. Comparing the average rate of NPC with that paid by the consumers. particularly those owned by electricity distributors like Manila Electric Company (MERALCO).00 per kWh. the net increase in CO2 for the 11-year period is 73%. Looking into the energy mix to link the environmental performance of the power sector.471. UPEEE Foundation page 6 . In addition. It is also worthwhile to note that with the existence of the Non-NPC IPPs (permitted to operate through Executive Order 215).71% in 2001. Over the period considered.082. coal contribution increased more than fivefold. which range from PhP 4. from 8% in 1991 to 40% in 2001.665 tons in 2001.00 to PhP 3.00 to PhP 6. particularly the NPC. decreased by 21 percent from its level of 9. coal power plants are the major contributors.9% in 1991 to 21. CO2 emissions from oil-based power plants. This scenario allowed the continued dominance of non-renewable fuels. Inc. renewable hydro share decreased from 20% to 5% over the same period. Clearly. However. For the CO2 emissions.9% in 2001. 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 emits more greenhouse gases.338. The share of non-renewable sources in the energy mix even increased from 57. 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.541 tons in 1991 to 7.

In terms of reliability.4 Scenarios under the Philippine Energy Plan 2003 . it is still unrealistic to expect that cost of electricity in the Philippines in the near term will decrease under this scenario. Total installed capacity of 14. Although this is expected to decline to 22% by 2012. 124. PDP for the Low Economic Growth Scenario The PEP.16/kWh. respectively for year 2003.263 billion cubic feet (BCF) of natural gas. The increase in demand will be met mostly by increases in coal power plants (3. environmental emissions and costs were calculated similar to that of the historical performance assessment. Oil-based and natural gas plants will contribute 17% and 26% to the CO2 emissions. To meet the energy requirements. with the continued dominance of coal plants. 91.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 1.2 million tonnes of coal would have to be imported. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.142 GWh in 2003 to 106.632 GW for 2003 will increase to 20. the planned capacity additions will result in high reserve margins. operations and maintenance and fuel would require a total cost $ 23. The environmental emissions resulting from DOE’s generation plan for the low economic growth scenario would result in an increase in CO2. 65 MW wind and a 40 MW geothermal capacity additions. based on the low economic growth projections of NEDA.775 MW). the reserve in 2003 will be 66%. No additional capacity addition for natural gas is expected in the period. The contribution of non-renewable energy sources to the energy mix.5 MMBFOE of oil and 80.430 GWh in 2012) over the entire period at an average rate of 7. This scenario will require $ 29. Inc.5 million barrels fuel oil equivalent (MMBFOE) of oil. The increase in the share of renewable energy generating capacity will come from a 795 MW large hydro. renewable energy’s share will decrease to only 22% in 2012.3 million tonnes. natural gas and oil-based sources in the energy mix which is 34%. Reliability. on the other hand will increase by 24%. UPEEE Foundation page 7 . this scenario would require 124.706 MW by 2012. respectively. Total CO2 emissions for the DOE plan for the low economic growth scenario is 309. Geothermal plants will contribute only 2%.500 MW) and oilbased plants (1. The increase in the use of coal will account to contributing 55% of the total CO2 emissions for the period. 24% and 4%.9 million tonnes of coal and 1. Of these amounts. shows that energy generation will increase by 93% (55. From a share of 37% in 2003. While the generation cost for this scenario is estimated at PhP 3. Capacity additions.368 million in abatement cost. SOx and other emissions. For example.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. These emissions will be the direct result of the share of coal. 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.57% annually.828 million (UPSL estimate at 2002 present value).

1.470 GWh in 2012 (213% increase for the 10-year period) c) Reserve Margin: d) Energy Mix: 25% (minimum) to 65% (maximum) Coal Oil R.632 MW in 2003 to 22. 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. Inc. and will require $ 32.16% in 2003 increase to 47% in 2012 . .E. 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.5% in 2003 increase to 16% in 2012 . The following performance indicators can be expected if this scenario push through: a) Installed capacity: 14. nor the scenario for the low economic growth. capacity addition and utilization of renewable energy (geothermal. PDP for the High Economic Growth Scenario The DOE also prepared a power development plan based on high economic growth projections of NEDA.995 million in abatement cost.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. increasing by 195% from 2003 to 2012. Total installed capacity of wind power plants is allowed to reach a maximum of 5% of the peak demand. greenhouse emissions is expected to further soar. within the planning period. wind and hydro power) and natural gas plants are given priority over that of non-renewable plants for power generation. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.556 GWh in 2003 to 118.5 Clean Power Development Options for the Philippines Using the clean energy technologies and resources. UPEEE Foundation page 8 . These strategies are the following: • Moderate Clean Power Development (CCPD) Plan In this plan. 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.24% in 2003 decrease to 17% in 2012 With the continuous decline in the share of renewable energy.756 MW in 2012 (56% increase for the 10-year period) b) Energy generation: 55. Notably. biomass.37% in 2003 decrease to 20% in 2012 Natural gas .

Considering the investment. The share of renewable energy in the energy mix will increase from 37% to 41%. however.000 GWh annually) for the next twenty years.763 MW in 2003 to 5. this plan will save $235 million in the planning period. Inc. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. that these reserve margins do not take into account the ancillary diesel engines. which serve as frequency regulating plants for the wind 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. Moderate Clean Power Development (MCPD) Plan To meet the demand of the Low Economic Growth Scenario. which is PhP 3. This will translate to a 72% total share of clean energy in the energy mix by 2012. Cost penalties for intermittent power plant capacity beyond 5% (based on peak demand) was also imposed to account for the additional ancillary services.685 MW in 2012) and the natural gas plant capacity by 117% (from 2. For all the plans.450 MW in 2003 to 8. as compared with the PEP. The share of coal and oil in the mix will be reduced by about 11% at the end of the period. O&M and fuel costs.6 million tonnes. The total cost calculated for this plan is $23. the capacity additions starts only in 2008.800MW natural gas power plants (maximum generation of 23. 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. only the power development plan to meet the Low Economic Growth Scenario of the PEP 2003 – 2012 is presented.16/kWh. Total CO2 reduction as compared with the PEP is 44. The plans that correspond to the High Economic Growth Scenario are detailed in Chapter 5.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines • Aggressive Clean Power Development (ACDP) Plan For this plan. The natural gas contribution will also increase from 24% to 31%. This average generation cost is even cheaper than that of the PEP Low GDP scenario.12/kWh. In this summary. UPEEE Foundation page 9 . Assuming a five-year lead-time for the planning to commissioning of the additional power plants. This translates to a 69% total installed capacity for the combined natural gas and renewable energy plants. respectively. Note.983 MW in 2012). It was assumed in these plans that the local natural gas industry will be able to supply fuel for up to 3. this plan will increase the renewable energy plant installed capacity by 95% (from 4. from the period 2003 to 2012. This plan will reduce the GHG emissions and abatement costs for the Low GDP Scenario by 14% and 21%.592 million and the average generation cost is PhP 3. the strategy is to utilize all the practical renewable energy resources where possible without caps. the 2003 to 2007 capacity additions were based solely on the PEP list of committed projects.

respectively. To avoid significant amounts of GHG emissions in the future. This study has assessed the technologies and resources in the Philippines that could be tapped for clean power development. There are even opportunities that can create additional dollar income from carbon trading and local employment. This will translate to a 79% total share of clean energy in the energy mix by 2012. This translates to a mitigation cost of $0.67/tonne of CO2. small hydro. This study also offers two alternative paths (moderate and aggressive) through the alternative clean power development plans. This translates to a 79% total installed capacity for the combined natural gas and renewable energy plants. Considering the investment. the Moderate Clean Power Development Plans are viable greenhouse gas mitigation option for the Philippines offering so many University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.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. natural gas importation may be pursued.450 MW in 2003 to 11.881 million and the average generation cost is PhP 3. the ACPD plan will increase the renewable energy plant installed capacity by 159% (from 4. In addition.763 MW in 2003 to 5. The share of renewables in the energy mix will increase from 37% to 48%.383 MW in 2012). With the current price of CO2 at $2 . this plan will create an opportunity for the country in the carbon market. The share of coal and oil in the mix will be reduced by about 20% at the end of the period. The total cost calculated for this plan is $23. This is comparable to the PEP Low GDP scenario. These alternative plans are comparable to the PEP in terms of costs. from the period 2003 to 2012.16/kWh but five centavos (PhP 0.$10 per tonne.17/kWh. O&M and fuel costs.05) per kWh more expensive than the Moderate Clean Power Development Plan due to the additional ancillary services for the intermittent wind power supply. This plan will reduce the GHG emissions and abatement costs under the PEP Low GDP Scenario by 18% and 27%. To support power switching. new natural gas sites must be identified and developed. The natural gas contribution will also increase from 24% to 31%. 1. Inc. At the current CO2 prices ($5 per tonne) in the market. wind and natural gas technologies.520 MW in 2012) and the natural gas plant capacity by 95% (from 2. which is PhP 3. UPEEE Foundation page 10 . 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. this plan will cost an additional $41M in the planning period compared to the PEP low GDP plan. the country has to resort to biomass. 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. While the PEP has tried to address these problems.

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

These plants must “feed-in” the Grid at minimum prices that will guarantee the returns of power developers. simplification of custom procedures and importation of consigned equipment) will be available for renewable energy 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. 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. 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 The cost of such an expansion should be borne by the transmission or distribution utility. 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. tax exemptions. operation and control of nonconventional. Inc. An assistance program should be created for renewable energy development. renewable energy-based power plants... income tax holidays and tax credits) and non-fiscal (e. • • University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. This may include subsidy for resource assessment and feasibility studies for serious developers of renewable energy. particularly on the required technical analysis and compensating equipment. 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.g.g. UPEEE Foundation page 12 . The Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) should allow such an expansion even if it does not initially show recovery of investment.

In 1994.130 7.094 100.509 9.246 Total 50.190 226.359 1.800 6.801 3. Oil TOTAL EQUIVALENT CO2 EMISSIONS * does not include emissions from biomass Source: The Philippines’ Initial National Communication on Climate Change CO2 47.544 1.094 7. of total net GHG emissions in the country.774 55.157 CH4 1. given that clean energy technologies and resources are available.330 954 245 14.038 10.140 2. the energy sector accounted for 50. Agriculture B.548 ktonnes of CO2 for the Energy Industries for the year 1994.87 227 217 10 50.403 31. Residential 6.497 15.038 ktonnes of the 100.1: 1994 Philippine Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector (equivalent ktonne CO2) SECTOR Energy Industry Agriculture Waste Land Use & Forestry TOTAL EQUIVALENT CO2 EMISSIONS CO2 47.2: 1994 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Philippine Energy Sector* (equivalent ktonne CO2) SECTOR A.890 3.335 N2O 717 0 12.335 10.458 8.603 33. Commercial/Institutional 5.59 216. the power sub-sector represents a large opportunity for carbon emissions reduction and sequestration. Inc. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. accounts for more than thirty (30) percent as a result of the burning of fossil fuels.185 3 CH4 1. Energy Industries 2. Of the energy sector GHG emissions. or roughly 47 percent.811 15.596 0 -2.72 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. Although it ranks only second to the transport in terms of GHG emissions. as shown in Table 2.738 ktonnes.369 4. Coal Mining 2. UPEEE Foundation page 13 .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. as shown from Table 2. Transport 4. Fugitive Emissions from Fuels 1.335 15.985 7 20.980 15.1. the energy industries.529 2 N2O 717 40 347 43 0 285 3 Total 49. Table 2.738 Source: The Philippines’ Initial National Communication on Climate Change Table 2.2. mainly the power industry. The UPSL came up with 13.368 2.759 11 170 45 1 1. Fuel Combustion Activities 1. Manufacturing Industries 3.

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

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

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

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

Solar Energy. which.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 5.000 per installed kilowatt. Newer plants are actually achieving efficiencies greater than forty percent. • Distributed energy technologies Unlike centralized generating units. sometimes requiring around $3.000 to $4. this would have a relatively low impact on emissions reduction. and thus. integrated gasification combustion cycle (IGCC) systems and coal-fueled diesel engines. Inc. For most fuel cells. Solar thermal engines make use of solar concentration systems. hydrocarbon fuels need to undergo a process of reforming to produce hydrogen. Solar radiation may be converted to electricity by using solar thermal engines or photovoltaic cells. Clean coal technologies are costly. 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. 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. • Fuel cells Fuel cells are devices that convert fuel and oxygen to electricity and heat by means of an electrochemical reaction.000 per kilowatt of installed capacity. UPEEE Foundation page 18 . ranging from $2. 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. Greater local control of the system and waste heat utilization lead to higher energy efficiencies. concentrates the power of the sun. • Clean coal technologies Coal in itself is considered not a clean fuel because of the relatively high levels of carbon dioxide and pollutant emissions resulting from its combustion as compared with other fuels. less GHG and air pollutant emissions. Fuel cells have efficiencies ranging from 40 to 60 percent and could achieve very negligible carbon and air pollutant emissions when paired with carbon separation technologies. Photovoltaics. convert solar energy directly to electricity in a solid-state device called the solar cell. which is the form of fuel required for the electrochemical reaction to take place. Many such technologies have been demonstrated in various countries but still remain not widely used because its high investment costs are quite prohibitive. with sizes ranging from a few kilowatts to a few megawatts. to generate high enough temperatures to heat and boil water to drive steam engines. Despite its unfavorable environmental reputation. as the name implies. however. Costs are prohibitive. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. on the other hand. distributed energy technologies are small and modular. But since this type of plant is normally used for peak load applications. coal is still widely used around the world for power generation because it is abundant and cheap.

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

5.equivalent to an annual average wind power of 300 W/m2 or greater12 (wind speeds of 6. amounting to 97. between Mindoro and Panay (including the Semirara Islands and extending to the Cuyo Islands). the northwest tip of Luzon (Ilocos Norte). Negros.000 installed capacity. 2. 3. Financial and Economic Implications of Wind Energy Applications for Power Generation. Leyte. hub height = 40 2 m.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 2. The NREL study identified six regions in the country where the best wind resource in the country are located.000 sites in the country. Panay. The study. well-exposed east-facing coastal locations from northern Luzon southward to Samar. the Batanes and Babuyan islands of north Luzon. Samar. Assessment of Technical. would more than double total installed capacity to 173.600 MW of installed capacity and generate 195. with good to excellent resource levels .600 MW bringing the total estimated power generation from wind to 361. which will then be subsequently used for the generation of power switching scenarios. capacity/km = 6. the higher interior terrain of Luzon. 6. (1994).4 m/s or greater). Including sites with moderate wind resource levels. These are: 1. 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.9 MW. occupying a total area of 11. eastern Mindanao. however. 13 Assumptions used by NREL to come up with estimates are: 500 kW turbine size. 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. The NREL study identified around 10. 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. the wind corridors between Luzon and Mindoro (including Lubang Island). According to the study13. rotor diameter = 38 m. The following sections will quantify the amount of clean energy resources in the Philippines. Cebu. 4.2 Resource Assessment The technologies described above would be rendered useless without the energy resource required to run them. 14 UNIDO. UPEEE Foundation page 20 2 .000 GWh/yr.055 km2 or roughly 3.200 GWh/yr. and adjacent islands. 12 In one of the NREL scenarios. Mindoro. turbine spacing = 10D by 5D. Inc. In contrast to the optimistic estimate of the NREL. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.34% of total Philippine land area. was not able to include factors such as transmission and grid accessibility constraints in the assessment. Palawan. these sites could support at least 76.

Second is the connection of the wind farms to the transmission grid. this system is used to power up a relay station of the Philippine Telegraph and Telecommunications Company (PT & T). 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. Inc. that the PNOC-EDC was required to put up 42 kilometers of transmission line and 130 transmission line towers/poles to connect to the nearest transmission line trunk. among which are the following: 1. Batangas in Luzon. A 10-kW system in Pagudpod. Transmission facilities are quite far from the wind sites. A 3-kW system in Bantay. 4. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. In tandem with a diesel generator. 2. It was commissioned in 1996. project proponents were able to obtain very lenient and attractive financing schemes. 3. Project proponents claim that they will be able to sell electricity at prices below that of the grid. there are more than 500 wind pump and 9 wind turbine installations in the country. All wind turbine installations are of the stand-alone type. Further. A 25-kW system in General Santos in Mindanao. that for the NLWPP. which they used to obtain financing. which required the developers to collect at least two-years of wind speed measurements. 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. These wind facilities will both be located in Ilocos Norte. Ilocos Sur in Luzon. respectively.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Despite the vastness of wind resources in the country. current utilization are mostly to run wind pumps and a few small-scale turbine generators. It is significant to note two issues that developers of these two wind power projects had to address. First is the absence of site-specific wind assessment data. Two committed wind projects are expected to contribute a significant amount of electricity to grid. A 25-kW stand-alone system in Picnic Grove. Ilocos Norte in Luzon.75 percent for consulting services) and a 40-year repayment period (inclusive of a 10-year grace period). Tagaytay. It is in operation since 1994. Proponents of these projects were able to secure power purchase agreements with the local distribution utility. which are scheduled for commissioning in 2006 and 2004.95 percent for goods. At present. This is a pilot project of the National Power Corporation to electrify a number of households. UPEEE Foundation page 21 . 0.

404 23.397 Philippines 2. To compute for transmission cost. km 2 Potential installed capacity.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines For the purposes of the present study.038 1.363 44.3 and 2. Power density of at least 500 W/m2.092 2.132 7.527 7.206 14.363 MW.047 Number of sites Total area. The transmission line components to connect the site to the existing grid will not exceed 25% of the levelized cost of the combined generation and transmission cost.168 6.4 summarize the results of the re-analysis.738 Mindanao 47 49 336 1. km 2 Potential installed capacity. UPEEE Foundation page 22 . Tables 2. the UPSL computed for the linear distance between the wind site and the nearest existing substation.277 Visayas 305 330 2.699 Table 2.5 to adjust for topography and other factors that may affect the routing of the transmission system. This distance was multiplied by a factor of 1.437 Visayas 360 385 2.1. The application of the second criteria further reduced the number of sites to 1. as well as its corresponding estimated electric capacity and annual generation.381 35. Locations of these sites are shown in Figure 2.400 MW potential.755 11. Inc. with an aggregate potential of 14.900 15. 2. GWh/yr University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Table 2. MWe Estimated Annual Generation.865 Mindanao 64 66 455 1.032 Philippines 1. The first criteria reduced the number of wind sites to 2.668 1. MWe Estimated Annual Generation. Appendix A identifies the provinces where these wind resources are located.038 with 7.4: Practical Wind Resources in the Philippines (with wind power density ≥ 500 W/m2 and transmission cost constraint) Luzon 686 753 4.3: Philippine Wind Electric Potential (with wind power density ≥ 500 W/m2) Number of sites Total area. a re-analysis of the NREL data was conducted by the UPSL using the following criteria to screen for viable wind power sites: 1. GWh/yr Luzon 1.092.

032 GWh Figure 2.277 GWh Visayas Number of sites: 305 Potential Installed Capacity: 2.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Luzon Number of sites: 686 Potential Installed Capacity: 4.168 MWe Estimated Annual Generation: 6.738 GWh Mindanao Number of sites: 47 Potential Installed Capacity: 336 MWe Estimated Annual Generation: 1. Inc. UPEEE Foundation page 23 .1: Practical Wind Resources in the Philippines (with wind power density ≥ 500 W/m2 and transmission cost constraint) University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.900 MWe Estimated Annual Generation: 15.

i. The DOE has verified a number of these small hydro sites. the UPSL identified 239 small hydro sites in the country with an aggregated capacity of about 2.2 shows the location of the sites selected.e. Table 2.8. An additional screening criterion was used. These resulted to the elimination of three sites from the small hydro resource pool. By the end of 2001. Run-of-river systems. while Figure 2. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.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 .104 GWh. a total of 2. a number of large hydro sites in country to be used as candidate power plants for energy planning.518 MW of hydro power is installed in the Philippines. with an annual production of 7. selecting sites with capacities of 5 MW or more. 15 Impoundment dams involve the impounding of a large volume of water in or upstream of power plants by use of reservoirs or dams. In addition to the existing hydro power generation facilities. 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. as listed in Table 2. This water may then be used to augment supply during low flow periods and thus ensure a relatively constant supply of power. make use of the natural flow of a rivers as head.. Kalayaan and San Roque. Using this criterion.5 lists down identified sites for large hydro16. These hydro power facilities range in size from 1 to 360 MW and includes reservoir type (dams) and run-of-river systems15. are committed projects.6 and 2. 17 As per WEC definition.7 shows the results of the application of the criteria mentioned above. Inc. 16 Two of these sites. on the other hand. Tables 2.327 MW. The UPSL made a re-analysis of the small17 hydro resource assessment made by the NREL.

338.3 Negros Oriental Negros Oriental Aklan Antique 33 17.387.9 44 300 68 841.9 3.6 93 45 175 24 332 350 113 12 52 to 250 45 42 34 345 27 21 2.5: Available Large Hydro Resources Site LUZON Abuan Addalam Agbulo Aglubang Amburayan Bakun A/B Binongan Catuiran Diduyun Kalayaan PS Kanan Lamut Matuno Nalatang Pasil B/C Saltan A/B San Roque Tanudan D Tinglayan B Total Luzon VISAYAS Pacuan Sicopong Timbaban Villasiga Total Visayas MINDANAO Agus III Bulanog-Batang Lanon Hydro Lake Mainit Liangan Pugo D/BA Pulangi V Tagoloan Total Mindanao Lanao del Norte Bukidnon South Cotabato Agusan del Norte Lanao del Norte Agusan North Cotabato Bukidnon 225 150 21 22 11.140.189.6 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. Inc.8 29 29 108.3 to 3.8 Province Estimated Capacity (MW) 60 46 360 13. UPEEE Foundation page 25 .POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2.6 to 2.

0 4. UPEEE Foundation page 26 . GWh/yr Table 2.308 12.2 Camarines Norte Eastern Samar Samar Iloilo City Negros Oriental Zamboanga del Norte Agusan del Norte Zamboanga del Norte North Cotabato Zamboanga del Norte University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.0 5.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2.0 1.0 3. MWe Estimated Annual Generation.7: Practical Small Hydro Resources in the Philippines (sites with power capacity ≥ 5 MW and transmission cost constraint) Luzon 131 1.6: Philippine Small Hydro Electric Potential (sites with power capacity ≥ 5 MW) Luzon 134 1. MWe Estimated Annual Generation.4 10.786 Visayas 9 58 305 Mindanao 96 978 5.140 Philippines 236 2.272 6.0 4.8: 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) 1.6 28.4 3.140 Philippines 239 2. GWh/yr Table 2.4 14.0 1.686 Visayas 9 58 305 Mindanao 96 978 5.327 12.231 Number of sites Potential installed capacity.131 Number of sites Potential installed capacity. Inc.8 7.8 44.0 4.291 6.

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

UPEEE Foundation page 30 . Inc.2 3.935 GWh can be obtained from the verified geothermal source candidates in the Philippines. which are like associated with the use of biomass fuels for large scale power generation. In 2001.6 17. 700 MW.200 MW and energy of 8. there usually remains a considerable amount of this waste material. and 120 MW come from Luzon. Very small.6 127. In addition to existing geothermal power facilities.8 32. bagasse has traditionally been used in large quantities.1 14. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. if any.0 22.7 TOTAL PHILIPPINES Geothermal Power The Philippines power sector largely depends on geothermal energy to meet the demand and energy requirements of the country. Visayas and Mindanao respectively. storage and competing uses. additional geothermal resources could be expected in the future as the Philippines has nearly used most of its geothermal resource sites.8 235.442 GWh. 380 MW. which the mills have to dispose. Unlike other biomass fuels.7 7. particularly to fuel boilers in sugar mills.9 5. an estimated capacity of 1.10: 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. Table 2. total geothermal installed capacity amounted to 1. Despite sugar mills’ own use of bagasse for fuel.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Because of problems with such issues like collection. Of the total estimated capacity. respectively. as listed in Table 2.931 MW and geothermal generation was 10.11. accounting for 14% and 22% of the total installed capacity and total generation. this study only looks on the potential of bagasse for grid-connected electricity generation.0 4.

the most significant of which is that found in Malampaya and San Martin in Palawan26. with a combined estimated reserves of 2. 26 These are proven fields. Inc.731 billion cubic feet (BCF). 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. 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. Table 2. Cabalian Leyte Optimization Biliran Mt.771 to 4. local natural gas production would be supplemented by imported natural gas that would come from the Trans ASEAN Gas Pipeline to meet demand.11: Available Geothermal Resources for Power Generation Name LUZON Bacman I Rangas Tanawon Manito Montelago Daklan Mt.200 Negros Occidental Negros Oriental Leyte Leyte Biliran Central Leyte Central Leyte Zamboanga del Sur Davao del Norte Natural Gas A few natural gas finds in the Philippines have been made. The Philippine government is considering plans to develop a local natural gas industry. UPEEE Foundation . 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. Source: PEP 2002-2011. If this pushes through.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2. page 31 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.

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. For example. Wind and hydro plants do not require fuel but do not run at full capacity due to availability of resources.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2.538 243 Resource Size (BCF) Prospective 3.210 1.760 518 2.13 include only the costs of the technologies but not the associated site-specific costs that could be more expensive than the plant itself..158 322 637 Maximum 4. Clearly.340 359 4 7. The fuel costs in Table 2. Mathematically. the total investment costs vary with site preparation and the required transmission lines to enable the plants to deliver power to the grid.760 hours University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. in general entail high investment costs. 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.277 454 2.13. Screening curves can be developed to determine the optimum power generation plan considering these four factors. 29 Capacity Factor (CF) refers to the percentage of the rated capacity of the power plant used for 8. Being site-specific. O & M27 and fuel costs28 comparison of the different types of power plants are shown in Table 2. and (d) the level of generation (also called capacity factor29). renewable energy-based power plants have to address these issues that will ultimately determine the viability of the power projects.13 lists for different fuels used for power generation are based on typical power plant efficiencies. the economics of power generation technologies depends on several factors. The fuel costs used in this study do no include import duties.594 2. energy production (kWh) CF = × 100 plant capacity(k W) × 8. The costs shown in Table 2.760 hours (i. (c) fuel cost.3 Cost Comparison of Power Generation Technologies The investment. For fossil-fuel-based power plants.060 1. the prices of fuel are likely to differ at the time this study is released. Using these curves.e. 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. namely: (a) investment cost. Renewable energy technologies. 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. UPEEE Foundation page 32 . In general. it is notable that the technologies that require low investment normally require fuel with high cost. one year).720 60 176 78 11. Inc. renewable energy-based plants have high investment costs. (b) operation and maintenance (O&M) cost. Furthermore. In addition.

56 73. medium or low capacity factor) could be determined/selected.500 700 – 900 Annual Fixed O & M Cost.68 From “ The Environmental Manual for Power Development”. transmission line and transformer costs.e. the prices of fuel are likely to differ by the time this study is released. $/kWa 17 – 20 11 – 14 14 – 18 14 – 16 30 – 35 44 – 45 20 – 25 40 – 70 44 – 45 29 – 38 14 – 18 Fuel Cost. These figures are intended only for relative comparison of the different power plant technologies. except for Clean Coal Technologies Considering the availability of the resource and reliability of the technologies.000 – 3. which will operate at high. “intermediate” or “peaking” plants (i.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines operate as “baseload”.93 32. These values show that electricity generation from renewable sources.800 1. on a life-cycle basis. O&M and fuel costs31 of the different power plant technologies. $/MWh 41.550 700 – 900 550 – 650 1. Inc. $/kWa 850 – 1.250 2.10 11. Furthermore. years 30 20 20 20 30 30 20 50 30 50 20 Investment Cost.13: Cost Comparison of Power Plants Type of Power Plant Oil-fired steam turbine Oil-fired gas turbine Oil-fired combined cycle gas turbine Diesel motors Pulverized coal-fired power plant Fluidized bed coal power plant Wind technologies Hydroelectric power plants Fluidized bed combustors (for biomass) Geothermal technologies Gas-fired combined cycle gas turbine (for natural gas) a Typical Economic Life.500 1.750 – 1. is competitive in comparison with conventional fossil fuel-based generation.750 – 1.800 1.000 – 1.04 49.. Table 2. Table 2.14 shows the typical capacity factors based on the investment30. 31 Fuel costs for oil. coal and natural gas do not include import duties.14 to satisfy the minimum offtake character of the IPP contracts.14 also shows the corresponding levelized cost of generation for each power plant type using the typical capacity factors. UPEEE Foundation page 33 .53 0 36.000 450 . 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. Geothermal steam and biomass fuel costs also vary.200 – 1.12 0 0 3. Deutsche Gessellschaft für technishe. depending on the site/environment.400 1. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. They are however useful in evaluating and developing energy plans.40 9. 30 Investment costs used in this study do not include site preparation.150 – 1. These values were used by the UPSL in the cost assessment of the power development plan prepared by DOE and in preparing an alternative plan for simulating the fuel-switching scenario for the Philippine power sector discussed in the following chapters. Table 2.

Inc.5219 32 A discount rate of 12% was used to derive levelized generation costs.8236 4. country risks and availability of financing.2282 2. regulatory risks.0193 0.2277 1.4376 12.1101 0.0602 2.8174 3.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%.0494 0. Actual industry discount rates may be higher depending on the following factors: required equity return.1059 0. market risks.7153 5.0625 0. UPEEE Foundation page 34 .0512 0.3644 6. meaning it will be used for load following and/or peaking applications.0405 0.0405 0.0794 0.14: 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 0.2282 2.0557 2. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.

costs associated directly with the production of electricity from various technologies and resources were discussed. emissions reduction policy. population density. Second. Sundqvist and P. externality costs differ among different districts. Inc.. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. From the values given. First. there is a pronounced difference between damage cost and pollutant cost values. By definition. The values were calculated based on the generic data recommended for power development analysis. 34 T. It should be noted that even though coal seem to have a lower CO2 emission level than conventional power plant types. 35 Jonathan Koomey and Florentin Krause.” 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. abatement costs are normally higher that damage cost estimates. In this study. are directly associated with effects that affect people’s welfare. a number of things could be noted.15 shows the value of various air emissions in California. Luleá University of Technology.17. however. Other air pollutant emissions for different power plants are listed in Table 2. among others. geographical and climatological conditions). Studies vary in their estimation of externality costs because of a number of factors. On the other hand. currently a leader in externality policy.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 2.16 shows the factors used in this study to arrive at the CO2 emissions of each type of power plant in tonne CO2/GWh.g. The abatement cost approach uses the cost of pollution control as a proxy to the true externality cost35. According to Koomey and Krause (1997). an externality is “an unpriced benefit or cost directly bestowed or imposed upon one agent by the actions of another agent”34.4 Environmental Externalities In the previous section. In the case of electricity generation. scope of analysis. UPEEE Foundation page 35 . “Pricing Power Generation Externalities: Ethical Limits and Implications for Social Choice” (one of the six self-contained papers included in Sundqvist’s Doctoral Thesis. the damage cost approach puts a value on the damages that may be directly attributable to a particular pollutant. abatement cost values for the North Coast of California. which has the lowest abatement costs among the districts. Table 2. externalities include various pollutants that cause damage to receptors such as human health. p. as published in the CRC Handbook on Energy Efficiency (1997). Power generation technologies. Except for particulate matter. were used to compute for the cost of externalities of the different scenarios. “Introduction to Environmental Externality Costs”. “Power Generation Choice in the Presence of Environmental Externalities. These effects are called externalities. These costs are what normally dictate an energy planner’s choice of which power generation technology to use. as determined by the California Energy Commission using both the abatement and damage cost approaches. 2002). Table 2. crops and property. “Pollution represents an external cost because damages associated with it are borne by society as a whole and are not reflected in market transactions. natural ecosystems. including site specificity (e. 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. Söderholm. 3.

53 0.72 0.59 DC – damage cost.05 Particulates 0. Sundqvist cites the 1992 Electricity Report by the California Energy Commission as the source of these data.47 3.28 4.44 1.07 AC 5.65 0. 2002).55 0.10 867.16: 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 45.42 1.99 4.06 0.88 9. p.20 2.57 1.02 Source: The Environmental Manual for Power Development.26 0.99 565.43 Ventura County DC 0.18 15.85 I 13.52 0.98 2.75 11.00 0.08 10.04 0.40 7.73 Environmental Emissions CO CH4 NMVOC N2O 0.71 San Diego DC 1.18 AC 4.06 0.02 0. NOx – Nitrogen Oxide.61 763.40 726. Inc.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 7.99 0.32 3.00 4.55 AC 13.00 0. “Power Generation Choice in the Presence of Environmental Externalities. Luleá University of Technology.30 6.88 Bay Area DC 2.02 0.83 0.71 9.10 8.00 2.64 2.52 1.76 3.03 0.84 1.08 0. CO – Carbon Monoxide. ROG – Reactive organic gases.05 0.31 AC 1.72 11.66 0.66 2.02 0.39 6.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2.71 5.04 Source: Computed from data give in “The GHG Indicator: UNEP Guidelines for Calculating Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Business and Non-Commercial Organizations.35 0.87 0.72 AC 5.75 0.4 6.10 0.99 4.00 0.12 12.02 1.34 1.05 1.03 0.98 Sacramento Valley DC 0.03 0.01 3.03 NOx 4.05 0.53 0.01 9.88 0.85 6.75 16.15: Value of Air Emissions Reductions in California 36 ($/pound of pollutant) District Pollutant South Coast DC SOx NOx CO ROG 4.96 I 2.03 0. I – internalized.82 713.78 1.37 12.02 0.07 AC 2.02 17.85 0.98 3.99 1.00 0. SOx – Sulfur Oxide.04 0. AC – abatement cost.51 San Joaquin Valley DC 0.01 0. Deutsche Gessellschaft für technishe 36 Lifted from “What Causes the Disparity of Electricity Externality Estimates?”.00 2.66 0.03 0.10 5.01 North Coast DC 0.37 0.74 2. one of the six selfcontained papers included in Sundqvist’s Doctoral Thesis.31 PM 31. 10.45 6. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.83 441.08 0.00 3. UPEEE Foundation page 36 . except for geothermal which was computed from DOE data Table 2.45 AC 11.01 0.03 0. and PM – particulate matter Table 2.

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

444 921 1.1).797 1998 11.725 12.184 GWh of the total 47. The system peak for the whole Philippines reached 7.735 33.835 MW in 2001). it also had the highest peak demand (5.176 25.579 1994 7.6%. are the biggest users of electricity (Figure 3.536 5.531 1. Visayas and Mindanao share the balance energy almost equally.132 4.226 5. Bulk of the energy demand and consequently the generation comes from the main island of Luzon. The industrial and residential sectors.2.452 1. and the whole of the Philippines. It should be noted however.071 25.013 12.290 2001 13. Both the economic performance and population growth remain as the main factors driving the consumption pattern of energy of the country.1.368 4.223 6. with 31% and 29% share respectively.339 952 1.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 2001.936 8.590 5.870 1993 6.849 41. the energy demand in the country was distributed among the three (3) main islands of Luzon.049 GWh energy generation which represents 77% of the requirements of the country.554 1996 9.196 5. the Luzon Grid consumed 36.7% annually for the 11-year period.875 8. Inc.851 1. Table 3.267 1.081 MW peak demand in 1991.901 12. whose demand grew by 108% from 1991 to 2001. or at an average annual growth rate of 7. environmental emissions.3% annually from 1991 to 2001 as shown in Table 3.477 8. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.543 934 1. Figure 3. that the industrial sector demand grew only by 5.682 MW in 2001.865 10.5% while that of the residential sector grew by 11.547 10. 3.345 45.708 1997 10.098 14.4 shows system peak demand of the power supply system from 1991 to 2001 for the Luzon.353 10.894 9. Visayas and Mindanao as shown in Figure 3.725 9. Significant also was the growth in the consumption of the commercial sector.395 721 1. 1991-2001 (GWh) SECTOR Residential Commercial Industrial Others Own Use Losses Total 1991 6. and cost. As shown in Figure 3. Visayas and Mindanao grids.649 1992 6.086 3. In 2001 for example.847 9.3.037 39.191 957 2.734 30.859 823 1.471 6.432 2000 12.340 6.754 41.132 4. respectively.713 47. This is almost twice of the 4.067 1.950 1.128 36.049 Geographically.154 4.684 762 1.390 6.249 4.512 13.1: Energy Consumption by Sector. Performance is assessed in terms of reliability.053 4.072 11. Visayas and Mindanao lag far behind with only 893 and 954 MW peak demand.578 1999 11. Data for the historical performance of the Philippine Power Sector is given in Appendix B.238 26. UPEEE Foundation page 38 .282 5. the gross domestic product and the population growth from 1991 to 2001 demonstrate a strong correlation with the consumption of electricity.167 1. With most of the industrial and commercial activities centered in Luzon.1 Historical Energy Demand and Installed Generating Capacity The Philippines electricity consumption posted a moderate growth rate of 8.042 2.459 1995 8.150 7.910 8.

402 MW in 2001 (Figure 3. 2001 120000 90000 80000 100000 70000 80000 GWH / GDP (x10M) 60000 60000 50000 POP (x1000) 40000 40000 30000 20000 20000 10000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 year Electricity (GWH) GDP (BPhP) Population (in million) 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 0 Figure 3.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Power Losses 12% Utilities Own Use 5% Others 2% Residential 29% Industrial 31% Commercial 21% Figure 3. the installed generating capacity in the country doubled from 6. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.2: Electricity Consumption.1: Electricity Consumption by Sector.5) This corresponds to the growth in demand that also doubled in the same period. Inc.789 MW in 1991 to 13. Gross Domestic Product and Population. 1991-2001 In order to meet the growing demand for electricity. UPEEE Foundation page 39 .

1991-2001 (MW) University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 40.000 35.000 15.000 30.000 45.000 10.000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 Luzon 1995 Visayas 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Mindanao Philippines Figure 3.000 GWH 25.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 50.4: System Peak by Grid. Inc.000 20. 1991-2001 (GWh) 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 Luzon 1995 Visayas 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 MW Mindanao Philippines Figure 3. UPEEE Foundation page 40 .000 5.3: Electricity Generation by Grid.

000 2. Hence.2 presents the reserve margin of the power system from 1991 to 2001. the National Power Corporation since the power crisis has adopted 1day/year LOLP. Today.000 0 1991 1992 1993 Oil-Based 1994 Coal 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Hydro 2000 2001 Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 3. There was not enough generating capacity.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 16.000 12. In the Philippines. UPEEE Foundation page 41 . University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. To analyze further the generating capacity vis-à-vis the system peak. 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. 1991-2001 (MW) 3. In other countries such as the U..000 14.5: Total Installed Generating Capacity by Source. Inc.S.000 6. This criterion is considered high but is needed to support their industries. the reliability criterion is very much lower compared to that in developed countries.000 10. This validates the clamor of the people regarding high electricity rates which is due to oversupply since most of the generating facilities are operating under the take-or-pay contract with NPC and other distribution utilities.2 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.A. The reserve margin based on dependable capacity shows that there is indeed a large excess generating capacity in the Philippines.000 4. the National Power Corporation has to resort to rotating “brownouts”. the generating capacity reliability criteria of one day per ten years (1 day/10 year) of Loss-of-Load Probability (LOLP) translates to about 20% reserve margin.000 MW 8. people complain of high cost of electricity allegedly due to over supply as there is “too much” installed generating capacity. Table 3. In developing countries.

The CO2 emissions increased by 74 percent while the rest of the air emissions increased by 10 to 169 percent. This part of the study has quantified the environmental emissions of the power plants in the country.989 2001 Level 18.949 1993 4.2: Reserve Margin.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines It can be concluded.816 11. The interruptions that the country has been experiencing can be attributed to the unreliable transmission and distribution systems.611 % Increase 74 64 150 29 54 10 103 169 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.789 1992 4. A complete list of emissions for each year from 1991 to 2001 is provided in Appendix B.908 12. that the generating capacity of the power system in the Philippines can be considered highly reliable.291 9.76 70.36 61.3. therefore.431 2000 7.3.209 35.402 66. Historical Environmental Emissions for the Philippine Power Sector (tonne) Environmental Emissions CO2 SO2 NOx CO CH4 NMVOC N2O Particulates 1991 Level 10.808 9.17 78.450 9. Table 3.729 146.075 842 29.76 37.212 1995 5.725 58.666 11.99 79. Inc.48 53.682 13.55 45.193 1997 6.726 16.45 85.400 13.46 8.185 2001 7.72 11.931 1999 6. Table 3.807 20.93 92.96 78.762 1998 6.732 1996 5.580. The environmental performance of the Philippine power sector from 1991 to 2001 is summarized in Table 3. UPEEE Foundation page 42 .352 11.60 83.124 587 975 415 10.621 7.296 6.18 74.687 8.233 115. 1991-2001 (%) 1991 Peak (MW) Installed Capacity (MW) Percentage Reserve Margin (installed) Dependable Capacity (MW) Percentage Reserve Margin (dependable) 4.762 189.91 3.014 1994 4.796 904 1.98 91.497 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.411.081 6.363 11.

Figure 3. In order to analyze the factors that brought about the environmental performance of the power sector.000. Over the period considered.49% in 1991 to 62.000. 1991-2001 (tonne) The share of non-renewable sources in the energy mix even increased from 57. it is necessary to look at the power development as measured by the energy mix.082.6 shows that the coal power plants are the major contributors in greenhouse gases.338. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Note from this figure how much the CO2 emissions decreased and increased with the generation from oil-based and coal power plants.000. The net increase in CO2 due to the changes in oil and coal is 74%. However.000 16. Figure 3. 20.000. Figures 3. Its contribution increased almost ten times from 1. The energy mix indicates the intensity of contribution of renewable energy resources as fuel for power generation. This scenario allowed the continued dominance of non-renewable fuels. Inc. The share of renewable sources.000.000 6.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines For the CO2 emissions.279 tons in 1991 to 10.8 show that nonrenewable energy have remained greatly dominant over renewable energy as source of fuel for power generation.7 and 3.000 2.665 tons in 2001.000.71% in 2001.000.000 tonne CO2 12. on the other hand.29% during the same period.9 shows how carbon dioxide emissions varied with the energy mix within the 1991 to 2001 period.000 14.000. The CO2 emissions however from oil-based power plants decreased by 21 percent from its level of 9.000.000 4. the percentage share of oil-based power generation declined by 58%.000 10.541 tons in 1991 to 7. decreased from 42. the share of coal-based generation increased by 427%.6: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type.471.000 18.000.000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Figure 3.51% to 37.236.000 8.222 tons in 2001. UPEEE Foundation page 43 .

the shift is only towards use of coal. Clearly. One thing to note. respectively over the same period. renewable hydro and geothermal sources share decreased by 25% and 1%. is the emerging use of natural gas. for 2003 to 2012). however.700 MW installed by 2002. With 1. 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. Inc. 1991-2001 (%) University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. and not towards use of renewable resources.063 MW of natural gas plant already installed in 2001 and another 1.7: Energy Mix. UPEEE Foundation page 44 . respectively. This leaves the percent share of non-renewable (coal and oil) to 61%. more energy generated from this source can be expected in the coming years. which despite being non-renewable is considered cleaner fuel for power generation. the percent share of cleaner fuels increased a bit from 37% (renewable only) to 39% (renewable plus natural gas). which is a cheaper fuel. Combining the generation from natural gas in the year 2001 with that of the renewable sources.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines In addition. (Chapters 4 and 5 discuss the scenarios under the DOE Philippine Energy Plan and UPSL alternative scenarios. This explains why the emissions of the power sector almost doubled in only 11 years.

000 20.000.000.000.000.9: Energy Mix and Carbon Dioxide Emissions.000. 1991-2001 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 18.000 5. Renewable Energy and Natural Gas in the Energy Mix.000 GWh 25.000 14.000.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Coal and Oil-Based Renewable and Natural Gas Figure 3.000.000 16. 1999-2001 (%) 50.000 4.000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro CO2 20.000 40.000 10.000 35.000. UPEEE Foundation page 45 .000. Inc.000 15.000 45.000 6.000 8.000 tonne CO2 12.000.8: Share of Coal and Oil-Based vs.000 2.000 10.000 30.000 0 Figure 3.

1991-2001 (PhP/kWh) 1995 1. Inc.58 1. the average rates consist of the actual operating expenses and the financing charges of NPC. respectively The average rates of NPC increased annually from 1991 to 2001. and the cost of which has to be paid off through the Purchased Power Adjustment (PPA).5 show the production cost of NPC and IPPs. 9136 (Electric Power Industry Reform Act) was enacted. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.47 1997 2. It is worthwhile to note that with the existence of the Non-NPC IPP’s (permitted to operate through Executive Order 215).20 0.70 Luzon Visayas Mindanao Philippines Generation Transmission Note: Generation and Transmission Rates assumed 76% and 24% of the average rate.02 0. UPEEE Foundation page 46 . For purposes of this study. The average rates and the estimated unbundled generation and transmission rates of NPC from 1995 to 2001 are shown in Table 3.77 1. This considerable difference can be attributed to the cost of distribution and to the IPP’s that sell electricity directly to the distributors. As a result.02 2.92 3.77 2. many power plants were installed without the benefit of proper coordination through the centralized planning of the NPC or the government. respectively.64 2000 3.63 0. there is difference of PhP 1.15 1. the law has mandates to reduce the rates of electricity in the Philippines. except for the year 2001 when R.52 1.68 2.96 1.84 2. In addition. It was noted that the average rates of NPC is for its bundled generation and transmission services.01 3.12 2.4 Cost of Electricity This study also assessed the power development in the Philippines by analyzing the cost of electricity. Interestingly.4: NPC Average Electricity Rates.00 per kWh.67 2.52 Year 1998 2.93 1.25 2.35 0.23 1.08 2.34 3.29 2.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 3.14 1.A. Table 3. IPP costs were always higher than NPC rates. Comparing the average rate of NPC with that paid by the consumers.37 0. many power plants were installed in excess of what was actually needed.08 2. Table 2.25 1. particularly that of the electricity distributors like MERALCO.65 2. The increase in rates is attributed to the economic performance of the country as measured the exchange rates and allegedly due to the take-or-pay contracts of NPC with Independent Power Producers (IPPs).75 2001 3. for the years 1995 to 2001 by fuel type.4. respectively. the rates of NPC were unbundled into 76% and 24% for generation and transmission.00 to PhP 3.44 1.28 1.49 0.85 1.90 2. which range from PhP 4.02 1.43 1996 2.96 0.00 per kWh.62 1999 2.00 to PhP 6.

0038 0.0276 0.0369 0.0233 Coal NPC 0.0281 0.0294 --0.0252 0.0367 0. N.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. Estiva and M.0394 0.0167 0.0431 0.0662 0. G.0195 0.0150 0.0270 0.0047 0.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 3.0110 0.0331 0.0177 0.0276 0.0067 0.0349 0. Inc.0254 0.0329 0.0137 0.0284 0.0462 Hydro NPC IPP 0.0281 0.0244 0.0366 0.0092 0.0302 0.0203 * Lifted from “Renewable Energy Prospects for Supplying Electricity in the Deregulated Market in the Philippines” by J.0125 0.0683 Geothermal NPC IPP 0.0230 0.0358 0.0386 0.0265 0.0326 0.0360 0. UPEEE Foundation page 47 . Guzman University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.0267 0.0303 0.0236 0.0212 0.0111 0.0538 0.0198 0.0428 0.0284 0.0100 IPP --0.0450 0.0232 0.0109 0.

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

23 5.138.27 1.80 5. Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.413.24 1.51 6.079.96 5.2 Gross Domestic Product Projections In the Philippine Energy Plan for the period 2003-2012.80 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2010 Note: GDP values for 2003 to 2006 are actual NEDA forecasts.23 5.80 5.732. 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.70 1.69 1.564.1: National Energy Planning Process 4.64 5. In this report.642. The GDP projections for the two scenarios. as well as the its corresponding growth rates are shown in Table 4.01 6.838.48 1.203.10 1.467. the DOE uses two economic scenarios from which to forecast future energy requirement of the country.70 6.11 1. etc.646.85 4. Table 4.387.44 5.80 5.09 1.51 1.1. Philippine Energy Plan Top-Down Approach Figure 4.29 6.311.74 1.91 1. the DOE estimated GDP values based on the average growth rates forecasted by NEDA.276.552.343.80 5.229.487. Oil.95 1.091.156.01 1.23 5.23 5.04 5. For 2007 to 2012.14 1.1: Low and High GDP Forecasts for 2003 to 2012 Year Low GDP GDP Growth Rate (billion PhP) (%) 1.23 5. UPEEE Foundation page 49 .82 1.57 5. Coal.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Generation Planning (DOE) Transmission Planning (TRANSCO) Distribution Planning (PUs & Ecs) Small Renewable Energy Projects Power Development Program Electrification Program Other Energy Sectors Planning NRE.59 1.62 1. Inc.60 1.80 5.737.23 High GDP GDP Growth Rate (billion PhP) (%) 1. the low GDP scenario will be referred to as the Low Economic Growth Scenario (LEGS) and the high GDP scenario as the High Economic Growth Scenario (HEGS).

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

These high reserve margins would translate to higher electricity prices during the period. this scenario is very similar to how the Philippine power sector performed historically.706 MW by 2012.775 MW and 3. which are more capital intensive. and renewable energy plants.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Installed Generating Capacity Total installed capacity for 2003 is 14. which is a more expensive fuel.3: DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the Low Economic Growth Scenario 40 In the PEP.500 MW.000 MW 10. No additional capacity addition for natural gas is expected in the period.632 GW and will increase to 20.000 20. the increase in demand requirement will be met mostly by increases in oil-based and coal plant capacities of 1. These figures just show the continued preference on the use coal over natural gas. For indicative plant additions. 25. Inc. committed and indicative capacity additions for each year in the planning period are given. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. amounting to 800 MW. UPEEE Foundation page 51 .000 5. The table also computes the capacity that would be required if the percentage reserve margin was kept at 20%.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. will be due to a 795 MW hydro capacity. Notable are the considerably high reserve margins for 2003 to 2009. Reserve Margin and Reliability Table 4. As shown in Figure 4. 65 MW wind capacity and a 40 MW geothermal capacity additions.3.000 15. Notably. respectively40. 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.2 summarizes the results of the UPSL’s calculation for the DOE’s plan for the LEGS.

5 tonnes of oil and 80. The combined contribution of coal and oil to the energy mix.208 GWh energy production annually. Imported fuel would cost $4.139 11. • share of imported coal is 87.5 million barrels of oil. coal.833 9. respectively.405 19. will supply 26% and 11%. and.565 17. 124. Clean fuels’ (renewable energy and natural gas) share in the energy mix decreases from 61% to 41% by 2012.423 12.632 15.033 Installed Capacity (MW) 14. 91. of the total generation.814 15.519 10.396 15.367 14.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 4.393 tonnes of coal would have to be imported41. respectively.224.5) for the planning period indicates minimal thrust towards more use of renewable energy sources and cleaner fuels. A look at the energy mix (Figures 4.756 20.615 15. this scenario would require 124. Contribution from wind sources stays insignificant for the whole period.440 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Energy Mix For the LEGS. Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements. natural gas and oilbased sources will supply 34%. UPEEE Foundation page 52 . the PEP expects that for the year 2003.3% of total consumption.777 20.6. From a share of 37% in 2003.015 16.865 16.277 11.120 15.869 13.813 14.800 MW capacity of 23. 24% and 5%.600 11. renewable energy’s share decreases to 22% in 2012.263 billion cubic feed (BCF) of natural gas for the whole planning period.332 13.576 16. Of these amounts. The breakdown of the fossil fuel that would be consumed in the LEGS-PEP scenario is shown in Figure 4. as it was in 2001.4 and 4.895.505 18.576 17. 41 This assumes that: local natural gas production can support 3. Inc. particularly geothermal and hydro. 2003-2012 Peak Demand (MW) 8.066 tonnes of coal and 1. on the other hand will increase to 59% in 2012 to from a value of 38% in 2003. • University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. of the total 55. Renewable energy sources.324 million.706 Percentage Reserve Margin (%) 66 59 52 42 33 29 27 24 24 22 Capacity Required for 20% Reserve Margin 10.143 GWh generation.2: Percentage Reserve Margin for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario.997 12.889 17.443 16.

UPEEE Foundation page 53 . Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.5: Coal and Oil-Based vs.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.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.

324. Average generation cost for the period is PhP 3.368. respectively. NOx and particulates for the North Coast of California. Total CO2 emissions for the period amounts to 309.1592 per kWh. Appendix C shows the amount of emissions for the whole planning period.828.137.189 $ 2.434 $ 9. Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: $ 11. As would be expected. SOx and other emissions.744.707.479.391. Inc. Total cost of abatement for this scenario is $ 29. Table 4. fuel. UPEEE Foundation page 54 . Table 3. These generation costs were computed from the values for investment.4 lists down the generation costs calculated for each year of the planning period. Geothermal plants contribute only 2%. Coal contributes 55% of the CO2 emissions for the period. as given in Chapter 1. the increase in the use of coal would result in an increase in CO2.292 $ 23. Generation Cost The present value of the costs calculated for the PEP-LEGS is given below.3 million tonnes. These do not take into account the effect on the generation cost by deals made with independent power producers. Oil-based and natural gas plants contribute 17% and 26% to the CO2 emissions. along with the assumptions used.71642.3 shows the values for the years 2003 and 2012 and Figure 4. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.376.7 shows the contribution of each type to the CO2 emissions.916 42 Abatement costs values in this chapter and the chapters that follow were computed using abatement costs for SOx . 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.454.

000 20.850 159.000 70.6: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario Table 4. UPEEE Foundation page 55 .821 295. Inc.712 21.000 60.000.000 10.611 489.778.647 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 30.3: 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 1.289 112.000 (tonnes) 50.000.432 2.000.000.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100.000 40.000 80.000.000.000 0 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 4.581 952 19.669.389 55.323 644 3.000.927 Year 2012 46.788 54.000.000.000 90.

000. UPEEE Foundation page 56 .000.000.000.0553 0.000 tonne CO2 30.0564 0.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4.2123 3.2548 3.3636 3.000.000.0554 0.0553 0.0564 0.0612 0.0574 12% 3% 2% PhP/kWh* 3.0601 0.1026 3. Inc.000 25.000 10.000.000 45.000 5.4: Generation Costs for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario.000 20.1229 3.000 35.0429 3.3072 3.1592 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.0409 3.000 40.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 50. 2003-2012 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average Assumptions: Discount rate Inflation rate Fuel escalation rate * $1 = PhP 55 Generation Cost $/kWh 0.0592 0.0568 0.0997 3.0584 0.000.7: Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario Table 4.000.000 15.0447 3.000.

470 GWh in 2012. 140000 120000 100000 80000 GWh 60000 40000 20000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4. with a minimum value of 26% and a maximum of 65%.756 MW in 2012.8 shows the expected generation under the HEGS. increasing more than 200 percent within the ten-year planning period.632 MW in 2003 to 22. A large part of this increase is due to the addition of coal plants. generation is expected to increase from 55.556 GWh in 2003 to 118.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 4. Reserve Margin and Reliability Similar to LEGS. Table 4. Figure 4. Figure 4. the percentage reserve margin in the HEGS is considerably high. UPEEE Foundation page 57 . corresponding to a 56% increase within the ten-year planning period. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Inc.8: Generation under the High Economic Growth Scenario Installed Generating Capacity Installed generating capacity would increase from 14.5 lists down the percentage reserve margins for the PEP Plan for the HEGS.4 DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario Energy Generation In the high economic growth scenario.9 shows how the installed generating capacity would change from 2003 to 2012.

POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25. Inc.106 Installed Capacity (MW) 14.000 MW 10.065 16.148 21.727 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.632 15.615 15.562 16.633 10.005 21.790 18.674 20.000 20.378 13.5: Percentage Reserve Margin for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario.560 12.155 20.865 16.756 Percentage Reserve Margin (%) 65 57 49 39 30 25 26 29 30 26 Capacity Required for 20% Reserve Margin 10.308 18.765 18.359 14.031 17.424 12.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Wind Demand (MW) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4.660 11.120 15.709 14.469 11.000 15.806 22.9: DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the High Economic Growth Scenario Table 4.854 16.563 13.883 9. 2003-2012 Peak Demand (MW) 8.000 5.423 15. UPEEE Foundation page 58 .

this scenario would require 184.12. Total cost of imported fuel is $5.5 million barrels of oil. Much of the increase in the share of non-renewable energy may be attributed to oil whose shares increase from 5% to 17%. and natural gas whose contribution ranges from 24% to 17% for the period considered. the share of non-renewable energy increases to 80%. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. The breakdown of fossil fuels that will be used in the HEGS-PEP scenario is shown in Figure 4.127 million. it is quite evident that dependence on non-renewable energy for power generation remains strong.10 and 4. 184.10: Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements. Inc.272 BCF of natural gas for the whole planning period.322.835.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Energy Mix From Figures 4.5 million barrels of oil 85. While the share of renewable energy declines to 20% by 2012 from 37% in 2003. Coal share remains very significant at 47% in 2012.211 tonnes of coal would have to be imported. 98.120 tonnes of coal and 1. UPEEE Foundation page 59 . Of these amounts.11. 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.

000 70.12: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000.000.000 90.000 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 4.000.000.000.11: Share of Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy in the Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario 100.000 60.000 20.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Non-Renewable Energy (w/o Nat Gas) Renewable Energy with Nat Gas Figure 4.000 (tonnes) 50. Inc.000. UPEEE Foundation page 60 .000.000.000 30.000 40.000.000.000 10.000 80.

064 21.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.211 111. the UPSL obtained the following shown in Table 4.758 $ 25. UPEEE Foundation page 61 .132 Generation Cost The PEP-HEGS Scenario will require the following costs: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: $ 12.6.751 283 1. Table 4.599 970 19.913 $ 2.294.779.165.6: 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 19.764.610 778 4.568.050.409 2. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.680.059.022.7 for energy generation cost for 2003 to 2012. Inc.236.317 326.820 61.843 167.059. greenhouse has emissions is to further soar.13 illustrates the contribution of each energy source to CO2 emissions resulting from the DOE plan for the HEGS.945 70.896 Based on the installed capacities and energy generation indicated in the PEP for the HEGS.2 million tonnes. Figure 4.995.829 631. Total abatement cost for the HEG-PEP Scenario is $32.225 $ 10.677 Year 2012 565. Total CO2 emissions for the period is 347. An estimate of the environmental emissions is provided in Table 4.076.

0543 0.0557 0.2889 3.13: Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario Table 4.000 tonne CO2 30.2021 3.0392 3.000 50.000.0612 0.7: Generation Costs for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario.4908 3.0573 12% 3% 2% PhP/kWh* 3.000.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 4.0542 0.0598 0.3646 3. 2003-2012 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average Assumptions: Discount rate Inflation rate Fuel escalation rate * $1 = PhP 55 Generation Cost $/kWh 0. Inc.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 60.0549 0.0640 2.000 10.0635 0.0582 0.000 20.000 40. UPEEE Foundation page 62 .000.0555 0.000.000.0175 3.1488 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000.9810 2.0553 0.0545 3.9853 3.

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

228 tonnes of coal and 154. 64. Inc. have lower capacity factors compared to coal power plants.945. respectively. the Moderate Clean Power Development option is applied to the Low Economic Growth Scenario.8 million barrels of oil.1. natural gas and renewable energy plant capacities would amount to 69% of the total installed capacity. By 2012. renewable energy plant installed capacity is increased by 95% from 4. Energy Mix The share of renewable energy for the LEGS-MCPD option would increase by 10% from the period 2003 to 2012.3. Of these amounts.502. which were used in this option to address the additional power and energy demand.4 BCF of natural gas for the whole planning period.279 tonnes of coal and 1. Reserve Margin The 2008 to 2012 installed capacity reserve margins for the LEGS-MCPD option for Luzon and Visayas fall within the LEGS-PEP range of 22% to 29%.685 MW in 2012. Total cost of fuel that need to be imported for this scenario is $ 3. For Mindanao. The energy mix and share of clean energy for the option are shown in Figure 5. Note also that wind power plants. which cannot be addressed with the low dependable capacity of its existing plants. Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements. The share of coal and oil in the mix would reduce by about 28% at the end of the period.554.1 LEGS-MCPD Scenario In this scenario. which were used in the PEP scenarios. This is shown in Figure 5. 73.060 million. this scenario would require 58. 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. Also. the reserve margin is quite higher at 42% to 48%. natural gas capacity would continue to increase until the end of the planning period. 58. Details of this scenario is given in Appendix D.4. Installed Capacity As shown in Figure 5. This is because more power plants are required to meet Mindanao’s energy demand. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. UPEEE Foundation page 64 .9 BCF of natural gas would have to be imported.2 and 5. however.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 5.450 MW in 2003 to 8.8 million barrels of oil.

592.1: Installed Generating Capacity for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario Environmental Emissions and Abatement Cost As would be expected.6 million tonnes of CO2 as compared to the LEGS-PEP.5 illustrates the CO2 emissions calculated from this option. 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. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Inc. GHG emissions from the LEGS-MCPD are much lower than that from the LEGS-PEP.053 $ 23.815 $ 0.000 MW 10. Generation Cost For this LEGS-MCPD.7 million tonnes.969.1235 The LEGS-MCPD will achieve a net savings of $ 236 million as compared with the LEGS-PEP.955. achieving net reduction of 44. Total cost of abatement of other emissions for this option is $23.000 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. The LEGS-PEP abatement cost is $6. UPEEE Foundation page 65 .508 $ 8.113.202 million.0568 or PhP 3.000 20.254 $ 2.479.723. Total CO2 emissions for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario is 264.166 million higher than that of the LEGS-MCPD.755.507. Figure 5.

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

000.000.000. UPEEE Foundation page 67 .000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Coal 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 5.000.000 10.000 5.000.000.000 35. Inc.000 30.000 20.5: CO2 Emissions for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000.000 30.000.000.000.000 (tonnes) 40.000.000.000 70.000.000.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 80.000 50.000 20.000.000 15.000 60.000 25.000 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 5.000.000 10.4: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario 40.

Total cost of fuel that is needed to be imported for this scenario is $ 2.523.9.520 MW in 2012.074. 1471. wind power plants take 20. Environmental Emissions and Abatement Cost The increased utilization of renewable energy resources. UPEEE Foundation page 68 .294. while importation of oil and natural gas stand at 57.2 million barrels of oil. This 159% increase in renewable capacity is largely attributable to the increase in wind capacity from zero in 2003 to 3.2 million barrels and 139. In this option. Mindanao’s average reserve margin.794 GWh in 2003 to 84. respectively. The mix of imported and indigenous fuel is shown in Figure 5. Figure 5. The total CO2 emissions for the period is 248.34 tonnes/GWh.6 shows the installed capacities for the LEGS-ACPD option.715. Reserve Margin For Luzon and Visayas. respectively.7 BCF of natural gas and 57.7 illustrates the energy mix resulting from the LEGS-ACPD option. The total CO2 emissions for each year are shown in Figure 5. brings the CO2 emission level at 321. brings the clean energy generation from 33.633. for 2008 to 2012.450 MW in 2003 to 11. Coal importation for this option reaches 58.40% of the peak demand.2 LEGS-ACPD Scenario In this scenario.4 million tonnes.8 shows the increase in clean energy share in the mix. Figure 5. which is 60. Fuel Consumption Total fuel requirement for the LEGS-ACPD is 66. Installed Capacity In this option.270 GWh in 2012.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 5.731 tonnes.480 MW in 2012 and the further increase in the utilization of geothermal and biomass resources.860 million. in this option. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Total cost of abatement for this option is $ 21. The 30% increase in renewable energy share from 37% to 48% over the planning period. Inc. renewable energy capacity is increased from 4.10. the Aggressive Clean Power Development Option is applied to the Low Economic Growth Scenario. the average reserve margins are 33% and 26%. Energy Mix Figure 5. is 53%.4 BCF. The average for the country is 34%.9 million tonnes less than the LEGS-PEP.175 tonnes of coal.

000 5.6: Installed Generating Capacity for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 5.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25.000 MW 10. UPEEE Foundation page 69 .000 15. Inc.7: Energy Mix for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 20.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Oil-based Hydro Coal Biomass Natural Gas Wind Geothermal Demand (MW) Figure 5.

000 70. Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario 90.000.000 (tonnes) 50.000 0 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 5.000.000.9: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.8: Coal and Oil-Based vs.000 60.000 40. UPEEE Foundation page 70 .000 20.000.000. Inc.000 30.000.000.000.000.000 80.000 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 5.000 15.000.11. UPEEE Foundation page 71 .564 $ 2. Renewable energy capacity accounts for 30% in 2003 and 39% in 2012.000.816.3 HEGS-MCPD Scenario In this scenario.10: CO2 Emissions for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario Generation Cost For this LEGS-ACPD.414.000.000 10. the Moderate Clean Power Development option is applied to the High Economic Growth Scenario.000.000. 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 40.000 30.000 20.000 35.0576 or PhP 3.000 0 2003 2004 Oil-based 2005 Coal 2006 2007 2008 Geothermal 2009 Hydro 2010 Biomass 2011 Wind 2012 Natural Gas Figure 5.132.057.012 $ 23.403. Installed Capacity The installed capacity for this option is given in Figure 5.880. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000. 5.000 25. Natural gas capacities are increased throughout the period and would account for the biggest share in installed capacity by 2012.1698 This scenario would cost $52 million more than the LEGS-PEP.671 $ 0.000.661.000.094 $ 8. Inc.603.

Generation Cost For this HEGS-MCPD.665. Total abatement cost for this option is $ 24. 70.349.124 $ 9.857 tonnes of coal and 342. Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements.781.778.347.1065 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.076.718.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 2012.12 shows the corresponding energy mix for the HEGS-MCPD option. computed cost values for the planning period are as follows: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: Average generation cost: $ 12. 73. Inc.271 tonnes of coal and 1.390. UPEEE Foundation page 72 . which is 63. this scenario would require 70.9 BCF of natural gas for the whole planning period.549.686. This difference is attributable to the inevitable higher reserve margin for Mindanao.4 million tonnes lower than the HEGS-PEP. Figure 5. renewable energy and natural gas contribution to the energy mix increases from 61% to 74% for 2003 to 2012. The total CO2 emissions is at 283. Of these amounts. while Figure 5.580.456 $ 0.15 shows the CO2 emissions resulting from the HEGS-MCPD option. Environmental Emissions Figure 5.322 million. Energy Mix With its installed capacities dominating. 64.030 $ 2. which falls within 35% to 48%.940.302 $ 24.8 million tonnes.7 million barrels of oil. Of this mix.769.807.7 million barrels of oil. Total cost of fuel imports is $ 3.8 BCF tonnes of natural gas would have to be imported.13 illustrates the clean energy mix.0565 or PhP 3. 2% is contributed by wind power plants.

POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25. UPEEE Foundation page 73 .12: Energy Mix for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Oil-based Hydro Coal Biomass Natural Gas Wind Geothermal Demand (MW) Figure 5.11: Installed Generating Capacity for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 5.000 15. Inc.000 20.000 MW 10.000 5.

000. Inc.000 (tonnes) 40.000 30.000 60.000. UPEEE Foundation page 74 .000.000 70.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 5.13: Coal and Oil-Based vs.000.000.000 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 5.14: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000.000.000 20. Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario 80.000 50.000 10.000.

UPEEE Foundation page 75 . clean energy share increased by 24% over the planning period.000.000 15. Reserve Margin With the inevitably high reserve margin of 45% to 51% for Mindanao.18 illustrate these changes in the energy mix. Installed Capacity The more aggressive use of renewable energy resources for this option results to a 50% contribution of renewable energy to the total installed capacity in 2012.000 25.000.000 35.000 20. the Aggressive Clean Power Development option strategy is applied to the High Economic Growth Scenario.000.4 HEGS-ACPD Scenario In this option.000. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Figure 5.000.000 30.000.15: CO2 Emissions for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario 5.000. Figure 5.17 and Figure 5. Inc. Energy Mix While oil-based and coal share in the energy mix decreased by 38%.000.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Coal 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 5.000 10.000 5.16 illustrates this.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 40. the country’s effective reserve margin ranges from 28% to 32%.

199.402.271 $ 25.824.583. UPEEE Foundation page 76 . 67. 72.288.567 $ 9. along with 59.5 BCF of natural gas for the whole planning period.560.1 million tonnes. computed cost values for the planning period are as follows: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: Average generation cost: $ 12.1 million tonnes lower than that for the HEGS-PEP. NOx and particulates for this option is 23. The cost of abatement for SOx .1647 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Environmental Emissions and Abatement Cost Carbon dioxide generation for the HEGS-ACPD option is shown in Figure 5.842.568 $ 0. All of the oil would have to be imported.19 shows the sharing of the imported and indigenous fossil fuels.182.791.638.0 million barrels of oil.7 BCF of natural gas.458.682 tonnes of coal and 1.0575 or PhP 3.20.139 tonnes of coal and 276.730 $ 2.584. Figure 5.532.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements.513 million. Cost of fuel imports is $ 3. Total CO2 emissions is at 275. Generation Cost For this HEGS-ACPD. this scenario would require 90.723. Inc.

000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Oil-based Hydro Coal Biomass Natural Gas Wind Geothermal Peak Demand Figure 5.000 5.16: Installed Generating Capacity for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 5. Inc.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25. UPEEE Foundation page 77 .000 15.000 MW 10.000 20.17: Energy Mix for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.

000.000 60.000.000 0 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 5.000 10.000.18: Coal and Oil-Based vs.19: Fuel Consumption for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 30.000 20.000.000.000 (tonnes) 40.000.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Coal and Oil-Based Renewable and Natural Gas Figure 5. UPEEE Foundation page 78 .000.000 50.000 70. Inc.000. Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario 80.

000 20.000 10.000.000 35.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 40.000.000 5.000. Inc.000.000 30.000.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Coal 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 5.000. UPEEE Foundation page 79 .000.20: CO2 Emissions for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000.000 25.000 15.

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

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

6. Private Sector Proposals Provincial Energy Plan Provincial Level Resource Assessment and Local Supply and Demand Balance City/Municipality Level City/Municipality Energy Plan Electrification Planning • • University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. This cost mechanism will ensure that all electricity consumers will share the cost of such a development.2 Transmission and Distribution Development Transmission and distribution infrastructure should be developed to increase access to renewable energy sites. The cost of such an expansion should be borne by the transmission or distribution utility. most of which are site specific. 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 National Energy Plan National Level Centralized System Planning and Integration of Provincial Plans Figure 6. particularly on the required technical analysis and compensating equipment. renewable energy-based power plants.1: Recommended Bottom-Up Approach to Energy Planning 6. Transmission facilities should deliberately be expanded toward locations of promising renewable energy sources. Inc. UPEEE Foundation page 82 . These plants must “feed-in” the Grid at minimum prices that will guarantee the returns of power developers. The System Operator should be allowed to procure ancillary services needed by the Grid to accommodate intermittent wind power and pass on the cost to all users of the Grid.3 • Rules and Regulation The Wholesale Electricity Spot Market (WESM) Rules must provide that intermittent and small-scale grid-connected renewable energy generation systems (such as wind. The Philippine Grid and Distribution Code (PGDC) must be clear on its requirements and procedures on the connection. operation and control of nonconventional. The Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) should allow such an expansion even if it does not initially show recovery of investment.

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

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

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

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

280 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.486 686 4906 15.922 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 2.1: 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.011 26 169 530 16 104 328 20 137 421 2 41 126 8 80 246 18 117 372 36 234 742 8 87 267 15 98 299 31 265 832 8 52 161 90 620 1. Inc. UPEEE Foundation page 1 of 4 .

Inc.3: Locations of Practical Wind Resources in Mindanao Province Agusan del Norte Agusan del Sur Camiguin Surigao del Norte Surigao del Sur MINDANAO TOTAL No.113 169 519 347 1. UPEEE Foundation page 2 of 4 .738 Table A.170 6.Appendix A POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table A.031 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.2: Locations of Practical Wind Resources in Visayas Province Aklan Antique Biliran Bohol Capiz Cebu Eastern Samar Iloilo Leyte Negros Occidental Negros Oriental Samar Southern Leyte VISAYAS TOTAL Number of Sites 24 41 20 6 1 30 2 12 52 26 48 10 33 305 Estimated Capacity Estimated Annual (MWe) Generation (GWh) 163 517 309 965 144 466 39 120 7 20 202 620 14 43 85 266 357 1.065 75 229 259 795 2. 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.

585 Table A. 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. Inc.258 6.Appendix A POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table A.4. Locations of Practical Small Hydro Potential Resources in Luzon Province Abra Aurora Benguet Ifugao Ilocos No rte Ilocos Sur Isabela Kalinga La Union Mountain Province Nueva Vizcaya Pangasinan Quezon Quirino Tarlac LUZON TOTAL Number of Sites Estimated Capacity Estimated Annual (MWe) Generation (GWhr) 20 196 1. UPEEE Foundation page 3 of 4 .671 6 35 184 3 34 179 15 181 110 4 26 951 3 28 147 19 179 941 1 6 32 129 1.030 1 10 53 9 79 415 3 32 168 3 22 116 4 40 210 8 72 378 30 318 1.5.

237 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Inc.692 7 7 18 18 53 279 26 137 58 305 69 363 230 1.6. 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 1.209 7 37 11 58 7 37 826 4.Appendix A POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table A. UPEEE Foundation page 4 of 4 .

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

Inc.547 10.254 2.267 1.667 6.339 952 1.223 6.238 26.862 6.600 2.942 1.725 9.132 4.212 9.066 7.086 3.340 6.167 1.363 9.578 1999 11.851 1.735 33.844 5.730 11. 1991-2001 (MW) Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Fuel Type Oil-based 3.030 5.568 4.791 2.700 5.301 2.931 1.109 4.914 10.649 1992 6.063 Geothermal 888 888 963 1.190 11.301 2.797 1998 11.512 13.444 921 1.042 2.929 19.927 Coal 405 405 441 550 850 1.894 9.290 2001 13.849 41.799 7.135 6.071 25.865 10.594 11.078 18.931 Hydro 2.425 5.554 36.870 26.963 3.341 3.452 1.590 5.949 7.543 934 1.390 6.442 5.477 8.150 7.536 5.910 8. 1991-2001 (GWh) Year Year 1991 Residential Commercial Industrial Others Utilities Own Use Power Losses Total 6.417 1.459 33.154 1.799 9.072 11.191 957 2.232 7.301 2.789 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 20 16 17 848 5.973 5.987 3.015 1.185 9.176 25.459 1995 8.183 16.840 7. UPEEE Foundation page 1 of 2 .870 1993 6.345 45.154 4.626 10.440 5.725 12.875 8.067 1.1: Installed Generating Capacity.579 1994 7.867 1.388 11.859 823 1.185 13.353 10.578 41.2: Power Generation by Source (1991-2001) (GWh) Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wind 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 25.696 11.819 1.963 Natural Gas 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 1.132 4.Appendix B POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table B.950 1.797 41.200 3.399 4.296 5.162 11.600 1.713 47.050 12.348 2.037 39.867 16.402 Source: DOE Table B.237 8.116 18.847 9.395 721 1.432 45.663 18.320 6.758 5.257 2.013 12.301 2.518 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 6.855 7.030 6.226 5.104 Source: DOE Table B.928 12.754 41.471 6.196 5.936 8.249 4.734 30.301 2.959 9.939 13.649 25.259 2.128 36.901 12.531 1.684 762 1.554 1996 9.335 5.493 3.368 4.839 4.432 2000 12.3: Energy Consumption by Sector.053 4.804 13.288 19.073 1.789 6.145 4.534 7.856 1.049 Source: DOE University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.567 13.290 47.155 2.707 39.931 1.301 2.708 1997 10.069 5.098 14.579 30.282 5.

094.067 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 10.459 1995 25.290 3.351.122.698 4.970 527.309 146.745 4.566 3.245 41.347 5.675 10.903 21.566.206 3.808 1995 3.807 CO 16.337 25.747 25.282 286.671 16.639 16.870 1993 19.705.119.396 18.084 4. 1991-2001 (MW) Year Luzon Visayas Mindanao Philippines Source: DOE 1991 3. tonne CO2 Year Oil-based 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 9.585.712.666 1999 5.081 1992 3.133 30.704 18.644 13.432 2000 34.290 2001 36.306 682 828 5.131.124 17.004 101.261 9.236.781 24.352 1998 5.652 4.127 1.519.578 1999 31.491.580.702 7.131.816 1997 4.5: Generation by Grid.555 30.413 258.283 15.872 6.038 973 1.633 130.233 11.991 5.554 1996 27.967 2.831 189.762 Table B.069 84.582 11. tonne Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Environmental Emissions CO 2 10.360 14.553.521.411.311 10.184 5.780 257.028 770 868 6.164 19.492 144.682 Table B.990 99.109 23.428.611 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.521.511 2.789 3.509.561 551 696 4.687.580.836 18.541 10.530 15.Appendix B POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table B.348 2.464 45.687 1994 3.414 162.649 Table B.232.864 26.273 1.159 13.848 164.521 18.989 12.116 20.076 2.036 4.547.552 135.794 13.896 136.351.231.908 2000 5.962 751.703 47.529 296.687.365 39.579 1994 23.076 792 805 904 NMVOC 975 1.222 Natural Gas 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.362 14.045 410 626 4.725 117.481 5.428.133 1.679 5.147 5.486 20.396 18.103.376 3.665 Coal 1.763 25. UPEEE Foundation page 2 of 2 .296 1993 3.175.563 127.964 114.755 4.029 36.238 106.820 474.083 18.773 727 852 6.882 149.553.441 5.131.448 16.580 27.726 67.159 13.233 11.338.082.797 1998 31.175 5.729 NOX 58.644 328.678 117.204 160.075 N 2O 415 436 421 469 541 610 711 742 644 734 842 Particulates 10.835 893 954 7.915 12.226 789 893 6. Inc.359 1.291 1996 4.616 28.343 41.530 15.932 154.649 812 939 7.928 278.920 591 780 5.585.727 29.708 23.796 CH4 587 643 685 835 963 974 1.902 2.566.688 3.164 19.6: Environmental Emissions.400 2001 5.242 1.547.286.679 8.556 404.250 473 573 4.854 6.708 1997 30.813 3.185.704 18.695 33.448 16.283 15.291 1.582 11.473 523 691 4. 1991-2001 (GWh) 1991 Luzon Visayas Mindanao Philippines Source: DOE 1992 19.411.733 24.004 906 1.808 Fuel Type Geothermal 261.090 16.049 19.671 16.062 1.674 480.403 1.762 SOX 115.4: Peak Demand.870.279 998.311 20.471.586 126.345 2.163 5.6: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Source.

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

254 1.997 12.958 8.319 12.2012) (2003 .707 1.548 11.592 1.1a: DOE Plan for Power Generation for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (GWh) Type Oil-Based Fuel Oil Diesel Coal Local Imported Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal Wind Others Baseload Midrange Peaking 2003 2720 2377 343 18629 2820 15809 13349 6324 14121 0 0 0 0 0 2004 3247 2747 500 18087 1101 16986 16017 6893 14975 153 0 0 0 0 2005 3127 2740 388 19953 1289 18664 17141 7928 15054 153 825 0 825 0 2006 2777 2701 75 24659 2216 22443 18210 7943 15092 153 746 0 746 0 69580 Year 2007 4318 4166 151 26446 2586 23860 19415 7968 15098 153 1551 1104 446 0 74948 2008 5117 4998 119 27561 2862 24698 20074 8001 15099 153 4433 2960 1473 0 80437 2009 5673 5499 174 29218 3200 26018 20260 8042 15095 153 7920 4028 3852 39 86360 2010 4577 4365 212 28828 3108 25720 20192 8069 15104 153 15713 10338 4881 495 92636 2011 3710 3580 130 27420 2789 24630 19965 8029 15103 153 24910 19206 5339 365 99290 2012 4015 3859 157 27606 2842 24764 20068 8038 15103 152 31448 25371 5545 531 106430 TOTAL 55142 59372 64182 Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 Table C. UPEEE Foundation page 1 of 16 .833 9.276 1.829 1.869 13.789 1.57% Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.084 1.31% 7.13% 7.95% 6.074 1.034 7.2007) (2008 . (2003 .855 8.139 11.519 10.168 1.377 1.277 11.813 14.459 1. G.830 10.673 1.161 9.503 9.912 2.26% 7.360 1.95% 7.91% 7.30% 7.39% NATIONAL Non-Coincident Peak 8.563 1.752 7.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.67% MINDANAO 1.1b: System Peak Demand Forecasts for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (MW) YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual Ave.033 7.814 15.007 1.58% VISAYAS 1.2012) LUZON 6. Inc.477 1.149 13.889 17.159 1.93% 7.041 7.R.275 7.

924 8.95% 6.103 9.057 98.31% 7.726 6.827 92.67% MINDANAO 6.2007) (2008 .675 46. (2003 .95% 7.26% 7.743 10.57% Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.016 9.13% 7.182 55.306 7.154 59.58% VISAYAS 5.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.274 7.740 7.875 53.024 85.539 69.506 74.420 11.30% 7. Inc.93% 7.391 71.342 8.604 42.2012) LUZON 39.686 7.072 49.801 8.497 9.660 61.1c: Electricity Sales Forecasts for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (GWh) YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual Ave. UPEEE Foundation page 2 of 16 .260 76.135 11.661 10.320 5.91% 7.452 7.735 57.564 80.754 7.892 7.39% TOTAL 51. G.258 6.870 66.170 6.2012) (2003 .411 9.548 64.R.

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 3.657 616 - 1.308 616 200 200 - 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 1.717 1.441 13.367 2.381 11.308 2004 2443 3758 450 3. UPEEE Foundation page 3 of 16 .207 616 200 200 - 2.831 15.817 2.781 468 431 281 281 281 281 281 281 182 182 300 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - Visayas Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 12 919 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking VISAYAS TOTAL Oil-based Coal Local Imported 200 - 250 - 100 250 - 200 250 - 300 350 - 400 350 - 500 350 - 600 350 - 1.807 616 200 200 - 1.707 616 200 200 - 1.308 2006 2443 3758 450 3.031 15.141 12.617 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.067 2.647 1.308 2010 1583 3758 450 3.141 12.907 616 200 200 - 2.607 616 - 1.141 12.308 2009 2233 3758 450 3.308 2007 2443 3758 450 3.308 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 11.208 616 200 200 - 2.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.604 546 - 1. Inc.267 2.308 2008 2443 3758 450 3.017 2.308 2012 1583 3758 450 3.796 12.308 2005 2443 3758 450 3.107 616 200 200 - 2.517 2.308 2011 1583 3758 450 3.217 2.131 13.

214 1.457 3.015 16.869 1.970 65 3.563 2007 3.763 3.763 3.340 4.706 Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.950 750 2.120 15. UPEEE Foundation page 4 of 16 .163 600 3.214 1.565 17.970 65 300 - 2.563 Philippines Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 2.363 2006 3.214 1.763 3.340 4.970 65 1.214 1.963 600 3.970 65 350 - 2.563 2008 3.505 18.930 - 2.163 600 3.340 4.970 65 550 1.865 16.970 65 - 2.970 65 400 650 - 2.163 600 3.214 1.490 3.300 1.340 3.163 600 3.405 19.563 2010 2.214 1.480 4.632 15.500 1.763 3. Inc.363 2005 3.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Local Imported Year 2003 3.214 1.763 3.381 4.381 4.130 4.650 750 2.519 1.350 1.763 2.363 2004 3.563 2012 2.163 600 3.756 20.214 1.963 600 3.615 15.970 65 2.963 600 3.970 65 150 350 - 2.763 3.563 2011 2.163 600 3.350 300 2.563 2009 3.950 900 Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking PHILIPPINES TOTAL 14.163 600 3.763 2.763 3.763 3.

190 Cebu Baseload Panay Baseload 990 Baseload Plant 100 970 7.200 5.500 2.150 Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.200 290 390 490 Mindanao Coal Baseload Plant Baseload Plant 200 50 150 370 420 570 1.440 Cebu Baseload Negros Baseload 50 50 50 50 890 Baseload Plant 150 870 6.100 2006 2007 Midrange 2008 Midrange 2009 Peaking 300 690 690 990 Panay Midrange Panay Baseload Cebu Baseload Negros Baseload 600 300 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 4.350 1.750 690 Baseload Plant 50 620 3.050 San Roque Hydro 2005 345 690 240 Diesel Plant from Luzon Midrange Plant 70 100 170 1. UPEEE Foundation page 5 of 16 . Inc.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.240 Cebu Baseload 4.890 Cebu Baseload Panay Baseload Bohol Midrange Baseload Plant 2010 Midrange Peaking Baseload Plant 2011 Midrange Baseload Plant 2012 Peaking 600 300 450 900 300 600 150 3.

927 8.939 Natural gas 21.918 Coal 10.599 168.465 5.051.449 685.464 Natural gas 104 125 134 143 152 157 159 158 156 157 1.887.991 33.965 83.113.792 8.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.030 2.840 51.833.896 9.086 8.941 384.850 20.1g: 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 137.866.828 345.429 181.669.100 8.450 295.536 Oil-based 12.158.477 203.531 14.894 22.963 15.086.536.722 685.495 685.958.635 582.985 42.1h: 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 78.491.307.988 213.870 225.416 21.163 437.229 8.937 148.876.203 265.571.611 309.220 8.821 2.177 92.660 169.820.273 7.317 211.503 1.803.402.908 32.676 6.770 25.491 97.093 679.820.340 238.939 26.316.712 117.242 75.865 683.304.764.816. Inc.644 7.330 25.855 246.797 3.844 147.869.289 159.185 32.188 139.249.762 94.313 685.462 27.453 Table C.265.113 283.011 2.788 1.803 103.609 10.785 39.324 28.687 16.837 18.821 2.928 31.460 34.422 335.802.060.829 222.993 46.827.125.410 40.778.812 32.297 33.577.251 128. UPEEE Foundation page 6 of 16 .493 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.171 29.289 28.962 16.897 189.114.676 685.600.019 TOTAL 112.897.091 57.095 Oil-based 2.532 39.151 243.573.927 8.352.568 115.452 685.188.776 3.045.631.921.710 128.303 265.633 164.032 392.809.951.275.020 289.317.410 89.652 182.088 TOTAL 159.782 13.519 TOTAL 18.521 36.534 8.760.076.624 7.138 38.1f: 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 641.808 40.435 81.849 7.279 28.445 Oil-based 21.982.997 Table C.975 14.201 30.922 Natural gas 5.103 21.936.497 195.680 489.284 24.981 303.177 685.264 8.061 35.855 133.388.528 31.

355 26.776 10.414 Oil-based 2.714 3.397 3.548 Table C.586 1.580 1.1i: Total CO Emissions by Fuel Type for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total for period Geothermal Coal 9.240 4.554 12.571 1.157 2.630 2.045 1.121 54.963 3.207 TOTAL 21.602 16.193 121.285 13.053 76.069 14.250 3.655 TOTAL 1.671 Table C.758 42.060 6.586 50.078 165.873 9.925 4.319 13. Inc.337 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.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 1.454 Oil-based 163 195 267 238 302 449 713 770 755 802 4.763 13.385 11.595 46.620 20.049 Natural gas 8.362 23.176 17.575 13. UPEEE Foundation page 7 of 16 .196 13.125 13.323 362.971 12.274 13.341 1.656 12.758 24.425 1.712 28.999 7.966 32.008 Oil-based 33 40 49 44 59 82 121 129 122 131 810 TOTAL 282 314 346 379 423 470 526 566 598 644 4.1k: 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 1.581 1.586 10.810 2.228 Natural gas 1.519 1.268 11.571 14.373 2.254 1.008 2.432 25.730 Natural gas 145 174 186 198 211 218 220 219 217 218 2.134 3.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.529 11.241 28.363 36.562 1.

122 1.620 274.02 0.03 0.387 TOTAL 19.02 0.04 1.700 24.03 0.02 0.41 4.66 429.89 4.917 17.353 55.52 3.160 25.03 0.52 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.698 3.78 346.399 1.140 1.42 0.47 0.35 2.84 3.89 2.647 338.140 22.67 2.36 390.589 9.01 0.42 0.35 0.78 CO 0.37 0.03 0.969 2.923 7.40 0.97 421.03 0.02 0.221 3.01 0.01 NMVOC 0.39 410.559 21.37 438.528 3.778 1.256 11.176 2.60 NOX 2.1l: Total N 2O Emissions by Fuel Type for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total for period Geothermal Coal 559 543 599 740 827 916 997 1.50 0.01 0.03 0.39 373.836 7.03 0.031 46.264 1.250 1.1m: Total Particulate Emissions by Fuel Type for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total for period Geothermal Coal 16.256 34.139 4.979 29.02 0.044 Natural gas 836 1.57 2.14 2.686 Table C.589 1.36 0.073 1.342 Natural gas 313 376 402 428 456 471 476 474 469 471 4.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.209 43.24 3.66 358.563 Oil-based 2.01 0.336 Oil-based 79 95 121 108 142 202 305 320 308 328 2.03 0.684 7.34 0.389 15.44 0.41 0.43 0.25 2.927 20.01 0.51 CH4 0.952 38.02 0.02 Particulates 0.15 4.02 0.216 1.03 0.39 0.275 1.46 0.072 7.01 0.39 0.01 0.013 1.268 1.858 29. UPEEE Foundation page 8 of 16 .55 338.653 49.771 53.394 15.69 2.244 26.01 0.45 2. Inc.01 0.03 N2O 0.97 2.50 SOX 2.466 41.008 TOTAL 952 1.06 3.514 5.49 0.175 1.257 1.424 1.01 2.1n: Environmental Emissions per Unit Generation (tonne/kWh) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Environmental Emissions CO2 340.973 33.50 0.02 0.995 Table C.50 0.02 0.003 1.

UPEEE Foundation page 9 of 16 .034 2.R.512 1.562 16.675 1.862 12.09% 8.400 1.469 11.186 NATIONAL Non-Coincident Peak 8.60% 8.194 1.2007) (2008 .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.891 2.90% 8.106 8.428 1.992 11.73% 7.2012) (2003 .359 14.438 10.804 13.92% 8.788 7.46% 8.424 12.630 1.94% 8.543 1. Inc.711 9.423 15.357 7.790 18.815 VISAYAS 1.809 1.176 1.23% Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. G.13% 8.2b: System Peak Demand Forecasts for the High Economic Growth Scenario (MW) YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual Ave.633 10.378 13.313 1.281 1.2012) LUZON 6.65% 7.099 1.081 1.883 9.953 2.186 10.757 1.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.22% 8.59% 7. (2003 .106 MINDANAO 1.014 1.994 8.

732 8.2c: Electricity Sales Forecasts for the High Economic Growth Scenario (GWh) YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual Ave.542 8.746 64.124 8.155 8.578 75.233 11. G.09% 8.658 66.2007) (2008 .015 11. (2003 .64% 7.148 97.R.711 77.465 8.149 8.814 60.474 69.46% 6. Inc.497 10.851 7.13% 51.888 51.187 71.848 9.807 6.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.814 43.90% 8.469 55.22% 5.104 81.59% 7.033 8.555 10.805 9.555 90.60% 8. UPEEE Foundation page 10 of 16 .888 8.363 59.266 104.847 12.300 6.73% 7.92% 8.094 55.938 7.23% Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.156 46.392 83.305 6.2012) (2003 .94% 8.314 11.2012) 39.355 5.

308 2009 2.763 2. UPEEE Foundation page 11 of 16 .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 1.867 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.381 11.141 12.707 616 200 200 - 1.067 2.557 616 200 200 - 2.796 12.141 12.758 450 3.758 450 3.857 616 200 200 - 2.583 3.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.308 2010 1.443 3.767 2.763 2.141 12.763 2.500 900 2.308 Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 2.205 907 65 2.763 2.717 1.604 546 - 1.205 907 65 2.443 3.657 616 - 1.763 1.758 450 3.860 907 65 2.357 616 200 200 - 2.583 3.763 2.763 2.017 2.510 907 - 2.308 2011 1.381 17.758 450 3.308 2012 1.205 907 65 2.443 3.658 616 200 200 - 2.205 907 65 2.007 616 200 200 - 2.300 1.308 2005 2.205 907 65 2.317 2.567 2.583 3.431 14.607 616 - 1.800 3.233 3.441 13.758 450 3.131 468 205 150 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 - 1.443 3.763 2.205 907 65 Luzon Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking 300 1.443 3.205 907 65 2.2d: DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the High Economic Growth Scenario (MW) Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Local Imported Year 2003 2.308 2008 2.758 450 3.205 907 65 2.647 1.758 450 3.300 750 LUZON TOTAL Oil-based Coal Local Imported 11.800 3.308 2004 2.763 1.817 2.308 2007 2.700 1.758 450 3.443 3.763 2.308 2006 2.367 2.758 450 3.758 450 3. Inc.881 16.

963 600 3.806 22.763 3.340 3.130 4.150 0 1.970 65 2.756 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.214 1.970 65 Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking 300 350 150 400 450 800 700 2.381 4.563 2010 2.214 1.214 1.563 2008 3.763 3.970 65 2.490 3.120 15.363 2006 3.155 20.970 65 2.000 4.632 15.963 600 3.865 16.563 2007 3.763 2.763 3.763 3.163 600 3.970 65 2. UPEEE Foundation page 12 of 16 .763 3.163 600 3.563 Philippines Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 2.214 1.163 600 3.250 750 PHILIPPINES TOTAL 14.970 65 2.250 0 3.363 2004 3.457 3.850 3.340 4.480 4.763 2.963 600 3.005 21.765 18.163 600 3.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Local Imported Year 2003 3.163 600 3.563 2009 3.615 15.214 1.163 600 3.970 65 2.930 - 2.500 0 3.869 1.519 1.970 65 2. Inc.214 1.381 4.970 65 2.214 1.340 4.763 3.340 4.763 3.763 3.163 600 3.065 16.563 2011 2.214 1.363 2005 3.563 2012 2.200 4.

200 4.070 8.850 2009 Negros Baseload Cebu Midrange Bohol Midrange Baseload Plant 900 1.300 2010 Midrange Baseload Plant 2011 Midrange 900 600 5. Inc.190 Cebu Baseload Panay Baseload Baseload Plant 50 720 3.2e: 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 1.100 2005 150 50 50 100 50 50 50 50 100 50 50 50 100 150 50 1.790 Cebu Baseload Negros Baseload Cebu Midrange 50 50 100 50 50 1.350 1.440 Baseload Plant 100 1.550 990 Cebu Baseload Cebu Midrange Negros Baseload Baseload Plant Midrange Plant 200 50 670 2.170 9. UPEEE Foundation page 13 of 16 .200 2.290 Cebu Baseload Bohol Midrange Baseload Plant Midrange Plant 100 50 870 6.140 940 590 290 440 Midrange Plant 100 2006 2007 Midrange 2008 300 690 690 Panay Midrange Panay Baseload Panay Midrange Mindanao Coal Baseload Plant 200 50 370 420 1.540 Cebu Baseload Panay Baseload 1.200 Peaking 2012 750 6.250 Midrange 1.150 Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.340 Baseload Plant Midrange Plant 150 50 1.

888 232.488.317 3.050.722 685.173 56.864 2.713 217.779 15.529 5.294.806.590 Table C.677 174.645.653 27.537 16.534.689 Oil-based 9.220 8.970.533 32.296 1.399.518 214.912.293 82.620.879 Oil-based 2.258.743.909 224.234.585 685.437 242.043 41.254 191.849 7.951.221 109.320 681.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.194 TOTAL 111.094 104.465.226 7.735.785.897.741 631.351 79.897.636 Natural gas 104 126 136 145 155 158 159 158 156 157 1.897 409.526 33.839 182.2g: 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 6.965 19.767 685.297 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.434 28.014 42.701 Natural gas 5.415 Natural gas 21.253.322 12.206 180.862 11.829 347.498 264.383 326.124 11.895 12.456 Oil-based 27.2f: 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 641.267 121.178.686 Coal 10.862.180 42.498 130.051 8.125.664.370.891 8.793 3.052 418.945 479.064 118.808 139.518 77.625 1.106.824 13.239 10.822 23.207 14.341 26.572.499 TOTAL 167.787.877.890.473 51.396 154.2h: 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 79.185 32.688 221.927 8.582 40.299 33.921.887 197.808 243.000 684.989.300 Table C.297 33.912 293.073.866 288.722 685.686 347.198 192.017 30.264 8.316 257.945 1.490 157.706 153.070 305.891 11.055 2.704.661 30.172 22.639 34.828.941 30.863.683 61.843 20. UPEEE Foundation page 14 of 16 .060.211 173.435 2.710 546.774 12.167.233 33.934.873 49.021. Inc.634 149.042 17.202 74.609 28.673 35.734.840.170 89.784 157.450 685.208.922 383.796 44.744.812 33.585 685.565.250 284.124 8.033 8.722 685.198.630 162.035 TOTAL 19.300.939 26.198.002 321.877 20.708 137.820.792.859 7.

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

758 3.287 4.671 92 170 16.312 3.661 1.011 3.952 3.763 1.214 80 65 16.983 1.763 1.189 609 205 956 12 80 1.912 647 250 128 1.963 2.138 2.287 3.267 2.583 3.205 25 12.146 647 250 188 1.763 907 1.163 2.227 2.491 2.127 4.871 5.758 3.213 5.255 12 20 2. UPEEE Foundation Visayas page 2 of 16 .758 3.925 112 520 18.758 2.682 547 108 997 1.213 5.214 50 65 15.895 2.985 5.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.263 4.583 1.942 112 850 21.491 2.869 25 15.797 525 14.917 4.213 5.931 2.189 559 205 956 12 50 1.519 14.012 647 250 148 1.547 3.419 609 205 1.266 73 100 100 2.763 907 2.711 4.763 1.871 1.213 4.694 609 205 986 12 80 20 1.758 3.011 1.415 12 40 2.633 2.313 4.758 3.213 2.831 92 315 17.763 907 2.429 545 205 916 12 1.758 3.061 3.283 2.697 4.383 977 2.269 647 250 228 1.971 3.053 3.763 907 2.758 3.383 2.758 3.759 2.732 647 108 997 1.216 63 100 80 2.860 25 11.531 3.624 2.422 400 14.205 65 12.214 25 15.558 12 80 2.763 1.775 2.011 1.804 509 205 956 12 1. Inc.942 5.763 1.583 947 2.678 547 108 997 1.1a: 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 2.510 11.491 1.101 629 205 1.941 605 205 1.491 2.211 650 15.205 65 12.283 1.583 2.917 4.763 907 1.066 12 80 40 2.923 2.398 647 250 228 1.583 2.862 647 250 108 997 2.404 130 12.652 3.491 2.971 3.963 2.983 2.418 112 685 19.901 655 205 1.467 12 60 2.652 3.781 4.758 3.002 3.752 3.697 3.747 4.658 12 100 2.404 235 13.971 3.782 647 200 108 997 1.149 559 205 956 12 1.116 37 100 60 2.512 2.963 2.213 3.194 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.971 2.191 3.

813 19.580 74.833.297 Hydro Biomass Wind Total 18.099 14.449 685.272 Total 55.784 15.249.281.837 15.1c: Power Generation (GWh) Year Oil-based 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.916.596 1.659 27.477 12.958. Inc.216 13.849 7.641 6.590 1.763 0 0 0 0 0 820 800 900 300 400 1.757 30.528 31.953 24.835 Natural Gas 13.263 14.076.215.928 7.757 846.324 6.456 758.896 9.061 27.383 Natural Gas 5.720 3.764 6.937 1.623.101 Fuel Type Geothermal 641.097 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 14.857 27.087 19.550 30.235 1.086 11.438 86.143 59.820.963 0 0 0 200 50 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 2.783 15.652 1.349 16.148 1.289 106.098 15.133.979.045.943 7.624 7.284 24.174.576 14.583 0 0 300 0 50 0 0 20 75 50 Coal 3.114.181 69.975 15.141 18.577.654 29.884 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 0 645 785 785 785 Wind 0 153 153 153 153 153 843 1.897.831 2.609 10.092 15.927 8.536.687 16. UPEEE Foundation page 3 of 16 .209 Total Addition Table D.001 16.415 20.589 27.158.333.710 18.085 16.011 2.017 17.020.952 3.579 1.906 27.152.644 1.388.1b: Annual Capacity Additions (MW) Year Oil-based Current Installed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3.893 7.571.060 33.931 0 40 0 0 0 90 130 340 180 70 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 2.452 685.943 27.121 14.816.100 18.313 1.113.210 19.869.089.1d: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.113.936.094.636 99.374 30.865 683.462 27.519 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 1.391 1.074 24.908 Coal 10.343 16.778.894 22.054 15.968 8.125.706 1.915 Coal 18.776 3.901.093 679.151.465 5.782 13.213 1.948 80.495 639.275.797 3.402.629 18.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.229 8.430 Table D.523 4.177 685.125.821 2.653 821.951 31.573.760.360 92.534 8.521 27.850 20.689 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.247 3.484 1.372 64.975 14.982.271 21.

01 2.37 0.34 0.01 0.397 943.06 0.03 0.01 0.12 3.88 SO X 2.936.83 1.927 20.06 0.462 27.02 0.160 25.70 304.584 2.424 1.25 2.05 3.013 1.14 2.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.28 0.966 32.03 0.137 171.981 3.630 2.275 1.36 390.008 2.10 3.01 0.03 0.32 299.30 0.04 3.42 0.09 314.89 2.24 3.712 117. UPEEE Foundation page 4 of 16 .04 1.17 2.84 3.535 Particulates 19.05 3.241 28.894 22.363 36.35 2.988 213.380 169.810 2.01 0.779 2.38 0.02 8.850 20.951 31.69 2.979 29.402.113 283.40 0.87 Particulates 0.36 0.029 NOX 112.654 29.897 189.157 2.03 0.01 NMVOC 0.19 3.289 159.01 0.937 148.97 2.39 323.152.42 0.429 181.362 23.06 0.66 358.952 27.275 Environmental Emissions CO 21.147 943.01 0.35 0.37 0.18 9.03 0.840 217.55 338.044 CH 4 282 314 346 379 423 470 443 470 497 536 NMVOC 1.43 0.36 0.10 3.778.06 0.03 0.726 215.317 164.06 PhP/kWh 3.52 2.03 0.01 0.901.50 8.06 0.06 0.31 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.02 0.238 N 2O 952 1.542 Table D.03 0.110 35.249.677 28.02 0.39 373.20 3.06 0.35 1.90 1.36 0.39 0.140 22.52 2.02 0.839 27.689 SOX 159.122 1.69 Environmental Emissions CO CH 4 0.355 26.06 0.442 34.599 168.373 2.01 0.32 0.06 0.78 346.46 0.061 27.113.528 31.251 128.451 943.01 0.73 1.589 775.536 27.581 1.1e: Environmental Emissions (tonne) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 18.422 217.05 NOX 2.06 3.954 180.03 0.151 243. Inc.02 0.1g: Generation Cost Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Generation Cost US$/kWh 0.687 38.757 30.973 33.758 32.98 10.1f: Environmental Emission per Unit Generation (tonne/GWh) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 340.03 N2O 0.982.39 0.650 218.41 0.27 Table D.284 24.215.06 3.916.

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

468 2.583 3.856 609 205 1.491 2.763 1.065 17.923 907 2.214 25 15.778 4.763 3.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.860 25 11.104 19.991 4.213 2.127 4.952 3.752 3.491 2.763 2.042 647 250 148 1.758 3.468 907 1.758 3. UPEEE Foundation page 6 of 16 .658 12 335 3.865 14.221 3.213 3.758 3.743 2.205 65 12.149 559 205 956 12 1.205 25 12.531 1.797 25 2.213 4.189 559 205 956 12 50 1.011 1.214 80 65 16.227 2.758 3.404 10 665 12.205 65 12.255 12 33 2.678 547 108 997 1.871 1.168 4.971 2.213 4.413 647 250 228 1.758 3.671 102 718 16.136 647 250 188 1.422 25 1.869 25 15.063 3.467 12 179 2.807 21. Inc.519 14.825 510 205 1.267 4.963 2.488 1.213 3.138 907 2.491 2.002 3.071 3.547 3.758 3.868 609 205 1.732 647 108 997 1.429 545 205 916 12 1.778 2.963 2.931 2.283 647 250 228 1.491 1.841 4.971 3.578 2.346 63 80 80 2.763 1.697 4.763 1.465 16.763 1.971 3.053 947 2.922 647 250 128 1.011 3.804 509 205 956 12 1.831 117 1.287 3.963 2.763 2.747 4.661 1.917 4.096 12 80 40 2.932 117 3.758 2.548 2.925 117 2.213 5.558 12 262 2.063 2.964 977 2.561 3.862 647 250 108 997 2.758 3.957 2.418 117 2.782 647 200 108 997 1.211 25 3.968 5.168 4.163 2.633 907 2.411 18.697 3.265 13.214 50 65 15.510 11.011 1.267 2.291 510 205 1.763 2.652 3.763 1.476 63 80 80 2.718 609 205 996 12 80 20 1.325 3.758 3.404 25 1.652 3.968 2.480 23.763 2.189 609 205 956 12 80 1.548 4.415 12 106 2.759 907 1.2a: 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 2.491 2.758 3.130 2.369 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.735 1.682 547 108 997 1.146 37 80 60 2.971 3.

659 27.790 1.229 8.953 24.778.654 1.528 26.927 8.655 20.936.011 2.764 4.079 2.534 21.896 9.085 Total 55.032.709 1.136 2.210 19.865 683.387 1.017 17.961.449 597.758.462 27.545.915 Coal 18.820.178.850 20.375 24.948 80.849 7.885 32.692 27.287 9.247 3.958.894 22.651 1.477 12.333.324 6.982.963 0 0 0 200 50 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 2.732 12.975 15.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.833.385 2.436.741 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 715 820 820 436 259 Wind 0 153 153 153 153 1.609 10.181 69.760.816.332 919.341 22.550 26.054 15.158.365 *includes capacities of diesel engines used as ancillary to wind power plants Table D.922 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 14.557.687 14.093 679.897.928 7.082 Natural Gas 5.249.545 16.121 14.361 10.125.776 3.177 685.141 18.931 0 40 0 0 0 100 150 340 280 150 2.437 86.2d: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type (tonne) Year Oil-based 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.778.720 3.452 685.797 3.676.856 14.245 Natural Gas 13.629 18.170 867.172.583 0 0 300 0 50 548 548 488 538 528 Coal 3.809 13.092 15.893 7.942 19.791.782 13.388.138 26.770 5.952 3.2b: Annual Capacity Additions (MW) Year Oil-based* Currently Installed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3.624 7.973 769.919 Hydro Biomass Wind Total 18.360 92.016.076.891 26.158 14.345 16.763 0 0 0 0 0 300 715 770 420 500 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 1.270 21.143 59.385 3.975 14. UPEEE Foundation page 7 of 16 .104 20.636 99.113.737.317 16.523 4.369 11.465 3.386 649.433 2.430 Table D.908 Coal 10.577.114.529 26.372 64.919 3.284 24.519 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 2.349 16.708 27.647 13.694 Fuel Type Geothermal 641.968 15.573.198 29.534 8.132.815 19.992.746 23.580 74.415 18.536.281 2.103.098 13.157.622 7.203.602 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.320.821 2.117 10.263 6.045.2c: Power Generation (GWh) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.289 106.943 7.087 19. Inc.704 1.

03 0.936.546 150.529 26.426 33.66 358. UPEEE Foundation page 8 of 16 .151 243.897 155.02 10.41 10.275 1.676.251 128.583 Particulates 19.020 22.125 985.859 NOX 112.73 1. Inc.113 232.35 0.2e: Environmental Emissions (tonne) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 18.30 0.05 3.122 1.41 0.03 N2O 0.702 32.05 3.33 0.241 28.06 3.13 SO X 2.48 1.01 0.63 271.442 21.37 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.675 146.06 0.01 0.475 31.01 3.979 29.355 26.982.43 0.160 25.14 2.894 22.37 0.00 0.04 1.36 0.06 0.06 0.528 26.00 0.01 2.03 0.54 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.00 0.39 0.38 3.249.93 1.157 2.150 312.737.54 261.107 Environmental Emissions CO 21.89 2.849 3.64 5.692 27.06 0.2g: Generation Cost Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Generation Cost US$/kWh 0.05 0.01 0.429 181.937 148.04 3.21 Table D.40 0.01 0.363 29.961.008 2.602 SOX 159.78 346.154 2.00 NMVOC 0.12 3.010 26.63 1.24 2.065 214.852 Table D.36 325.39 0.06 0.739 161.03 0.45 308.284 24.138 26.10 3.581 1.973 28.94 Particulates 0.23 3.34 0.26 0.23 0.00 1.362 23.03 0.679 2.712 117.223 151.02 0.06 0.373 2.927 20.289 159.301 985.2f: Environmental Emission per Unit Generation (tonne/GWh) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 340.462 27.891 26.113.810 2.013 1.073 N 2O 952 1.52 NOX 2.731 171.140 22.02 0.376 30.178.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.39 373.34 0.48 2.424 859.32 0.791.68 11.03 0.39 Environmental Emissions CO CH 4 0.778.03 0.35 0.03 0.75 1.42 0.407 2.311 525.906 CH 4 282 314 346 379 423 389 418 444 462 492 NMVOC 1.966 32.25 1.599 168.06 PhP/kWh 3.988 213.84 3.15 3.69 2.02 0.35 0.086 24.97 2.29 2.850 20.06 0.06 0.89 2.539 185.90 288.00 0.55 338.737 148.02 0.

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

163 7.163 2.581 2.971 2.547 3.511 1.691 4.763 3.658 69 2.797 565 16.491 2.758 3.758 2.011 1.763 1.763 2.189 609 205 956 12 80 1.491 2.733 6.832 2.941 2.491 2.652 3.205 25 12.687 109 2.163 2.682 547 108 997 1.163 4.767 3.467 49 2.931 2.267 2.987 4.583 3.027 977 2.011 3.658 89 2.652 3.205 65 12.429 545 205 916 12 1.163 3.832 717 200 108 997 2.860 25 11.227 2.011 1.583 2.869 25 15.022 3.434 1.581 605 205 1.163 6.519 14.763 1.758 3.211 690 17.963 2.333 4.971 100 904 22.183 7.703 907 2.412 3.422 440 15.862 717 200 108 997 2.758 3.491 2.383 907 1.971 3.661 1.404 130 12.963 2.892 2.763 2.291 629 205 1.404 275 13.922 717 200 128 1.822 3.963 2.758 3.341 655 205 1.022 3.758 3.197 4.804 509 205 956 12 1.763 1.583 4.817 4.758 3.122 717 200 148 1.041 4.138 907 2.491 1.383 3.205 65 12.732 717 108 997 1.276 37 100 65 2.971 3.883 80 364 18.433 7.763 1.871 1.301 3.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.763 2.357 4.433 2.163 7.214 25 15.763 1.149 559 205 956 12 1.817 4.758 3.476 63 100 85 2.043 907 2.678 547 108 997 1.071 3.116 100 574 20.367 2.073 947 2.007 1.759 907 1.214 80 65 16.534 717 200 228 1.189 609 205 956 12 50 1. Inc.694 609 205 996 12 80 20 1.783 80 150 17.971 4.214 50 65 16.3a: 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 2.971 3.383 4.945 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.758 3.526 73 100 105 2.663 717 200 228 1.510 11.518 100 739 22.733 2.763 2.758 3. UPEEE Foundation page 10 of 16 .311 717 200 188 1.809 609 205 1.176 12 80 40 2.183 2.287 3.

226 7.000 684.766 19.125.218.439 18.907 937.084 17.978 27.016 28.595 66.028 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 561 561 701 343 701 Wind 0 153 153 153 153 402 974 1.759 0 415 715 340 30 1.130 20.600 16.484.556 60.574 1.000 15.672 938 Table D.150 1.496 5.964 Natural Gas 13.450 685.103 16.745 912.019 814.320 681.208.042 15.934 17.928.932 7.984 30.141.115 100.126 15.585.615 4.169 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.463 2.828.163 30.420 4.931 0 40 0 0 0 100 230 390 280 70 2.807 93.239 10.107 4.555.128.891 8.640.963 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 2.458 14.051 10.694 2.734. UPEEE Foundation page 11 of 16 .897.050.885 23.859.448 Hydro Biomass Wind Total 19.534.315 118.110 2.263 72.973 27.664.858 1.763 0 0 0 0 0 820 1.777 34.153 85.496 14.791 23.465 37.158 14.471 Table D.458 Natural Gas 5.862.243 26.479 27.650 79.964 26.104 13.769 22.407.585 685.065 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 14.258.578 19.897.252.893 7.033.864 3.101 15.535 1.849 7.722 2.879 3.234.695.188.156.3b: Annual Capacity Additions (MW) Year Oil-based Currently Installed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3.573 1.252 2.672.874 109.893 18.991 Coal 10.779 15.317 Total 55.076 15.773.020 16.207 14.850 21.850 7.602 17.190 3.722 597.749 2.919 33.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.747 Coal 18.386 678.108 20.739 26.768 3.952 8.537 18.704.269 36.321 14.569.877 1.916.840.324 6.272 Fuel Type Geothermal 641.859 3.640.404 13.920.583 0 0 370 50 0 0 0 20 75 50 Coal 3.891 11.744.855.646 2.209 26.649 6.785.673 29.124 8.519 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 14.3c: Power Generation (GWh) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.3d: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type (tonne) Year Oil-based 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.106.700 750 200 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 1.208 14. Inc.146 29.946 20.503 42.349 16.226.756 31.671 14.367 2.

61 2.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.02 0.79 385.38 0.269 36.389 NOX 111.050.845 Particulates 19.06 NOX 2.15 2.01 0.04 0.21 2.264 200.04 0. UPEEE Foundation page 12 of 16 .430 43.862.9744 3.733 174.43 0.199 33.51 0.46 Table D.0622 3.500 132.24 2.372 842.97 1.71 8.44 2.0544 0.885 23.0578 0.68 429.98 Environmental Emissions CO CH 4 0.4193 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.02 0.10 2.887 173.03 0.916.677 42.04 Particulates 0.096 27.151 31.43 0.0542 0.163 30.307 2.3138 3.12 2.04 0.38 0.30 3.02 8.04 N2O 0.755 181.01 0.750 24.91 376.35 4.617 413.686 239.90 406.099 Table D.0603 0.156.42 0.0554 0.0541 0.48 0.03 0.062 118.099 214.50 0.506 45.0175 3.024 3.3g: Generation Cost Generation Cost US$/kWh PhP/kWh 0.32 2.566 674.03 0.141.01 NMVOC 0.39 0.03 3.17 351.596 2.01 0.166 37.37 0.0868 3.25 8.284 27.186 1.407.16 2.02 0.101 CH 4 283 321 358 402 456 453 509 540 592 655 NMVOC 1.559 3.266 191.3f: Environmental Emission per Unit Generation (tonne/GWh) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 370.130 20.01 0.268 674.274 3.859.777 34.359 842.3e: Environmental Emissions (tonne) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 19.10 354.9923 2.739 26.69 4.10 3.03 0.04 0.344 45.620 4.43 0.44 0.756 31.169 S OX 167.377 1.202 173.673 29.01 0.676 20.343 31.421 Environmental Emissions CO 21.546 36.45 0.055 1.01 0.50 0.304 36.0561 0.684 207.858 2.599 1.0495 3.44 0.25 3. Inc.591 216.0536 2.54 367.13 373.41 0.41 SO X 3.928.01 0.139 288.39 2.02 0.18 351.03 0.024 N 2O 970 1.01 0.734 179.18 2.56 0.672.984 30.447 153.42 0.01 1.636 217.0555 0.44 0.07 9.9785 2.711 48.01 0.828.065 2.294 244.272 41.428 38.494 23.873 215.0549 0.1790 3.

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

869 25 15.527 17.561 4.491 2.763 1.765 95 609 205 1.096 22 80 110 2.297 5.155 125 2.715 23.763 1.149 559 205 956 12 1.163 4.687 262 3.122 717 200 148 1.678 717 200 228 1.491 1.163 5.063 2.205 65 12.656 510 205 1.682 547 108 997 1.804 509 205 956 12 1.758 3.971 3.963 2.763 907 2.860 25 11.758 3.333 2. Inc.291 609 205 1.287 3.491 2.404 15 4.605 5.863 609 205 996 22 80 30 1.732 717 108 997 1.281 20.971 3.163 3.124 18.491 2.189 609 205 956 12 50 1.987 4.991 4.163 2.971 137 3.339 76 2.763 1.871 1.763 907 1.333 2.971 3.652 3.189 609 205 956 12 80 1.519 14.022 3.548 717 200 228 1.759 2.336 717 200 188 1.548 665 1.346 73 100 314 2.460 3.238 4.041 22.763 1.862 717 200 108 997 2.832 717 200 108 997 2.963 2.963 2.758 3.491 2.197 4.510 11.333 1.238 4.783 2.758 3.983 1.763 907 2.465 16.422 25 1.763 907 2.429 545 205 916 12 1.138 2.678 547 108 997 1. UPEEE Foundation page 14 of 16 .783 977 2.094 2.758 3.065 17.180 2.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.983 2.931 2.214 50 65 16.205 25 12.011 1.163 3.687 186 2.687 12 336 3.163 5.797 25 2.583 3.227 2.865 15.758 3.758 3.267 2.063 947 2.763 1.767 3.817 4.547 3.011 1.971 2.4a: Installed Capacity (MW) Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Luzon Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind LUZON TOTAL Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind VISAYAS TOTAL Oil-based Coal Mindanao Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind MINDANAO TOTAL Oil-based Coal Philippines Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind PHILIPPINES TOTAL Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.841 4.540 152 2.741 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.211 25 3.205 65 12.817 4.337 4.966 95 Visayas 771 1.661 1.404 15 3.763 907 1.146 47 100 230 2.942 717 200 128 1.476 73 100 314 2.265 12.758 2.557 125 3.043 2.214 80 65 16.011 3.163 2.214 25 15.333 1.022 3.757 2.758 3.690 510 205 1.703 2.071 3.822 3.758 3.652 3.723 13.978 2.073 3.221 3.

746.263 Fuel Type Hydro 6.897.538 4.193 16.209.014 17.722 597.885 23.763 0 0 0 0 0 300 720 1.534. UPEEE Foundation page 15 of 16 .883 9.315 24.953 Geothermal 14.142 29.850 21.409 3.234.450 685.779 Total Addition *includes capacities of diesel engines used as ancillary to wind power plants Table D.538 2.125.332 919.042 14.993 Natural Gas 5.382 1.104 20.080 6.263 72.973 769.398.239 10.744.963 22.060 4.252.124 8.650 79.386 649.978 26.633.016 28.865.050.739 26.484.864 3.595 66.508 29.243 26. Inc.867 Coal 10.859 4.615 4.335.103 11.158 14.407.893 7.226 7.062 2.216 11.200 350 0 1.4b: Annual Capacity Additions (MW) Year Oil-based* Currently Installed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3.618.583 0 0 370 50 0 621 582 549 595 529 Coal 3.840.126 15.419 14.496 5.578 19.298.091 33.420 4.664.115 13.320 681.768 3.630.519 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 2.919 Hydro Biomass Wind Total 19.193 6.258.012 Natural Gas 13.290 36.020 16.349 16.190 3.722 2.118 31.527.956.036.760 23.639 Fuel Type Geothermal 641.916.791 21.443.153 85.960 19.984 30.107 6.030 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 666 666 876 876 960 Wind 0 153 153 153 153 2.891 11.850 7.779 15.673 28.4d: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.426 20.600 Coal 18.734.326.942 19.045 26.893 18.130 20.862.084 17.952 8.439 18.239 21.814.387 1.326.207 14.479 10.931 0 40 0 0 0 100 150 340 280 150 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 2.471 3.000 684.418 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.704.644 34.115 100.556 60.104 13.735 12.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.653 Total 55.317 16.315 118.891 8.585 685.953 36.932 7.807 93.106.186 2.292 2.897.708.000 15.828.849 7.471 Table D.109 8.4c: Power Generation (GWh) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.101 15.511.639 16.095 7.963 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 2.288.549 6.208.874 109.016 17.650.170 867.324 6.076 15.051 9.

50 0.44 2.862.9923 2.13 373.546 36.32 2.785 1.01 0.45 0.03 SO X 3.01 0.0622 0.746.37 0.38 0.055 1. UPEEE Foundation page 16 of 16 .679 188.052.307 2.511.03 Environmental Emissions CO CH 4 0.052.39 0.01 0.036.16 2.984 30.814.465 36.4e: Environmental Emissions (tonne) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 19.596 2.4f: Environmental Emission per Unit Generation (tonne/GWh) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 370.153.777 Particulates 19.91 372.01 0.01 0.0544 0.750 24.997 56.644 34.0542 0.377 1.0555 0.263 44.885 23.887 168.19 2.494 23.676 20.566 800.31 358.418 SOX 167.44 0.68 429.6854 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.2638 3.42 0.882 164.52 329.0495 3.139 288.425 2.30 3.67 NOX 2.4g: Generation Cost Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Generation Cost US$/kWh 0.01 0.264 200.065 2.02 0.9785 3.04 0.771 3.41 0.09 1.739 26.258 34.81 2.04 0.828.03 0.0228 3.47 0.284 27.720 234.438 1.142 29.12 2.82 11.1607 3.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.60 0.686 246.196 3.38 0.01 0.00 1.75 2.02 10.03 0.430 46.202 173.248 42.82 1.01 NMVOC 0.69 4.212 174.03 0.106 170.01 0.25 3.34 9.40 0.0554 0.294 244.479 3.90 406.0175 3.79 1.04 N2O 0.03 3.733 174.18 2.199 32.599 1.0549 0.073 174.02 0.485 45.374 800.740 1.00 Particulates 0.68 10.515 212.53 0.294 38.625 166.750 N 2O 970 1.407.130 20.291 CH 4 283 321 358 402 456 439 479 517 559 634 NMVOC 1.09 329.01 0. Inc.0575 0.118 31.654 Environmental Emissions CO 21.42 0.4234 3.858 2.096 27.48 0.738 45.18 2.754 NOX 111.03 0.10 3.41 0.916.500 132.062 118.51 0.79 385.0593 0.186 1.673 28.0670 PhP/kWh 3.355 Table D.050.03 0.151 31.508 29.02 0.447 153.956.97 319.58 11.03 0.0536 2.44 0.04 0.40 0.02 0.343 31.0550 0.54 Table D.