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

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

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

.. Inc..............................................15 CO2 Emissions for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario.....62 Figure 5..............18 Coal and Oil-Based vs....11 Share of Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy in the Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario ........................................................................................ Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario .................11 Installed Generating Capacity for the HEGS-MWPP Scenario...73 Figure 5.......................2 Figure 5...................................................79 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.............................................17 Energy Mix for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario ......19 Fuel Consumption for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario.........................74 Figure 5...........73 Figure 5...................................................77 Figure 5..........66 Fossil Fuel Consumption for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario............................10 CO2 Emissions for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario ....69 Energy Mix for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario ..............5 Figure 5......................1 Figure 5.....................69 Coal and Oil-Based vs............................................70 Fossil Fuel Consumption for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario.............................................................................67 CO2 Emissions for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario...................13 Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario..............................................4 Figure 5...............77 Figure 5..........60 Figure 4...................78 Figure 5.................65 Energy Mix for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario ..........6 Figure 5.......................... Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario .....................20 CO2 Emissions for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario...............................POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Figure 4................................12 Fossil Fuel Consumption for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario...7 Figure 5.14 Fossil Fuel Consumption for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario.....................9 Installed Generating Capacity for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario................78 Figure 5.......................................8 Figure 5...........................75 Figure 5...........67 Installed Generating Capacity for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario.........71 Figure 5.................................................66 Coal and Oil-Based vs.... UPEEE Foundation page iv .............12 Energy Mix for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario................74 Figure 5....................................................... Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario............................................................................... Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario ..............16 Installed Generating Capacity for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario...........................60 Figure 4..........13 Coal and Oil-Based vs..................................................................................70 Figure 5......................................3 Figure 5.................

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

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

UPEEE Foundation page vii .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.

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 .

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

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

550 700 – 900 550 – 650 1. $/kWa 17 – 20 11 – 14 14 – 18 14 – 16 30 – 35 44 – 45 20 – 25 40 – 70 44 – 45 29 – 38 14 – 18 Fuel Cost. Screening curves (costs per kWh vs.0794 0. capacity factor) were developed based on the life cycle of each power generation technology and the four economic factors mentioned above.750 – 1. UPEEE Foundation page 2 .5219 1 A discount rate of 12% was used to derive levelized generation costs.10 11.750 – 1.400 1.2282 2.8174 3. country risks and availability of financing. market risks.200 – 1.0512 0.8236 4.4376 12.7153 5.1101 0.2277 1.40 9. Inc.0602 2.000 450 .3644 6. Table 1.0405 0. $/kWa 850 – 1.800 1. Table 1.2: Typical Capacity Factors of Power Plants and Levelized Generation Costs1 Power Plant Type Geothermal Coal (Pulverized coal plant) Coal (Pulverized coal plant) Hydro Oil-fired steam turbine Natural gas combined cycle Oil-fired gas turbine Wind Without ancillary services With ancillary services Diesel Capacity Factor (%) 88 82 82 57 54 54 31 30 30 9 Levelized Generation Cost $/kWh PhP/kWh 0.1059 0.12 0 0 3.93 32. including: (a) investment cost.04 49.800 1.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. years 30 20 20 20 30 30 20 50 30 50 20 Investment Cost.500 1.2282 2.500 700 – 900 Annual Fixed O & M Cost.53 0 36.000 – 3.56 73.0193 0.150 – 1. (c) fuel cost.1 below shows the costs used in this study. and (d) the level of generation (also called capacity factor).000 – 1.0494 0. $/MWh 41. (b) operation and maintenance cost.0405 0.0625 0. Actual industry discount rates may be higher depending on the following factors: required equity return.1: Cost Comparison of Power Plants Type of Power Plant Oil-fired steam turbine Oil-fired gas turbine Oil-fired combined cycle gas turbine Diesel motors Pulverized coal-fired power plant Fluidized bed coal power plant Wind technologies Hydroelectric power plants Fluidized bed combustors (for biomass) Geothermal technologies Gas-fired combined cycle gas turbine (for natural gas) Typical Economic Life.0557 2. regulatory risks.68 Table 1. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.250 2.

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

308 MW. The Philippines power sector largely depends on geothermal energy to meet the demand and energy requirements of the country. storage. Additional screening criteria were imposed to determine practical and viable wind power sites. respectively in the country. Using the second screening criterion similar to that use in the wind resource assessment. Of all the biomass resources in the country.3 Historical Performance of the Philippine Power Sector The performance (in terms of reliability.323 MW. and competing uses to be viable for large-scale power generation. This potential is spread all over the country where sugar centrals are situated.442 GWh. 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. the UPSL identified 236 small hydro sites in the country with an aggregated capacity of about 2.200 GWh of electricity per year.404 MW potential. construction of transmission lines) will cost up to 25% of the total life-cycle cost were considered. The Philippine government is considering plans to develop a local natural gas industry. UPEEE Foundation page 4 . limiting the transmission investment cost to 25% of total investment cost) resulted to the elimination of three sites from the small hydro resource pool. A few natural gas finds in the Philippines have been made. In addition to existing geothermal power facilities. If this pushes through. which generated a total of 10. an estimated capacity of 1.. Selecting only the sites with capacities of 5 MW or more as criterion.092 with an aggregate potential of 14. This first criterion reduced the number of wind sites to 2. This include considering only sites with power density of at least 500 W/m2. cost and environmental emissions. the most significant of which is that found in Malampaya and San Martin in Palawan. The application of the second criterion further reduced the number of sites to 1. UPSL considered only bagasse from sugarcane processing as practical resource for grid connection.731 billion cubic feet (BCF).e. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.200 MW that could generate about 8. A second criterion that relates to grid connection costs was also used.e.7 MW.) of the Philippine power sector from the period beginning 1991 to 2001 was also assessed in this study.038 with 7. UPSL estimates the electric power potential of bagasse at 235. Inc. A re-analysis of the NREL small hydro resource assessment was also conducted. local natural gas production would be supplemented by imported natural gas. For the purposes of this study. total geothermal installed capacity amounted to 1. 1.931 MW.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 195.. Other biomass resources are still facing problems or issues like collection. (i.935 GWh annually can be obtained from additional verified geothermal sites in the Philippines. In 2001. This accounts for 14% and 22% of the total installed capacity and total generation. with a combined estimated reserves of 2.771 to 4. Only those sites whose connection (i. a re-analysis of the NREL wind mapping data was conducted.

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

471.222 tons in 2001. and not towards the utilization of renewable resources.00 to PhP 6. Inc. generation share from oil-based power plants declined from 49.279 tons in 1991 to 10. Comparing the average rate of NPC with that paid by the consumers. Accounting the changes in oil and coal.00 per kWh. there is difference of PhP 1. on the other hand.338. particularly the NPC. coal contribution increased more than fivefold. This scenario allowed the continued dominance of non-renewable fuels. 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.71% in 2001. However.082. UPEEE Foundation page 6 . the net increase in CO2 for the 11-year period is 73%. 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.9% in 1991 to 21. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. coal power plants are the major contributors. Clearly. The share of non-renewable sources in the energy mix even increased from 57. CO2 emissions from oil-based power plants.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.236. many power plants were installed even though there were already excess generation capacity in the system.00 to PhP 3. decreased by 21 percent from its level of 9. the shift is only towards the use of coal. it can be concluded that that non-renewable energy have remained greatly dominant over renewable energy as source of fuel for power generation.541 tons in 1991 to 7. This explains why the emissions of the power sector almost doubled in only 11 years. which range from PhP 4. Looking into the energy mix to link the environmental performance of the power sector.9% in 2001.49% in 1991 to 62. Over the period considered. 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. 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. Its contribution increased almost ten times from 1. which emits more greenhouse gases. It is also worthwhile to note that with the existence of the Non-NPC IPPs (permitted to operate through Executive Order 215). renewable hydro share decreased from 20% to 5% over the same period.00 per kWh. particularly those owned by electricity distributors like Manila Electric Company (MERALCO). 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. For the CO2 emissions.665 tons in 2001. from 8% in 1991 to 40% in 2001. In addition.

From a share of 37% in 2003. Inc. Geothermal plants will contribute only 2%. 24% and 4%.500 MW) and oilbased plants (1.4 Scenarios under the Philippine Energy Plan 2003 . on the other hand will increase by 24%. Reliability. The environmental emissions resulting from DOE’s generation plan for the low economic growth scenario would result in an increase in CO2. environmental emissions and costs were calculated similar to that of the historical performance assessment.5 million barrels fuel oil equivalent (MMBFOE) of oil.9 million tonnes of coal and 1. In terms of reliability. renewable energy’s share will decrease to only 22% in 2012. it is still unrealistic to expect that cost of electricity in the Philippines in the near term will decrease under this scenario. respectively for year 2003. The contribution of non-renewable energy sources to the energy mix.57% annually. the planned capacity additions will result in high reserve margins.3 million tonnes. While the generation cost for this scenario is estimated at PhP 3.368 million in abatement cost. This scenario will require $ 29. with the continued dominance of coal plants.632 GW for 2003 will increase to 20. To meet the energy requirements. The increase in the use of coal will account to contributing 55% of the total CO2 emissions for the period. 124. Total CO2 emissions for the DOE plan for the low economic growth scenario is 309.16/kWh. Capacity additions. 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. the reserve in 2003 will be 66%. UPEEE Foundation page 7 . University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 1. No additional capacity addition for natural gas is expected in the period. 65 MW wind and a 40 MW geothermal capacity additions. respectively.775 MW). The increase in demand will be met mostly by increases in coal power plants (3. PDP for the Low Economic Growth Scenario The PEP.2 million tonnes of coal would have to be imported. based on the low economic growth projections of NEDA. Of these amounts. The increase in the share of renewable energy generating capacity will come from a 795 MW large hydro.5 MMBFOE of oil and 80. operations and maintenance and fuel would require a total cost $ 23. 91.142 GWh in 2003 to 106.430 GWh in 2012) over the entire period at an average rate of 7.828 million (UPSL estimate at 2002 present value).263 billion cubic feet (BCF) of natural gas. shows that energy generation will increase by 93% (55. the Purchased Power Adjustment (PPA) component in the electricity bills of the end users is still expected to result in higher cost due to the high reserve margins. this scenario would require 124. These emissions will be the direct result of the share of coal.706 MW by 2012. Total installed capacity of 14. SOx and other emissions. Oil-based and natural gas plants will contribute 17% and 26% to the CO2 emissions. natural gas and oil-based sources in the energy mix which is 34%. Although this is expected to decline to 22% by 2012.

Notably.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. 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. and will require $ 32.756 MW in 2012 (56% increase for the 10-year period) b) Energy generation: 55. Inc. 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. UPEEE Foundation page 8 .5% in 2003 increase to 16% in 2012 . biomass. .632 MW in 2003 to 22. The following performance indicators can be expected if this scenario push through: a) Installed capacity: 14.995 million in abatement cost. nor the scenario for the low economic growth. Total installed capacity of wind power plants is allowed to reach a maximum of 5% of the peak demand.556 GWh in 2003 to 118. 1. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.E. PDP for the High Economic Growth Scenario The DOE also prepared a power development plan based on high economic growth projections of NEDA.16% in 2003 increase to 47% in 2012 . These strategies are the following: • Moderate Clean Power Development (CCPD) Plan In this plan.5 Clean Power Development Options for the Philippines Using the clean energy technologies and resources.37% in 2003 decrease to 20% in 2012 Natural gas . 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.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. increasing by 195% from 2003 to 2012. capacity addition and utilization of renewable energy (geothermal. greenhouse emissions is expected to further soar.24% in 2003 decrease to 17% in 2012 With the continuous decline in the share of renewable energy. within the planning period. wind and hydro power) and natural gas plants are given priority over that of non-renewable plants for power generation.

the capacity additions starts only in 2008. This average generation cost is even cheaper than that of the PEP Low GDP scenario.983 MW in 2012). Total CO2 reduction as compared with the PEP is 44. as compared with the PEP. this plan will increase the renewable energy plant installed capacity by 95% (from 4. This will translate to a 72% total share of clean energy in the energy mix by 2012. Inc. this plan will save $235 million in the planning period. The total cost calculated for this plan is $23. only the power development plan to meet the Low Economic Growth Scenario of the PEP 2003 – 2012 is presented.000 GWh annually) for the next twenty years. It was assumed in these plans that the local natural gas industry will be able to supply fuel for up to 3. The share of renewable energy in the energy mix will increase from 37% to 41%. The natural gas contribution will also increase from 24% to 31%. The share of coal and oil in the mix will be reduced by about 11% at the end of the period. the 2003 to 2007 capacity additions were based solely on the PEP list of committed projects.16/kWh. This plan will reduce the GHG emissions and abatement costs for the Low GDP Scenario by 14% and 21%. Moderate Clean Power Development (MCPD) Plan To meet the demand of the Low Economic Growth Scenario. which serve as frequency regulating plants for the wind power plants.800MW natural gas power plants (maximum generation of 23. Note. which is PhP 3. 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. This translates to a 69% total installed capacity for the combined natural gas and renewable energy plants.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines • Aggressive Clean Power Development (ACDP) Plan For this plan. from the period 2003 to 2012. respectively. For all the plans. however. the strategy is to utilize all the practical renewable energy resources where possible without caps.763 MW in 2003 to 5. Assuming a five-year lead-time for the planning to commissioning of the additional power plants.592 million and the average generation cost is PhP 3. The plans that correspond to the High Economic Growth Scenario are detailed in Chapter 5. Considering the investment.450 MW in 2003 to 8. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.685 MW in 2012) and the natural gas plant capacity by 117% (from 2.6 million tonnes. O&M and fuel costs. UPEEE Foundation page 9 . The percentage installed reserve margin for the years 2008 onwards is kept as close as possible to the corresponding PEP reserve margins for comparison. In this summary. that these reserve margins do not take into account the ancillary diesel engines. Cost penalties for intermittent power plant capacity beyond 5% (based on peak demand) was also imposed to account for the additional ancillary services.12/kWh.

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

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

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

Although it ranks only second to the transport in terms of GHG emissions.890 3.738 Source: The Philippines’ Initial National Communication on Climate Change Table 2.603 33. Residential 6. the energy sector accounted for 50.094 100.458 8. of total net GHG emissions in the country.529 2 N2O 717 40 347 43 0 285 3 Total 49.038 ktonnes of the 100. UPEEE Foundation page 13 .59 216.094 7.403 31.369 4.246 Total 50.140 2. the energy industries. Agriculture B.335 10.800 6.157 CH4 1.544 1. Energy Industries 2. Manufacturing Industries 3.811 15.185 3 CH4 1. Of the energy sector GHG emissions. The UPSL came up with 13. accounts for more than thirty (30) percent as a result of the burning of fossil fuels. Inc.330 954 245 14. Oil TOTAL EQUIVALENT CO2 EMISSIONS * does not include emissions from biomass Source: The Philippines’ Initial National Communication on Climate Change CO2 47. Transport 4. the power sub-sector represents a large opportunity for carbon emissions reduction and sequestration.596 0 -2. Commercial/Institutional 5.738 ktonnes. or roughly 47 percent.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 2 ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES AND RESOURCES FOR CLEAN POWER An area that has great potential for greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction is the power sector.980 15. as shown from Table 2.335 15.2: 1994 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Philippine Energy Sector* (equivalent ktonne CO2) SECTOR A.87 227 217 10 50.368 2.509 9.985 7 20.2. Table 2. Coal Mining 2.497 15.1.759 11 170 45 1 1. Fugitive Emissions from Fuels 1. as shown in Table 2.548 ktonnes of CO2 for the Energy Industries for the year 1994. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.72 9.359 1. In 1994.335 N2O 717 0 12.038 10. mainly the power industry.130 7.801 3.190 226. Fuel Combustion Activities 1.1: 1994 Philippine Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector (equivalent ktonne CO2) SECTOR Energy Industry Agriculture Waste Land Use & Forestry TOTAL EQUIVALENT CO2 EMISSIONS CO2 47.774 55.038 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. given that clean energy technologies and resources are available.

improvements could be made to improve the efficiency of existing power plants by decreasing their heat rates.e. they must compete with the same technologies in terms of other criteria such as cost. In the following sections. The Philippines Department of Energy (DOE) has already started a Heat Rate Improvement Program. resource availability and technology maturity before application on a significant scale could be expected. and measures that integrate carbon sequestration into the energy production and delivery system. Measures that Reduce Energy Intensity One way of reducing the energy intensity of the economy is by minimizing energy losses in the system.. In particular.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines This study focuses on the reliability. In the sections that follow. 4 Marilyn A. 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.. 2. This is done by looking at ways to improve the performance of existing power plant components like boilers. Inc. i. UPEEE Foundation page 14 . These technologies may be an attractive alternative to conventional fossil fuel-based generation technologies in terms of its environmental benefits. However. turbines and generators. cost and environmental performance (particularly on GHG emissions) of the power sector.1 Clean Energy Technologies Clean energy technologies are those that result in relatively fewer GHG emissions per unit of energy service delivered as compared to conventional technologies.S. energy conservation. p. measures that reduce the carbon intensity of energy (e. Short. Mark D.: Interlaboratory Working Group on Energy-Efficient and Clean Energy Technologies). 1.2 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. These technologies will then be evaluated to determine their viability for the Philippine power sector. Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future. renewable energy technologies). a number of clean energy technologies shall be discussed. (U.g. it looks into scenarios that would entail switching to clean energy technologies from conventional fossil fuel-based technologies for grid-connected power generation. 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. the heat energy in Btu required by the power plants to produce a kilowatt-hour of electric energy. In power generation.g. Levine and Walter D. Brown.. These technologies may be classified as4: • • • measures that reduce the energy intensity of the economy (e. which is expected to achieve a substantial amount of energy savings. improvement of power plant heat rates).

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

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

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

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. • Fuel cells Fuel cells are devices that convert fuel and oxygen to electricity and heat by means of an electrochemical reaction. UPEEE Foundation page 18 . on the other hand. • Gas turbines Current gas turbine plants have efficiencies of around thirty percent. Fuel cells have efficiencies ranging from 40 to 60 percent and could achieve very negligible carbon and air pollutant emissions when paired with carbon separation technologies. Solar Energy. Despite its unfavorable environmental reputation. sometimes requiring around $3. coal is still widely used around the world for power generation because it is abundant and cheap. convert solar energy directly to electricity in a solid-state device called the solar cell. Photovoltaics. Many such technologies have been demonstrated in various countries but still remain not widely used because its high investment costs are quite prohibitive.000 per installed kilowatt. Greater local control of the system and waste heat utilization lead to higher energy efficiencies. For most fuel cells. which is the form of fuel required for the electrochemical reaction to take place. with sizes ranging from a few kilowatts to a few megawatts. this would have a relatively low impact on emissions reduction. But since this type of plant is normally used for peak load applications. These include fluidized bed systems such as pressurized fluidized bed combustion (PFBC) and circulating fluidized bed combustion (CFBC).POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 5. 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. Inc. Costs are prohibitive.000 per kilowatt of installed capacity. 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. which. to generate high enough temperatures to heat and boil water to drive steam engines. however. Clean coal technologies are costly. ranging from $2.000 to $4. concentrates the power of the sun. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. and thus. integrated gasification combustion cycle (IGCC) systems and coal-fueled diesel engines. as the name implies. Solar thermal engines make use of solar concentration systems. • Distributed energy technologies Unlike centralized generating units. distributed energy technologies are small and modular. less GHG and air pollutant emissions. Newer plants are actually achieving efficiencies greater than forty percent. • 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.

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

the Batanes and Babuyan islands of north Luzon.equivalent to an annual average wind power of 300 W/m2 or greater12 (wind speeds of 6. 12 In one of the NREL scenarios. Inc. Mindoro. hub height = 40 2 m. amounting to 97. rotor diameter = 38 m. the higher interior terrain of Luzon. well-exposed east-facing coastal locations from northern Luzon southward to Samar.600 MW bringing the total estimated power generation from wind to 361. Financial and Economic Implications of Wind Energy Applications for Power Generation. These are: 1. the northwest tip of Luzon (Ilocos Norte). with good to excellent resource levels . The study.2 Resource Assessment The technologies described above would be rendered useless without the energy resource required to run them. between Mindoro and Panay (including the Semirara Islands and extending to the Cuyo Islands). Leyte.000 sites in the country. In contrast to the optimistic estimate of the NREL. Palawan. the wind corridors between Luzon and Mindoro (including Lubang Island).055 km2 or roughly 3. 13 Assumptions used by NREL to come up with estimates are: 500 kW turbine size.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 2. would more than double total installed capacity to 173. Samar. eastern Mindanao. 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. an earlier study by the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) in 1994 puts the wind electric power potential for the entire Philippines at a very conservative value of 250 MW14. 2.200 GWh/yr. 4.600 MW of installed capacity and generate 195. According to the study13.4 m/s or greater). however. 5.000 GWh/yr. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. was not able to include factors such as transmission and grid accessibility constraints in the assessment.9 MW. which will then be subsequently used for the generation of power switching scenarios. Assessment of Technical.34% of total Philippine land area. The following sections will quantify the amount of clean energy resources in the Philippines. Negros. Including sites with moderate wind resource levels. UPEEE Foundation page 20 2 . and adjacent islands. 14 UNIDO. Panay. capacity/km = 6. The NREL study identified six regions in the country where the best wind resource in the country are located. 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. occupying a total area of 11. these sites could support at least 76. turbine spacing = 10D by 5D. 6. 3. Cebu. The NREL study identified around 10.000 installed capacity. (1994).

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

4 summarize the results of the re-analysis. MWe Estimated Annual Generation. Locations of these sites are shown in Figure 2.738 Mindanao 47 49 336 1. with an aggregate potential of 14.4: Practical Wind Resources in the Philippines (with wind power density ≥ 500 W/m2 and transmission cost constraint) Luzon 686 753 4. Table 2.699 Table 2. Appendix A identifies the provinces where these wind resources are located.404 23.092 2.363 44. the UPSL computed for the linear distance between the wind site and the nearest existing substation.363 MW.865 Mindanao 64 66 455 1.092.038 with 7. UPEEE Foundation page 22 .038 1. km 2 Potential installed capacity. as well as its corresponding estimated electric capacity and annual generation.400 MW potential. The application of the second criteria further reduced the number of sites to 1.168 6.206 14. To compute for transmission cost.132 7. GWh/yr University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. a re-analysis of the NREL data was conducted by the UPSL using the following criteria to screen for viable wind power sites: 1. The first criteria reduced the number of wind sites to 2. 2. GWh/yr Luzon 1. The transmission line components to connect the site to the existing grid will not exceed 25% of the levelized cost of the combined generation and transmission cost. This distance was multiplied by a factor of 1.1. Tables 2.381 35. km 2 Potential installed capacity.3 and 2.032 Philippines 1.047 Number of sites Total area.3: Philippine Wind Electric Potential (with wind power density ≥ 500 W/m2) Number of sites Total area. Power density of at least 500 W/m2.755 11.527 7.397 Philippines 2.5 to adjust for topography and other factors that may affect the routing of the transmission system.668 1.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines For the purposes of the present study.277 Visayas 305 330 2.437 Visayas 360 385 2.900 15. MWe Estimated Annual Generation. Inc.

738 GWh Mindanao Number of sites: 47 Potential Installed Capacity: 336 MWe Estimated Annual Generation: 1.900 MWe Estimated Annual Generation: 15.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Luzon Number of sites: 686 Potential Installed Capacity: 4.032 GWh Figure 2.168 MWe Estimated Annual Generation: 6. UPEEE Foundation page 23 . Inc.277 GWh Visayas Number of sites: 305 Potential Installed Capacity: 2.1: Practical Wind Resources in the Philippines (with wind power density ≥ 500 W/m2 and transmission cost constraint) University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.

6 and 2. make use of the natural flow of a rivers as head. Tables 2. with an annual production of 7. UPEEE Foundation page 24 . while Figure 2. the UPSL identified 239 small hydro sites in the country with an aggregated capacity of about 2. Inc. selecting sites with capacities of 5 MW or more. The DOE has verified a number of these small hydro sites. Run-of-river systems. a number of large hydro sites in country to be used as candidate power plants for energy planning. a total of 2. The UPSL made a re-analysis of the small17 hydro resource assessment made by the NREL. Kalayaan and San Roque. 16 Two of these sites.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. 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.5 lists down identified sites for large hydro16. Using this criterion. These hydro power facilities range in size from 1 to 360 MW and includes reservoir type (dams) and run-of-river systems15.2 shows the location of the sites selected.8. are committed projects. on the other hand. Table 2. In addition to the existing hydro power generation facilities.7 shows the results of the application of the criteria mentioned above. These resulted to the elimination of three sites from the small hydro resource pool. as listed in Table 2. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.104 GWh..518 MW of hydro power is installed in the Philippines. This water may then be used to augment supply during low flow periods and thus ensure a relatively constant supply of power. 15 Impoundment dams involve the impounding of a large volume of water in or upstream of power plants by use of reservoirs or dams.327 MW. 17 As per WEC definition. By the end of 2001. i.e. An additional screening criterion was used.

387.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2.338.189.8 Province Estimated Capacity (MW) 60 46 360 13. UPEEE Foundation page 25 .6 to 2. Inc.9 3.5: Available Large Hydro Resources Site LUZON Abuan Addalam Agbulo Aglubang Amburayan Bakun A/B Binongan Catuiran Diduyun Kalayaan PS Kanan Lamut Matuno Nalatang Pasil B/C Saltan A/B San Roque Tanudan D Tinglayan B Total Luzon VISAYAS Pacuan Sicopong Timbaban Villasiga Total Visayas MINDANAO Agus III Bulanog-Batang Lanon Hydro Lake Mainit Liangan Pugo D/BA Pulangi V Tagoloan Total Mindanao Lanao del Norte Bukidnon South Cotabato Agusan del Norte Lanao del Norte Agusan North Cotabato Bukidnon 225 150 21 22 11.3 to 3.140.8 29 29 108.6 Isabela Quirino Apayao Mindoro Oriental Benguet Benguet Abra Mindoro Oriental Quirino Laguna Quezon Ifugao Ifugao Benguet Kalinga Apayao Kalinga Pangasinan Kalinga Kalinga TOTAL PHILIPPINES University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.9 44 300 68 841.6 93 45 175 24 332 350 113 12 52 to 250 45 42 34 345 27 21 2.3 Negros Oriental Negros Oriental Aklan Antique 33 17.

231 Number of sites Potential installed capacity.140 Philippines 236 2. GWh/yr Table 2.0 1.8 7. GWh/yr Table 2.6: Philippine Small Hydro Electric Potential (sites with power capacity ≥ 5 MW) Luzon 134 1.8: 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) 1.686 Visayas 9 58 305 Mindanao 96 978 5.308 12.0 3.8 44.327 12.272 6.131 Number of sites Potential installed capacity.0 4.4 14. UPEEE Foundation page 26 .291 6.4 3.2 Camarines Norte Eastern Samar Samar Iloilo City Negros Oriental Zamboanga del Norte Agusan del Norte Zamboanga del Norte North Cotabato Zamboanga del Norte University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.4 10.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2. MWe Estimated Annual Generation.0 1. MWe Estimated Annual Generation.786 Visayas 9 58 305 Mindanao 96 978 5. Inc.0 5.6 28.140 Philippines 239 2.0 4.0 4.7: Practical Small Hydro Resources in the Philippines (sites with power capacity ≥ 5 MW and transmission cost constraint) Luzon 131 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

page 27

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

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

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

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

18

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

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

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

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

there usually remains a considerable amount of this waste material. Table 2.200 MW and energy of 8.10: Philippine Bagasse Electric Potential Region 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 Name Ilocos Region Cagayan Region Central Luzon Southern Tagalog Bicol Region Western Visayas Region Central Visayas Region Eastern Visayas Region Northern Mindanao Southern Mindanao Potential Installed Capacity (MW) 0.7 7. In addition to existing geothermal power facilities.935 GWh can be obtained from the verified geothermal source candidates in the Philippines. total geothermal installed capacity amounted to 1. 700 MW.442 GWh. UPEEE Foundation page 30 .11. Inc. Visayas and Mindanao respectively. Despite sugar mills’ own use of bagasse for fuel. bagasse has traditionally been used in large quantities.6 127. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.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.0 22.1 14. which are like associated with the use of biomass fuels for large scale power generation.6 17. and 120 MW come from Luzon. this study only looks on the potential of bagasse for grid-connected electricity generation.931 MW and geothermal generation was 10. 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. which the mills have to dispose.0 4. In 2001. Unlike other biomass fuels.8 235. particularly to fuel boilers in sugar mills. an estimated capacity of 1.9 5. if any.8 32. accounting for 14% and 22% of the total installed capacity and total generation. Very small. as listed in Table 2. 380 MW. respectively.7 TOTAL PHILIPPINES Geothermal Power The Philippines power sector largely depends on geothermal energy to meet the demand and energy requirements of the country.2 3.

The Philippine government is considering plans to develop a local natural gas industry.731 billion cubic feet (BCF). Table 2. Natib Mabini Batong Buhay Buguias-Tinoc Total Luzon VISAYAS Northern Negros* Dauin Mt. Inc. Source: PEP 2002-2011. page 31 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. 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. UPEEE Foundation . the most significant of which is that found in Malampaya and San Martin in Palawan26. Cabalian Leyte Optimization Biliran Mt.12 lists down identified natural gas fields in the country and their corresponding resource sizes.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. with a combined estimated reserves of 2.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2.771 to 4. which will involve the laying down of a natural gas pipeline network in Luzon and the construction of liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities at different points in the country. 26 These are proven fields. If this pushes through. 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.

(b) operation and maintenance (O&M) cost. 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. Using these curves.13 include only the costs of the technologies but not the associated site-specific costs that could be more expensive than the plant itself. The fuel costs used in this study do no include import duties. Inc. one year).e. renewable energy-based power plants have to address these issues that will ultimately determine the viability of the power projects. the prices of fuel are likely to differ at the time this study is released. 29 Capacity Factor (CF) refers to the percentage of the rated capacity of the power plant used for 8.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2. Furthermore. namely: (a) investment cost. Screening curves can be developed to determine the optimum power generation plan considering these four factors. Renewable energy technologies.340 359 4 7.12: 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 2.760 518 2. renewable energy-based plants have high investment costs. the total investment costs vary with site preparation and the required transmission lines to enable the plants to deliver power to the grid. it is notable that the technologies that require low investment normally require fuel with high cost.158 322 637 Maximum 4.538 243 Resource Size (BCF) Prospective 3. 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. Mathematically. In general. In addition..13.13 lists for different fuels used for power generation are based on typical power plant efficiencies.760 hours (i. (c) fuel cost. the economics of power generation technologies depends on several factors. For example.720 60 176 78 11. in general entail high investment costs.594 2. The costs shown in Table 2. Clearly. O & M27 and fuel costs28 comparison of the different types of power plants are shown in Table 2. For fossil-fuel-based power plants. The fuel costs in Table 2. the type of power plants that will 27 28 Figures used for power plant investment and O&M cost are only intended for relative comparison.760 hours University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. and (d) the level of generation (also called capacity factor29).3 Cost Comparison of Power Generation Technologies The investment. energy production (kWh) CF = × 100 plant capacity(k W) × 8. Being site-specific.277 454 2. Wind and hydro plants do not require fuel but do not run at full capacity due to availability of resources. UPEEE Foundation page 32 .060 1.210 1.

56 73. Table 2. 31 Fuel costs for oil.500 700 – 900 Annual Fixed O & M Cost. Geothermal steam and biomass fuel costs also vary. UPEEE Foundation page 33 . Furthermore. Inc. except for Clean Coal Technologies Considering the availability of the resource and reliability of the technologies.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.150 – 1.53 0 36.04 49. Deutsche Gessellschaft für technishe. Table 2.250 2.12 0 0 3. $/kWa 17 – 20 11 – 14 14 – 18 14 – 16 30 – 35 44 – 45 20 – 25 40 – 70 44 – 45 29 – 38 14 – 18 Fuel Cost. 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 2.93 32. is competitive in comparison with conventional fossil fuel-based generation. $/MWh 41. These values show that electricity generation from renewable sources. 30 Investment costs used in this study do not include site preparation.14 shows the typical capacity factors based on the investment30. medium or low capacity factor) could be determined/selected. on a life-cycle basis. years 30 20 20 20 30 30 20 50 30 50 20 Investment Cost.400 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. They are however useful in evaluating and developing energy plans. O&M and fuel costs31 of the different power plant technologies..e. which will operate at high. transmission line and transformer costs.10 11.500 1.000 450 .750 – 1. Table 2.68 From “ The Environmental Manual for Power Development”.800 1.550 700 – 900 550 – 650 1.000 – 1.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines operate as “baseload”. coal and natural gas do not include import duties. “intermediate” or “peaking” plants (i.000 – 3.14 to satisfy the minimum offtake character of the IPP contracts.800 1.14 also shows the corresponding levelized cost of generation for each power plant type using the typical capacity factors. These figures are intended only for relative comparison of the different power plant technologies.200 – 1.40 9.750 – 1. depending on the site/environment. the prices of fuel are likely to differ by the time this study is released. $/kWa 850 – 1. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.

POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2.0557 2.1059 0. 33 The low capacity factor computed for diesel plant is 9%.1101 0. Actual industry discount rates may be higher depending on the following factors: required equity return. regulatory risks.4376 12.8236 4. market risks. meaning it will be used for load following and/or peaking applications.14: Typical Capacity Factors of Power Plants and Levelized Generation Costs32 Power Plant Type Geothermal Coal (Pulverized coal plant) Coal (Pulverized coal plant) Hydro Oil-fired steam turbine Natural gas combined cycle Oil-fired gas turbine Wind Without ancillary services With ancillary services Diesel33 Capacity Factor (%) 88 82 82 57 54 54 31 30 30 9 Levelized Generation Cost $/kWh PhP/kWh 0.0625 0.8174 3.0602 2.3644 6.7153 5.0193 0.0794 0.2277 1. Inc.0405 0.0405 0. UPEEE Foundation page 34 . country risks and availability of financing.0512 0.0494 0. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.5219 32 A discount rate of 12% was used to derive levelized generation costs.2282 2.2282 2.

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

99 565.71 5. one of the six selfcontained papers included in Sundqvist’s Doctoral Thesis.55 0. SOx – Sulfur Oxide.02 Source: The Environmental Manual for Power Development.31 AC 1.99 0.05 0.75 11.40 7. Deutsche Gessellschaft für technishe 36 Lifted from “What Causes the Disparity of Electricity Externality Estimates?”.71 9.45 6.73 Environmental Emissions CO CH4 NMVOC N2O 0.04 Source: Computed from data give in “The GHG Indicator: UNEP Guidelines for Calculating Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Business and Non-Commercial Organizations.78 1.51 San Joaquin Valley DC 0. AC – abatement cost.53 0.88 Bay Area DC 2.03 0.02 0.84 1.66 0.08 0.66 2.39 6.00 3.00 2.52 0.53 0.37 12.02 0.45 AC 11.01 3.57 1.02 1. except for geothermal which was computed from DOE data Table 2.00 0.40 726.10 5.03 0.88 9.10 0.98 2.01 0.06 0. Sundqvist cites the 1992 Electricity Report by the California Energy Commission as the source of these data.52 1.65 0.75 16.76 3. 10.10 8. UPEEE Foundation page 36 .64 2.42 1.47 3.61 763.66 0.75 0. p.99 1.99 4. and PM – particulate matter Table 2.03 0.98 3.55 AC 13.01 0.08 0.72 0.88 0.00 0.71 San Diego DC 1. Inc.05 1.43 Ventura County DC 0.00 2.07 AC 2.28 4. NOx – Nitrogen Oxide.44 1.85 I 13.96 I 2.05 Particulates 0.99 4.12 12.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2.16: Carbon Dioxide Emissions of Different Power Plant Types Power Plant Type Geothermal Pulverized Coal Oil Combined Cycle Natural Gas Combined Cycle Oil Steam Turbine Oil Gas Turbine Diesel tonne CO2/GWh 45.37 0.72 11.03 NOx 4.31 PM 31.00 4.00 0.98 Sacramento Valley DC 0. ROG – Reactive organic gases.30 6. Luleá University of Technology.06 0.85 0.05 0.03 0. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.74 2. CO – Carbon Monoxide.32 3.15: Value of Air Emissions Reductions in California 36 ($/pound of pollutant) District Pollutant South Coast DC SOx NOx CO ROG 4.04 0.72 AC 5. “Power Generation Choice in the Presence of Environmental Externalities.01 9.03 0.10 867.02 0.26 0.00 0.85 6.02 17.20 2.04 0.01 North Coast DC 0.4 6.59 DC – damage cost.03 0.87 0.18 15.82 713.07 AC 5.18 AC 4.83 0. 2002).35 0.17: Emissions Factors for Various Power Plants (tonne/GWh) Plant Type Coal Oil combined cycle Natural gas combined cycle Oil steam turbine Oil gas turbine Diesel SO2 7.83 441.08 10.02 0.34 1. I – internalized.

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

098 14. With most of the industrial and commercial activities centered in Luzon.086 3.531 1.875 8.071 25.081 MW peak demand in 1991. Visayas and Mindanao as shown in Figure 3.282 5.910 8. This is almost twice of the 4.870 1993 6.471 6.267 1. Visayas and Mindanao lag far behind with only 893 and 954 MW peak demand. with 31% and 29% share respectively. Inc.049 Geographically.1).894 9. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.547 10.3% annually from 1991 to 2001 as shown in Table 3.132 4.191 957 2. and cost.835 MW in 2001). or at an average annual growth rate of 7.154 4. 3.049 GWh energy generation which represents 77% of the requirements of the country.339 952 1. environmental emissions.223 6.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 3 HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE OF THE PHILIPPINE POWER SECTOR In the following sections is an assessment of the performance of the Philippine power sector from the period beginning 1991 to 2001.725 12.859 823 1.345 45.290 2001 13.713 47. 1991-2001 (GWh) SECTOR Residential Commercial Industrial Others Own Use Losses Total 1991 6.754 41. the Luzon Grid consumed 36.936 8.238 26.128 36. As shown in Figure 3.353 10. Visayas and Mindanao share the balance energy almost equally.725 9.226 5. Visayas and Mindanao grids.037 39.684 762 1.5% while that of the residential sector grew by 11.1: Energy Consumption by Sector. Both the economic performance and population growth remain as the main factors driving the consumption pattern of energy of the country. whose demand grew by 108% from 1991 to 2001.053 4.368 4.167 1.395 721 1.067 1.649 1992 6. it also had the highest peak demand (5.579 1994 7.590 5.512 13. Table 3.851 1.7% annually for the 11-year period.184 GWh of the total 47.176 25.432 2000 12.013 12.3. Significant also was the growth in the consumption of the commercial sector. and the whole of the Philippines. respectively.2.132 4.797 1998 11. Figure 3.477 8.6%. Data for the historical performance of the Philippine Power Sector is given in Appendix B. The system peak for the whole Philippines reached 7. are the biggest users of electricity (Figure 3. the energy demand in the country was distributed among the three (3) main islands of Luzon.734 30. that the industrial sector demand grew only by 5.682 MW in 2001.554 1996 9. Performance is assessed in terms of reliability.340 6. It should be noted however.847 9.1.578 1999 11.708 1997 10. UPEEE Foundation page 38 .865 10.459 1995 8.950 1.536 5. In 2001 for example.4 shows system peak demand of the power supply system from 1991 to 2001 for the Luzon.849 41.735 33. the gross domestic product and the population growth from 1991 to 2001 demonstrate a strong correlation with the consumption of electricity.249 4.150 7.452 1.901 12.543 934 1. The industrial and residential sectors.042 2.1 Historical Energy Demand and Installed Generating Capacity The Philippines electricity consumption posted a moderate growth rate of 8.196 5.390 6. Bulk of the energy demand and consequently the generation comes from the main island of Luzon.444 921 1.072 11.

UPEEE Foundation page 39 . the installed generating capacity in the country doubled from 6.789 MW in 1991 to 13. 2001 120000 90000 80000 100000 70000 80000 GWH / GDP (x10M) 60000 60000 50000 POP (x1000) 40000 40000 30000 20000 20000 10000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 year Electricity (GWH) GDP (BPhP) Population (in million) 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 0 Figure 3.2: Electricity Consumption. 1991-2001 In order to meet the growing demand for electricity.5) This corresponds to the growth in demand that also doubled in the same period. Gross Domestic Product and Population. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.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. Inc.402 MW in 2001 (Figure 3.1: Electricity Consumption by Sector.

UPEEE Foundation page 40 . Inc.000 GWH 25.000 30.000 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 3.000 40.000 10.3: Electricity Generation by Grid.000 15.000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 Luzon 1995 Visayas 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Mindanao Philippines Figure 3.000 45.4: System Peak by Grid.000 5.000 35. 1991-2001 (MW) University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 50.

000 6.2 Historical Reliability Performance The historical data for the system peak demand and installed generating capacity indicate that the generating facilities in the early 1990’s were performing very badly from the point of view of reliability.000 MW 8. 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. the National Power Corporation has to resort to rotating “brownouts”.A. In developing countries. In the Philippines. Hence. people complain of high cost of electricity allegedly due to over supply as there is “too much” installed generating capacity.. Inc.000 2.000 10.000 4. It may be recalled that the Philippines experienced a power crisis that started in the late 1980’s and persisted in the mid 1990’s that almost crippled the national economy due to supply deficiency. Today. There was not enough generating capacity. 1991-2001 (MW) 3. UPEEE Foundation page 41 .000 12.000 0 1991 1992 1993 Oil-Based 1994 Coal 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Hydro 2000 2001 Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 3.S.2 presents the reserve margin of the power system from 1991 to 2001. This criterion is considered high but is needed to support their industries. the National Power Corporation since the power crisis has adopted 1day/year LOLP. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. The reserve margin based on dependable capacity shows that there is indeed a large excess generating capacity in the Philippines. In other countries such as the U.000 14.5: Total Installed Generating Capacity by Source.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 16. the generating capacity reliability criteria of one day per ten years (1 day/10 year) of Loss-of-Load Probability (LOLP) translates to about 20% reserve margin. the reliability criterion is very much lower compared to that in developed countries. Table 3. To analyze further the generating capacity vis-à-vis the system peak.

725 58.36 61.796 904 1.124 587 975 415 10. Table 3.816 11.931 1999 6.60 83.212 1995 5.99 79.908 12. Historical Environmental Emissions for the Philippine Power Sector (tonne) Environmental Emissions CO2 SO2 NOx CO CH4 NMVOC N2O Particulates 1991 Level 10. therefore.55 45.450 9.296 6.209 35.363 11.193 1997 6. Table 3.72 11.789 1992 4.3.949 1993 4.989 2001 Level 18.46 8.762 189.2: Reserve Margin.3.233 115.682 13.185 2001 7.580.352 11.808 9.291 9.17 78.45 85. 1991-2001 (%) 1991 Peak (MW) Installed Capacity (MW) Percentage Reserve Margin (installed) Dependable Capacity (MW) Percentage Reserve Margin (dependable) 4.98 91. The CO2 emissions increased by 74 percent while the rest of the air emissions increased by 10 to 169 percent.762 1998 6.76 37.411.3 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.93 92.96 78. A complete list of emissions for each year from 1991 to 2001 is provided in Appendix B. The interruptions that the country has been experiencing can be attributed to the unreliable transmission and distribution systems.081 6.611 % Increase 74 64 150 29 54 10 103 169 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.807 20.76 70.431 2000 7.497 11.729 146.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines It can be concluded. This part of the study has quantified the environmental emissions of the power plants in the country.075 842 29.402 66.726 16.91 3.621 7.18 74.48 53.732 1996 5. UPEEE Foundation page 42 .400 13.687 8. Inc. The environmental performance of the Philippine power sector from 1991 to 2001 is summarized in Table 3.666 11. that the generating capacity of the power system in the Philippines can be considered highly reliable.014 1994 4.

29% during the same period.000 4. the share of coal-based generation increased by 427%.8 show that nonrenewable energy have remained greatly dominant over renewable energy as source of fuel for power generation.000 16.000.000 10.49% in 1991 to 62. In order to analyze the factors that brought about the environmental performance of the power sector.541 tons in 1991 to 7. Figure 3. The net increase in CO2 due to the changes in oil and coal is 74%.471. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.9 shows how carbon dioxide emissions varied with the energy mix within the 1991 to 2001 period. 1991-2001 (tonne) The share of non-renewable sources in the energy mix even increased from 57.222 tons in 2001. on the other hand.000.71% in 2001.082. Figure 3.000.000 tonne CO2 12.000.000 8.000. Inc.665 tons in 2001. The CO2 emissions however from oil-based power plants decreased by 21 percent from its level of 9. it is necessary to look at the power development as measured by the energy mix.000 14.6: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type. Its contribution increased almost ten times from 1. Over the period considered.7 and 3. UPEEE Foundation page 43 .000. Note from this figure how much the CO2 emissions decreased and increased with the generation from oil-based and coal power plants.000.236. Figures 3.000.6 shows that the coal power plants are the major contributors in greenhouse gases.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines For the CO2 emissions.000 18.000. decreased from 42.338.000 2.000 6.51% to 37. This scenario allowed the continued dominance of non-renewable fuels.000. 20.000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Figure 3. However. The share of renewable sources. The energy mix indicates the intensity of contribution of renewable energy resources as fuel for power generation. the percentage share of oil-based power generation declined by 58%.279 tons in 1991 to 10.

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

000.000 6. 1999-2001 (%) 50.000 GWh 25.8: Share of Coal and Oil-Based vs.000 4.000.000 10.000 5.000.000 20.000 45.000 30.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. 1991-2001 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 0 Figure 3.000. Renewable Energy and Natural Gas in the Energy Mix.000 40.000 8.000 18. Inc.000 15. UPEEE Foundation page 45 .000.9: Energy Mix and Carbon Dioxide Emissions.000 14.000.000.000 16.000 tonne CO2 12.000.000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro CO2 20.000.000 10.000 35.000 2.000.

01 3.75 2001 3.00 to PhP 3.96 1.20 0.15 1.63 0.68 2.00 per kWh.25 2.14 1. In addition.34 3. It was noted that the average rates of NPC is for its bundled generation and transmission services.28 1.77 1.02 1. Inc.4: NPC Average Electricity Rates.02 2.52 1.70 Luzon Visayas Mindanao Philippines Generation Transmission Note: Generation and Transmission Rates assumed 76% and 24% of the average rate.25 1.93 1. the average rates consist of the actual operating expenses and the financing charges of NPC. which range from PhP 4.65 2. respectively The average rates of NPC increased annually from 1991 to 2001.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 3. particularly that of the electricity distributors like MERALCO. except for the year 2001 when R.00 per kWh.47 1997 2. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. UPEEE Foundation page 46 .02 0.43 1996 2. for the years 1995 to 2001 by fuel type.90 2.35 0. and the cost of which has to be paid off through the Purchased Power Adjustment (PPA). This considerable difference can be attributed to the cost of distribution and to the IPP’s that sell electricity directly to the distributors.23 1. The average rates and the estimated unbundled generation and transmission rates of NPC from 1995 to 2001 are shown in Table 3.85 1. Table 3.96 0.62 1999 2.58 1. Interestingly.49 0.84 2. IPP costs were always higher than NPC rates. As a result.00 to PhP 6. the law has mandates to reduce the rates of electricity in the Philippines.29 2.08 2.A. Table 2. there is difference of PhP 1.67 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).77 2.4. many power plants were installed without the benefit of proper coordination through the centralized planning of the NPC or the government.08 2.52 Year 1998 2.5 show the production cost of NPC and IPPs.12 2. Comparing the average rate of NPC with that paid by the consumers. 1991-2001 (PhP/kWh) 1995 1. respectively. For purposes of this study.44 1. many power plants were installed in excess of what was actually needed. It is worthwhile to note that with the existence of the Non-NPC IPP’s (permitted to operate through Executive Order 215).92 3.37 0. the rates of NPC were unbundled into 76% and 24% for generation and transmission. respectively.64 2000 3. 9136 (Electric Power Industry Reform Act) was enacted.4 Cost of Electricity This study also assessed the power development in the Philippines by analyzing the cost of electricity.

0276 0.0111 0.0236 0.0067 0.0358 0.0232 0.0394 0.0244 0.0203 * Lifted from “Renewable Energy Prospects for Supplying Electricity in the Deregulated Market in the Philippines” by J.0331 0. N.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 3.0386 0.0538 0.0110 0.0329 0.0038 0. G.0270 0.0367 0.0294 --0.0109 0.0267 0. Estiva and M.0125 0.0683 Geothermal NPC IPP 0.0167 0.0369 0.0281 0.0100 IPP --0.0428 0.0177 0. UPEEE Foundation page 47 .0366 0.0137 0.0230 0.0302 0.0254 0.0047 0.0281 0. Guzman University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.0431 0.0462 Hydro NPC IPP 0.5: NPC and IPP Production Cost at 1990 Constant Prices (US$/kWh)* Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Oil-based NPC IPP 0.0198 0.0252 0.0276 0.0662 0.0233 Coal NPC 0.0150 0.0360 0.0212 0.0349 0.0092 0.0195 0.0265 0.0284 0.0303 0.0284 0. Inc.0326 0.0450 0.

the plans formulated by the DOE. as shown in the above figure. historical sales.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. Small renewable energy projects. These projections are then used by the National Transmission Corporation (TRANSCO) to plan the transmission requirements of the country. country risks and availability of financing University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Relating this type of approach to the historical performance (as discussed in the previous section) of the renewable energy. make their own demand and expansion plans based land-use. TRANSO.14 in Chapter 2 were used. In the PDP. Interestingly. is a critical part of the Philippine Energy Plan. As illustrated in Figure 4.1. where the power plant type and capacity additions and retirement are indicated. such as MERALCO and the electric cooperatives (EC’s). Note that the program pertains to the rural electrification program. power plant costs (investment. 37 4. 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). are considered through the electrification program only. Actual industry discount rates may be higher depending on the following: required equity return.13 and 2. on the other hand. which aims to bring electricity to the un-electrified areas. UPEEE Foundation page 48 . regulatory risks. 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. renewable energy and other energy resources project planning do not directly form part of the PDP. particularly in local environmental protection and power development. Hinging electricity demand on the country’s economic activity. With the existing approach. market risks. in which all the main inputs and arguments to the plan are based on the national macroeconomic and the energy sector goals. allows limited public and local government participation that espouses their interests. in particular. DU’s and EC’s. it is only until the DOE puts in specific goals for the renewable energy sector can it be factored in to the PDP. and projected increase in customers. which in turn. Inc. the “least cost” criterion is the primary factor in determining the power plant projects and line-up for the planning period. serve as primary inputs to the Power Development Plan (PDP).POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 4 SCENARIOS UNDER THE PHILIPPINE ENERGY PLAN FOR 2003 TO 2012 This section discusses the current national energy planning process and DOE’s energy generation plans for 2003 to 2012. A discount rate of 12 percent was used. the national government through the DOE employs a top-down approach. Distribution utilities (DU’s). O&M and fuel) indicated in Tables 2. Costs computed are for comparative purposes only and may not be e qual to the actual costs. while it is very effective in supporting the national goals. The current top-down approach.

Inc.229. Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.64 5.60 1.079.51 6.23 5.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Generation Planning (DOE) Transmission Planning (TRANSCO) Distribution Planning (PUs & Ecs) Small Renewable Energy Projects Power Development Program Electrification Program Other Energy Sectors Planning NRE.23 5.95 1.27 1.138. as well as the its corresponding growth rates are shown in Table 4.70 1.203.156.51 1.343.62 1.70 6. Oil.838.1.487.564.11 1.642.2 Gross Domestic Product Projections In the Philippine Energy Plan for the period 2003-2012. Coal.14 1.732. the DOE uses two economic scenarios from which to forecast future energy requirement of the country.413.48 1. UPEEE Foundation page 49 . In this report.80 5.23 High GDP GDP Growth Rate (billion PhP) (%) 1.387.57 5.04 5.74 1.29 6.01 1.646.311.09 1. Philippine Energy Plan Top-Down Approach Figure 4.23 5.82 1.85 4.23 5.44 5.10 1.737.96 5.80 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2010 Note: GDP values for 2003 to 2006 are actual NEDA forecasts. For 2007 to 2012.80 5.467. Table 4. 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).80 5.276.24 1. the DOE estimated GDP values based on the average growth rates forecasted by NEDA.80 5. etc.80 5. These two scenarios are based on the NEDA’s low and high projections of the country’s GDP and are aptly named the Low GDP and High GDP scenarios.69 1. The GDP projections for the two scenarios.01 6.1: Low and High GDP Forecasts for 2003 to 2012 Year Low GDP GDP Growth Rate (billion PhP) (%) 1.91 1.59 1.091.1: National Energy Planning Process 4.552.23 5.

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. transmission and distribution costs. 120000 100000 80000 60000 GWh 40000 20000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4. In addition. O & M and fuel costs. 4.3 DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario Energy Generation Figure 4. generation would almost double to 106.430 GWh in 2012. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.2 shows the energy generation projected by the DOE that would meet the future energy requirements in 2003 to 201239. 39 Details of the calculations made for this section are provided in Appendix C. These plans will be discussed in the following sections.142 GWh in 2003. For this period. From 55. UPEEE Foundation page 50 . energy generation is projected to increase at an average rate of 7. Inc. Costs calculated do not include ancillary.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines In the PEP.2: Generation under the Low Economic Growth Scenario 38 Generation costs were calculated using generic data for investment. the DOE formulates generation plans for the two economic scenarios.57% annually and 93% over the entire period.

These high reserve margins would translate to higher electricity prices during the period.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Wind Demand (MW) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4.000 20.000 MW 10. UPEEE Foundation page 51 . University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. As shown in Figure 4. will be due to a 795 MW hydro capacity. 65 MW wind capacity and a 40 MW geothermal capacity additions. For indicative plant additions. The table also computes the capacity that would be required if the percentage reserve margin was kept at 20%. committed and indicative capacity additions for each year in the planning period are given.3: DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the Low Economic Growth Scenario 40 In the PEP. respectively40.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Installed Generating Capacity Total installed capacity for 2003 is 14. and renewable energy plants. Reserve Margin and Reliability Table 4. which is a more expensive fuel. amounting to 800 MW. Notable are the considerably high reserve margins for 2003 to 2009. the increase in demand requirement will be met mostly by increases in oil-based and coal plant capacities of 1.2 summarizes the results of the UPSL’s calculation for the DOE’s plan for the LEGS. These figures just show the continued preference on the use coal over natural gas.775 MW and 3.000 15. this scenario is very similar to how the Philippine power sector performed historically. which are more capital intensive.706 MW by 2012.632 GW and will increase to 20. Inc. The increase in the share of renewable energy generating capacity. 25.500 MW.3. Notably. No additional capacity addition for natural gas is expected in the period. the UPSL assumed that indicative base load capacity will be coal plants while intermediate and peaking plants corresponds to oil-based plants.000 5.

324 million.4 and 4.208 GWh energy production annually.519 10.033 Installed Capacity (MW) 14. and.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 4. of the total generation.2: Percentage Reserve Margin for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario.706 Percentage Reserve Margin (%) 66 59 52 42 33 29 27 24 24 22 Capacity Required for 20% Reserve Margin 10.6. Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements.565 17. on the other hand will increase to 59% in 2012 to from a value of 38% in 2003. 24% and 5%.895.865 16.800 MW capacity of 23. • University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. natural gas and oilbased sources will supply 34%. 2003-2012 Peak Demand (MW) 8.367 14.632 15. A look at the energy mix (Figures 4. renewable energy’s share decreases to 22% in 2012.393 tonnes of coal would have to be imported41. will supply 26% and 11%. the PEP expects that for the year 2003.143 GWh generation.423 12. this scenario would require 124.600 11.332 13.440 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Energy Mix For the LEGS.5 tonnes of oil and 80. • share of imported coal is 87.505 18. 41 This assumes that: local natural gas production can support 3.889 17. of the total 55.997 12. 91.756 20. From a share of 37% in 2003. 124.576 17.066 tonnes of coal and 1. as it was in 2001. Inc.777 20. The combined contribution of coal and oil to the energy mix. The breakdown of the fossil fuel that would be consumed in the LEGS-PEP scenario is shown in Figure 4. Of these amounts. Imported fuel would cost $4. respectively.5) for the planning period indicates minimal thrust towards more use of renewable energy sources and cleaner fuels. Clean fuels’ (renewable energy and natural gas) share in the energy mix decreases from 61% to 41% by 2012.396 15.405 19. particularly geothermal and hydro. UPEEE Foundation page 52 .869 13.015 16.5 million barrels of oil. respectively. Contribution from wind sources stays insignificant for the whole period. Renewable energy sources.139 11.615 15.224.833 9.277 11.814 15.443 16.263 billion cubic feed (BCF) of natural gas for the whole planning period.813 14. coal.3% of total consumption.576 16.120 15.

Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.5: Coal and Oil-Based vs. Inc.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4. UPEEE Foundation page 53 .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.

744. respectively. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Generation Cost The present value of the costs calculated for the PEP-LEGS is given below. fuel. Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: $ 11.4 lists down the generation costs calculated for each year of the planning period.292 $ 23. These do not take into account the effect on the generation cost by deals made with independent power producers.3 shows the values for the years 2003 and 2012 and Figure 4.479. Coal contributes 55% of the CO2 emissions for the period.71642. NOx and particulates for the North Coast of California. Total CO2 emissions for the period amounts to 309. Table 4.454. as given in Chapter 1. along with the assumptions used. and operations and maintenance costs involved in the operation of the different plants to meet demand and energy requirements for the scenario. SOx and other emissions.434 $ 9.707. As would be expected.828.137.189 $ 2. Total cost of abatement for this scenario is $ 29. Appendix C shows the amount of emissions for the whole planning period.3 million tonnes.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. the increase in the use of coal would result in an increase in CO2.391. Average generation cost for the period is PhP 3. Geothermal plants contribute only 2%. Inc.7 shows the contribution of each type to the CO2 emissions. UPEEE Foundation page 54 .376.916 42 Abatement costs values in this chapter and the chapters that follow were computed using abatement costs for SOx .1592 per kWh. Oil-based and natural gas plants contribute 17% and 26% to the CO2 emissions.324. Table 3.368. These generation costs were computed from the values for investment.

712 21.389 55.000 80.3: Environmental Emissions for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (tonnes) Emission Type CO2 SO2 NOX CO CH4 NMVOC N2O Particulates Year 2003 18.611 489.000.000.778.000 40.927 Year 2012 46.000. Inc.000.432 2.289 112.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100.000 70.000 60.000.000 0 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 4.581 952 19.000 20.000.000.000 90.669.000 (tonnes) 50.000.000.362 282 1.850 159. UPEEE Foundation page 55 .647 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.821 295.000 10.6: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario Table 4.788 54.000 30.000.323 644 3.

000 45.0553 0.000 15.000 5.000. Inc.000.4: Generation Costs for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario. UPEEE Foundation page 56 .000.000.0554 0.0612 0.000.1229 3.1592 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.3072 3.0997 3.0447 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 0.000 25.0564 0.000 10.7: Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario Table 4.000.1026 3.000.0601 0.0584 0.000 20.3636 3.0574 12% 3% 2% PhP/kWh* 3.0564 0.000 35.0409 3.2123 3.000.0592 0.000.2548 3.0429 3.0553 0.000.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 50.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4.000 40.000 tonne CO2 30.0568 0.

5 lists down the percentage reserve margins for the PEP Plan for the HEGS. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. corresponding to a 56% increase within the ten-year planning period.756 MW in 2012. Figure 4. Figure 4. A large part of this increase is due to the addition of coal plants. generation is expected to increase from 55.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 4.556 GWh in 2003 to 118. UPEEE Foundation page 57 . Inc.9 shows how the installed generating capacity would change from 2003 to 2012. with a minimum value of 26% and a maximum of 65%.4 DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario Energy Generation In the high economic growth scenario. Table 4.470 GWh in 2012.8 shows the expected generation under the HEGS. Reserve Margin and Reliability Similar to LEGS. increasing more than 200 percent within the ten-year planning period. the percentage reserve margin in the HEGS is considerably high. 140000 120000 100000 80000 GWh 60000 40000 20000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4.8: Generation under the High Economic Growth Scenario Installed Generating Capacity Installed generating capacity would increase from 14.632 MW in 2003 to 22.

854 16.065 16.756 Percentage Reserve Margin (%) 65 57 49 39 30 25 26 29 30 26 Capacity Required for 20% Reserve Margin 10. 2003-2012 Peak Demand (MW) 8.000 15.423 15.633 10.709 14.308 18.005 21.615 15.000 20.674 20.562 16.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25.031 17.469 11. Inc.378 13.120 15.727 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. UPEEE Foundation page 58 .563 13.000 5.359 14.106 Installed Capacity (MW) 14.424 12.148 21.883 9.000 MW 10.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Wind Demand (MW) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4.865 16.806 22.660 11.155 20.632 15.790 18.5: Percentage Reserve Margin for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario.560 12.765 18.9: DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the High Economic Growth Scenario Table 4.

11. this scenario would require 184. and natural gas whose contribution ranges from 24% to 17% for the period considered.5 million barrels of oil 85. Of these amounts. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Wind Figure 4. 98.322.5 million barrels of oil. Total cost of imported fuel is $5.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Energy Mix From Figures 4. UPEEE Foundation page 59 .120 tonnes of coal and 1.835.12.272 BCF of natural gas for the whole planning period. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.10: Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements. 184.10 and 4. the share of non-renewable energy increases to 80%.127 million.211 tonnes of coal would have to be imported. While the share of renewable energy declines to 20% by 2012 from 37% in 2003. Coal share remains very significant at 47% in 2012. Much of the increase in the share of non-renewable energy may be attributed to oil whose shares increase from 5% to 17%. it is quite evident that dependence on non-renewable energy for power generation remains strong. The breakdown of fossil fuels that will be used in the HEGS-PEP scenario is shown in Figure 4. Inc.

000 80.000.000 70. Inc.000.000 20.11: Share of Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy in the Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario 100.000.000.000 10.000.000 (tonnes) 50.000 30.000. UPEEE Foundation page 60 .000.000.000 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 4.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 90.000 40.12: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 60.000.000.

945 70.7 for energy generation cost for 2003 to 2012.211 111. Table 4.829 631. the UPSL obtained the following shown in Table 4.132 Generation Cost The PEP-HEGS Scenario will require the following costs: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: $ 12.599 970 19. Figure 4.779.236.022.758 $ 25.076.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. UPEEE Foundation page 61 .896 Based on the installed capacities and energy generation indicated in the PEP for the HEGS. Inc.913 $ 2.680.225 $ 10.764. Total CO2 emissions for the period is 347.610 778 4.059.2 million tonnes.568.050.165.751 283 1.820 61. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. greenhouse has emissions is to further soar.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 19.6.409 2.059.677 Year 2012 565.843 167.317 326.294. Total abatement cost for the HEG-PEP Scenario is $32.13 illustrates the contribution of each energy source to CO2 emissions resulting from the DOE plan for the HEGS.995.064 21. An estimate of the environmental emissions is provided in Table 4.

000.000.0555 0.7: Generation Costs for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario.0598 0.9853 3.3646 3.0573 12% 3% 2% PhP/kWh* 3.0582 0.000.0635 0.2021 3.0545 3.000 10.000 20.000.000 40.000.000 50.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 4.0543 0.4908 3.0542 0.0549 0.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 60.2889 3.0175 3.000 tonne CO2 30.0557 0. Inc.0392 3.0640 2.000.9810 2. UPEEE Foundation page 62 .0612 0.1488 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.13: Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario Table 4. 2003-2012 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average Assumptions: Discount rate Inflation rate Fuel escalation rate * $1 = PhP 55 Generation Cost $/kWh 0.0553 0.

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

060 million. Energy Mix The share of renewable energy for the LEGS-MCPD option would increase by 10% from the period 2003 to 2012. however.450 MW in 2003 to 8. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.4.1. Of these amounts. 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%. Details of this scenario is given in Appendix D. this scenario would require 58. Total cost of fuel that need to be imported for this scenario is $ 3.9 BCF of natural gas would have to be imported.8 million barrels of oil.554. Installed Capacity As shown in Figure 5. respectively. The share of coal and oil in the mix would reduce by about 28% at the end of the period. UPEEE Foundation page 64 .2 and 5.228 tonnes of coal and 154. which were used in this option to address the additional power and energy demand. which cannot be addressed with the low dependable capacity of its existing plants. The energy mix and share of clean energy for the option are shown in Figure 5.685 MW in 2012.4 BCF of natural gas for the whole planning period. which were used in the PEP scenarios.945.279 tonnes of coal and 1. This is because more power plants are required to meet Mindanao’s energy demand. Also. This is shown in Figure 5. Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements.502. 58. renewable energy plant installed capacity is increased by 95% from 4. 64.8 million barrels of oil. By 2012. Note also that wind power plants. 73. Inc. the Moderate Clean Power Development option is applied to the Low Economic Growth Scenario. natural gas and renewable energy plant capacities would amount to 69% of the total installed capacity. the reserve margin is quite higher at 42% to 48%. 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. have lower capacity factors compared to coal power plants. natural gas capacity would continue to increase until the end of the planning period.1 LEGS-MCPD Scenario In this scenario.3.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 5. For Mindanao.

Figure 5. achieving net reduction of 44.969.113.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Oil-based Hydro Coal Biomass Natural Gas Wind Geothermal Demand (MW) Figure 5.1: Installed Generating Capacity for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario Environmental Emissions and Abatement Cost As would be expected.000 MW 10. Total cost of abatement of other emissions for this option is $23. The LEGS-PEP abatement cost is $6.166 million higher than that of the LEGS-MCPD.0568 or PhP 3.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25.5 illustrates the CO2 emissions calculated from this option. Total CO2 emissions for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario is 264.508 $ 8.1235 The LEGS-MCPD will achieve a net savings of $ 236 million as compared with the LEGS-PEP.755.053 $ 23.6 million tonnes of CO2 as compared to the LEGS-PEP. computed cost values for the planning period are as follows: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: Average generation cost: $ 12. Inc.507. UPEEE Foundation page 65 .815 $ 0.202 million. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Generation Cost For this LEGS-MCPD.479.000 20.723.7 million tonnes.592.000 15.254 $ 2.955. GHG emissions from the LEGS-MCPD are much lower than that from the LEGS-PEP.000 5.

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

000.000 50.000.000.000. UPEEE Foundation page 67 .000.000.000.000 70.000.000 10.000.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 80.000 35.000 60. Inc.000 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 5.000 5.4: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario 40.000.000 10.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Coal 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 5.000.000 (tonnes) 40.000.000.000.000.000 20.000 20.000 15.5: CO2 Emissions for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 30.000.000 30.000 25.

074. brings the CO2 emission level at 321. This 159% increase in renewable capacity is largely attributable to the increase in wind capacity from zero in 2003 to 3.40% of the peak demand. renewable energy capacity is increased from 4. Figure 5.10. Mindanao’s average reserve margin. Coal importation for this option reaches 58.731 tonnes. while importation of oil and natural gas stand at 57. The total CO2 emissions for the period is 248. Total cost of fuel that is needed to be imported for this scenario is $ 2. the average reserve margins are 33% and 26%. Environmental Emissions and Abatement Cost The increased utilization of renewable energy resources.6 shows the installed capacities for the LEGS-ACPD option.7 illustrates the energy mix resulting from the LEGS-ACPD option.450 MW in 2003 to 11. is 53%.175 tonnes of coal.34 tonnes/GWh.794 GWh in 2003 to 84.2 LEGS-ACPD Scenario In this scenario. wind power plants take 20.4 million tonnes.2 million barrels and 139. UPEEE Foundation page 68 . The mix of imported and indigenous fuel is shown in Figure 5. respectively.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 5. Reserve Margin For Luzon and Visayas. for 2008 to 2012.9.520 MW in 2012.2 million barrels of oil. Inc.4 BCF.294. The average for the country is 34%. Energy Mix Figure 5.9 million tonnes less than the LEGS-PEP. the Aggressive Clean Power Development Option is applied to the Low Economic Growth Scenario. The 30% increase in renewable energy share from 37% to 48% over the planning period. Figure 5. in this option. Installed Capacity In this option.523. Fuel Consumption Total fuel requirement for the LEGS-ACPD is 66. In this option. brings the clean energy generation from 33. which is 60.860 million. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. The total CO2 emissions for each year are shown in Figure 5.8 shows the increase in clean energy share in the mix.480 MW in 2012 and the further increase in the utilization of geothermal and biomass resources. Total cost of abatement for this option is $ 21.270 GWh in 2012.7 BCF of natural gas and 57.715. respectively. 1471.633.

000 15.000 MW 10. Inc.000 5.7: Energy Mix for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.6: Installed Generating Capacity for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 5.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25. UPEEE Foundation page 69 .000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Oil-based Hydro Coal Biomass Natural Gas Wind Geothermal Demand (MW) Figure 5.000 20.

000.000 70.000. UPEEE Foundation page 70 .000 (tonnes) 50.8: Coal and Oil-Based vs.000 80.000 40.000 20. Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario 90.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Coal and Oil-Based Renewable and Natural Gas Figure 5.000 0 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 5.000.000.000.000 10.000.000 60.9: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 30. Inc.000.000.000.

000 10.000. Installed Capacity The installed capacity for this option is given in Figure 5. computed cost values for the planning period are as follows: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: Average generation cost: $ 12.000. Natural gas capacities are increased throughout the period and would account for the biggest share in installed capacity by 2012. UPEEE Foundation page 71 .000 30.403.1698 This scenario would cost $52 million more than the LEGS-PEP.10: CO2 Emissions for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario Generation Cost For this LEGS-ACPD.000.11.094 $ 8.603.000 20.000 0 2003 2004 Oil-based 2005 Coal 2006 2007 2008 Geothermal 2009 Hydro 2010 Biomass 2011 Wind 2012 Natural Gas Figure 5.000.000. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. the Moderate Clean Power Development option is applied to the High Economic Growth Scenario.057. Inc.3 HEGS-MCPD Scenario In this scenario.0576 or PhP 3.671 $ 0. 5.880.000 5.000 15.816.000.000.414.564 $ 2.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 40.132.000 25.012 $ 23. Renewable energy capacity accounts for 30% in 2003 and 39% in 2012.000 35.000.661.

73. Of this mix. which is 63. The total CO2 emissions is at 283.0565 or PhP 3.807. while Figure 5.8 BCF tonnes of natural gas would have to be imported.686. 70.076. Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements.15 shows the CO2 emissions resulting from the HEGS-MCPD option. this scenario would require 70.9 BCF of natural gas for the whole planning period.940.665.7 million barrels of oil.12 shows the corresponding energy mix for the HEGS-MCPD option.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 2012.124 $ 9.549. This difference is attributable to the inevitable higher reserve margin for Mindanao.580.456 $ 0. 2% is contributed by wind power plants. Figure 5. Generation Cost For this HEGS-MCPD.322 million.390.030 $ 2. Energy Mix With its installed capacities dominating.857 tonnes of coal and 342.781. Of these amounts. which falls within 35% to 48%. Environmental Emissions Figure 5.1065 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.13 illustrates the clean energy mix. Total cost of fuel imports is $ 3.4 million tonnes lower than the HEGS-PEP.271 tonnes of coal and 1.7 million barrels of oil.778.349. 64.302 $ 24. UPEEE Foundation page 72 .347. Total abatement cost for this option is $ 24. computed cost values for the planning period are as follows: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: Average generation cost: $ 12. renewable energy and natural gas contribution to the energy mix increases from 61% to 74% for 2003 to 2012.718. Inc.8 million tonnes.769.

000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Oil-based Hydro Coal Biomass Natural Gas Wind Geothermal Demand (MW) Figure 5.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25.000 5. Inc.000 15. UPEEE Foundation page 73 .12: Energy Mix for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 20.11: 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 MW 10.

000.000. Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario 80.000.000.000.000 20.000. UPEEE Foundation page 74 .000 30.000 10.000 70.000 (tonnes) 40.000 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 5. Inc.000 50.000.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 5.14: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.13: Coal and Oil-Based vs.000 60.000.

Inc.000 25.000.000.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 40.000.000 35.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Coal 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 5.000.000 10. the Aggressive Clean Power Development option strategy is applied to the High Economic Growth Scenario.000 20.000.15: CO2 Emissions for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario 5. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 15.17 and Figure 5.16 illustrates this.000 30.18 illustrate these changes in the energy mix.000 5. Installed Capacity The more aggressive use of renewable energy resources for this option results to a 50% contribution of renewable energy to the total installed capacity in 2012. Energy Mix While oil-based and coal share in the energy mix decreased by 38%. the country’s effective reserve margin ranges from 28% to 32%. Figure 5. Figure 5. UPEEE Foundation page 75 . Reserve Margin With the inevitably high reserve margin of 45% to 51% for Mindanao.4 HEGS-ACPD Scenario In this option.000.000. clean energy share increased by 24% over the planning period.000.

458.5 BCF of natural gas for the whole planning period.824.139 tonnes of coal and 276.0 million barrels of oil. along with 59. 67.1 million tonnes.1647 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. UPEEE Foundation page 76 . this scenario would require 90.730 $ 2.402.638.568 $ 0.723.584.583. Total CO2 emissions is at 275.1 million tonnes lower than that for the HEGS-PEP.19 shows the sharing of the imported and indigenous fossil fuels. Generation Cost For this HEGS-ACPD.182. computed cost values for the planning period are as follows: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: Average generation cost: $ 12.791.513 million.842. Inc. Figure 5. All of the oil would have to be imported. Cost of fuel imports is $ 3.532. 72.7 BCF of natural gas.682 tonnes of coal and 1.560.199.567 $ 9.0575 or PhP 3. The cost of abatement for SOx .271 $ 25.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements.288. Environmental Emissions and Abatement Cost Carbon dioxide generation for the HEGS-ACPD option is shown in Figure 5. NOx and particulates for this option is 23.20.

000 MW 10.16: Installed Generating Capacity for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 5.17: Energy Mix for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 5.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25.000 15.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Oil-based Hydro Coal Biomass Natural Gas Wind Geothermal Peak Demand Figure 5. UPEEE Foundation page 77 .000 20. Inc.

000. Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario 80.000.000.000 50.000 0 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 5.19: Fuel Consumption for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 (tonnes) 40.000 30.000 10.000.000 70.000. Inc.000 60.000.000.18: Coal and Oil-Based vs.000 20. UPEEE Foundation page 78 .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.

20: CO2 Emissions for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 20.000.000.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Coal 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 5.000 15. UPEEE Foundation page 79 .POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 40.000.000.000.000 30.000.000 35.000.000 10. Inc.000 5.000 25.000.

storage and therefore requires that more research and development activities to address these issues. the country has to resort to biomass. These alternative plans are comparable to the PEP in terms of costs. small hydro. as was done in this study. which could adversely affect the power system’s stability at high levels of penetration. study must be made to determine how much wind power capacity the local power system grids could absorb. natural gas importation may be pursued. Switching to cleaner energy. 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. At the moment. In addition. But it is still associated with problems such as fuel collection. wind and natural gas technologies.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. 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. the installed capacity and hence the energy mix has been dominated by non-renewable energy. Another issue is the intermittent nature of wind power. Biomass power is also an attractive option for grid-connected generation. UPEEE Foundation page 80 . 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. is attractive as the price of carbon is expected to increase in the future. While the PEP has tried to address these problems. The contribution from renewable energy is expected to decline in the next 10 years. we have outlined a set of measures that should be made to attract more investments in renewable generation technologies in the future. At the current CO2 prices ($5 per tonne) in the market. This study also offers two alternative paths or strategies (moderate and aggressive) through the alternative clean power development plans. therefore. new natural gas sites must be identified and developed. In the following paragraphs. In the medium term. To support power switching. 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. This study has assessed the technologies and resources in the Philippines that could be tapped for clean power development. Historically. which will worsen the situation from the point of view of clean and sustainable development. To aid planning and operation of the power system. The country has nearly exhausted its geothermal and large hydro resources. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Inc. the local natural gas industry is anchored on the natural gas find in Malampaya.

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

2 Transmission and Distribution Development Transmission and distribution infrastructure should be developed to increase access to renewable energy sites. Inc. renewable energy-based power plants. This cost mechanism will ensure that all electricity consumers will share the cost of such a development. particularly on the required technical analysis and compensating equipment.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. 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. These plants must “feed-in” the Grid at minimum prices that will guarantee the returns of power developers. The Philippine Grid and Distribution Code (PGDC) must be clear on its requirements and procedures on the connection. UPEEE Foundation page 82 . Transmission facilities should deliberately be expanded toward locations of promising renewable energy sources.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 System Operator should be allowed to procure ancillary services needed by the Grid to accommodate intermittent wind power and pass on the cost to all users of the Grid. run-of-river small hydro and biomass) should be given priority in the dispatch of generating units. 6. The cost of such an expansion should be borne by the transmission or distribution utility. 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. most of which are site specific.1: Recommended Bottom-Up Approach to Energy Planning 6.

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

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

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

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

011 26 169 530 16 104 328 20 137 421 2 41 126 8 80 246 18 117 372 36 234 742 8 87 267 15 98 299 31 265 832 8 52 161 90 620 1. UPEEE Foundation page 1 of 4 .280 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.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 1.922 21 158 484 5 40 125 5 33 100 20 151 478 43 315 971 7 46 143 17 125 382 11 86 263 21 165 509 15 98 307 24 163 509 4 40 123 117 796 2.Appendix A POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table A. Inc.486 686 4906 15.

170 6.031 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. 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 1.2: 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 2.113 169 519 347 1.Appendix A POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table A. Inc.738 Table A.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. UPEEE Foundation page 2 of 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. Inc.258 6.Appendix A POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table A.030 1 10 53 9 79 415 3 32 168 3 22 116 4 40 210 8 72 378 30 318 1. Locations of Practical Small Hydro Potential Resources in Visayas Province Aklan Eastern Samar Negros Occidental Negros Oriental VISAYAS TOTAL Number of Sites Estimated Capacity Estimated Annual (MWe) Generation (GWh) 1 5 2 1 9 5 33 13 7 58 26 173 68 37 304 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.4.585 Table A.671 6 35 184 3 34 179 15 181 110 4 26 951 3 28 147 19 179 941 1 6 32 129 1.5. UPEEE Foundation page 3 of 4 .

Appendix A POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table A. 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. UPEEE Foundation page 4 of 4 . Inc.209 7 37 11 58 7 37 826 4.237 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.6.692 7 7 18 18 53 279 26 137 58 305 69 363 230 1.

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

568 4.226 5.839 4.030 6.758 5.176 25.432 2000 12.109 4.150 7.442 5.870 26.554 36.797 1998 11. 1991-2001 (MW) Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Fuel Type Oil-based 3.894 9.531 1.353 10.927 Coal 405 405 441 550 850 1.477 8.626 10. UPEEE Foundation page 1 of 2 .145 4.363 9.789 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 20 16 17 848 5.949 7.730 11.013 12.865 10.578 1999 11.851 1.223 6.799 7.395 721 1.183 16.789 6.963 3.402 Source: DOE Table B.554 1996 9.417 1.162 11.290 47.578 41.071 25.063 Geothermal 888 888 963 1.132 4.078 18.804 13.849 41.518 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 6.700 5.567 13.339 952 1.859 823 1. 1991-2001 (GWh) Year Year 1991 Residential Commercial Industrial Others Utilities Own Use Power Losses Total 6.301 2.116 18.649 25.288 19.167 1.928 12.929 19.049 Source: DOE University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.196 5.867 16.819 1.1: Installed Generating Capacity.425 5.015 1.452 1.725 9.725 12.867 1.267 1.942 1.301 2.870 1993 6.212 9.543 934 1.282 5.579 1994 7.232 7.931 1.840 7.388 11.459 1995 8.649 1992 6.959 9.444 921 1.249 4.237 8.663 18.185 9.368 4.301 2.185 13.910 8.963 Natural Gas 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 1.579 30.950 1.042 2.875 8.030 5.901 12.754 41.696 11.914 10.707 39.973 5.135 6.432 45.345 45.600 1.459 33.254 2.200 3.320 6.086 3.290 2001 13.037 39.335 5.847 9.259 2.547 10.797 41.191 957 2.791 2.155 2.301 2.440 5.190 11.667 6.600 2.104 Source: DOE Table B. Inc.936 8.238 26.987 3.098 14.713 47.590 5.399 4.066 7.708 1997 10.348 2.073 1.067 1.053 4.735 33.341 3.2: 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 25.3: Energy Consumption by Sector.734 30.862 6.154 1.257 2.493 3.390 6.471 6.939 13.536 5.931 1.856 1.296 5.301 2.684 762 1.534 7.340 6.132 4.072 11.154 4.855 7.931 Hydro 2.799 9.844 5.Appendix B POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table B.050 12.594 11.301 2.512 13.128 36.069 5.

352 1998 5.725 117.236.529 296.062 1.273 1.704 18.147 5. 1991-2001 (MW) Year Luzon Visayas Mindanao Philippines Source: DOE 1991 3.763 25.671 16.807 CO 16.820 474.291 1.695 33.296 1993 3.376 3.133 30.578 1999 31. tonne CO2 Year Oil-based 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 9.231.291 1996 4.553.808 1995 3. UPEEE Foundation page 2 of 2 .133 1.362 14.556 404.491.967 2.727 29.076 792 805 904 NMVOC 975 1.808 Fuel Type Geothermal 261. 1991-2001 (GWh) 1991 Luzon Visayas Mindanao Philippines Source: DOE 1992 19.036 4.428.119.666 1999 5.185.131.991 5.964 114.665 Coal 1.360 14.306 682 828 5.082.566.530 15.687.687.509.069 84.283 15.131.029 36.365 39.882 149.448 16.915 12.611 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.970 527.459 1995 25.471.854 6.633 130.816 1997 4.566.747 25.547.428.639 16.745 4.045 410 626 4.831 189.084 4.286.206 3.755 4.708 23.908 2000 5.521.338.204 160.796 CH4 587 643 685 835 963 974 1.131.6: Environmental Emissions.083 18.473 523 691 4.432 2000 34.902 2.679 8.081 1992 3.813 3.004 906 1.359 1.762 Table B.580.311 10.554 1996 27.704 18.674 480.962 751.076 2.400 2001 5.678 117.870.705.688 3.644 13.103.989 12.566 3.311 20.794 13.282 286.351.309 146.552 135.585.682 Table B.530 15.585.345 2.049 19.698 4.411.896 136.4: Peak Demand. tonne Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Environmental Emissions CO 2 10.343 41.163 5.521 18.872 6.580 27.492 144.226 789 893 6.555 30.290 3.773 727 852 6.245 41.563 127.547.726 67.652 4.242 1.233 11.441 5.553.789 3.541 10.649 812 939 7.932 154.836 18.164 19.279 998.703 47.175 5.582 11.990 99.337 25.781 24.579 1994 23.864 26.164 19.903 21.261 9.348 2.511 2.521.038 973 1.159 13.6: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Source.122.238 106.920 591 780 5.848 164.519.351.675 10.403 1.004 101.835 893 954 7.290 2001 36.222 Natural Gas 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.396 18.712.928 278.233 11.396 18.702 7.124 17.414 162.870 1993 19.413 258.464 45.671 16.649 Table B.184 5.679 5.687 1994 3.797 1998 31.729 NOX 58.028 770 868 6.582 11.733 24.586 126.250 473 573 4.448 16.644 328.708 1997 30.116 20.094.762 SOX 115.561 551 696 4.090 16.067 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 10.075 N 2O 415 436 421 469 541 610 711 742 644 734 842 Particulates 10.411.232.159 13.Appendix B POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table B. Inc.486 20.109 23.481 5.283 15.347 5.780 257.580.616 28.175.5: Generation by Grid.127 1.

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

58% VISAYAS 1.67% MINDANAO 1.459 1.855 8.912 2.161 9.31% 7.869 13.254 1.707 1.830 10.159 1.958 8.93% 7.1a: DOE Plan for Power Generation for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (GWh) Type Oil-Based Fuel Oil Diesel Coal Local Imported Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal Wind Others Baseload Midrange Peaking 2003 2720 2377 343 18629 2820 15809 13349 6324 14121 0 0 0 0 0 2004 3247 2747 500 18087 1101 16986 16017 6893 14975 153 0 0 0 0 2005 3127 2740 388 19953 1289 18664 17141 7928 15054 153 825 0 825 0 2006 2777 2701 75 24659 2216 22443 18210 7943 15092 153 746 0 746 0 69580 Year 2007 4318 4166 151 26446 2586 23860 19415 7968 15098 153 1551 1104 446 0 74948 2008 5117 4998 119 27561 2862 24698 20074 8001 15099 153 4433 2960 1473 0 80437 2009 5673 5499 174 29218 3200 26018 20260 8042 15095 153 7920 4028 3852 39 86360 2010 4577 4365 212 28828 3108 25720 20192 8069 15104 153 15713 10338 4881 495 92636 2011 3710 3580 130 27420 2789 24630 19965 8029 15103 153 24910 19206 5339 365 99290 2012 4015 3859 157 27606 2842 24764 20068 8038 15103 152 31448 25371 5545 531 106430 TOTAL 55142 59372 64182 Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 Table C.833 9.30% 7.041 7.139 11.95% 6. (2003 .276 1.813 14.277 11.084 1.360 1.2012) (2003 .592 1.503 9. Inc.673 1.548 11.13% 7.477 1. UPEEE Foundation page 1 of 16 .39% NATIONAL Non-Coincident Peak 8.563 1.074 1.033 7.997 12.789 1.95% 7.26% 7.168 1.814 15.519 10.319 12.2012) LUZON 6.889 17.752 7.R.007 1. G.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.91% 7.2007) (2008 .1b: System Peak Demand Forecasts for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (MW) YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual Ave.034 7.149 13.275 7.57% Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.829 1.377 1.

31% 7.497 9.661 10.67% MINDANAO 6.539 69.675 46.58% VISAYAS 5.548 64.2012) LUZON 39.260 76.827 92.735 57.13% 7.91% 7.2007) (2008 .182 55.103 9.95% 6.39% TOTAL 51. UPEEE Foundation page 2 of 16 .072 49.726 6.686 7.057 98.924 8. Inc.93% 7.274 7.258 6.420 11.506 74.604 42.892 7.135 11.2012) (2003 .30% 7.95% 7.1c: Electricity Sales Forecasts for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (GWh) YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual Ave.320 5.870 66.170 6.801 8.57% Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.754 7.342 8.564 80.743 10. G.411 9.024 85.391 71.452 7.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.016 9.R.154 59.875 53.26% 7.740 7.660 61.306 7. (2003 .

647 1.217 2.308 2010 1583 3758 450 3.604 546 - 1.141 12.308 Luzon Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 2763 1510 907 - 2763 1860 907 65 - 2763 2205 907 65 - 2763 2205 907 65 - 2763 2205 907 65 - 2763 2205 907 65 - 2763 2205 907 65 2763 2205 907 65 2763 2205 907 65 2763 2205 907 65 Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking LUZON TOTAL Oil-based Coal Local Imported 600 1500 2100 900 1200 1500 1500 300 750 750 900 11.308 2008 2443 3758 450 3.107 616 200 200 - 2.517 2.308 2009 2233 3758 450 3.1d: DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (MW) Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Local Imported Year 2003 2443 3758 450 3.308 2007 2443 3758 450 3.781 468 431 281 281 281 281 281 281 182 182 300 205 150 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 - 1.381 11.796 12.441 13. Inc.308 2006 2443 3758 450 3.131 13.207 616 200 200 - 2.267 2.657 616 - 1.017 2.141 12.367 2.717 1.141 12.308 2005 2443 3758 450 3. UPEEE Foundation page 3 of 16 .308 2011 1583 3758 450 3.067 2.807 616 200 200 - 1.308 2012 1583 3758 450 3.607 616 - 1.617 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.707 616 200 200 - 1.031 15.817 2.308 2004 2443 3758 450 3.308 616 200 200 - Natural Gas Mindanao Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 997 104 - 997 104 - 997 104 100 - 997 104 100 - 997 104 50 100 - 997 104 200 100 - 997 104 250 100 - 997 104 350 100 - 997 104 500 100 - 997 104 600 100 - Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking MINDANAO TOTAL 1.907 616 200 200 - 2.831 15.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.208 616 200 200 - 2.

563 2012 2.963 600 3.350 300 2.970 65 - 2.950 750 2.457 3.214 1.763 3.763 3.963 600 3.970 65 300 - 2.763 3.970 65 150 350 - 2.480 4.340 4. Inc.363 2005 3.563 2009 3.214 1.163 600 3.163 600 3.015 16.970 65 550 1.563 2011 2.763 2. UPEEE Foundation page 4 of 16 .163 600 3.950 900 Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking PHILIPPINES TOTAL 14.363 2006 3.381 4.519 1.970 65 1.970 65 400 650 - 2.632 15.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Local Imported Year 2003 3.381 4.214 1.405 19.865 16.565 17.763 3.763 2.130 4.763 3.363 2004 3.163 600 3.214 1.563 2010 2.563 2007 3.490 3.763 3.340 3.505 18.970 65 350 - 2.120 15.963 600 3.500 1.163 600 3.763 3.970 65 3.214 1.615 15.350 1.214 1.300 1.563 Philippines Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 2.214 1.763 3.970 65 2.563 2008 3.650 750 2.163 600 3.869 1.756 20.340 4.163 600 3.214 1.930 - 2.340 4.706 Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.

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.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.350 1.500 2.1e: DOE Plan for Power Plant Line-Up for the Low Economic Growth Scenario LUZON YEAR PLANT ADDITION VISAYAS MINDANAO PHILIPPINES MW installed MW installed MW installed PLANT ADDITION PLANT ADDITION cumulative total capacity MW capacity MW capacity MW Uprating of LeyteBohol Interconnection from 35 MW to 100 MW Mambucal Geo 40 Kalayaan 3&4 350 2004 PNOC_EDC Wind Transfer of a Diesel Plant to Mindanao (70 MW) Northwind 40 345 40 385 -70 25 Uprating of LeyteCebu Interconnection from 200 MW to 400 MW Panay Midrange Negros Midrange 150 50 50 100 50 50 50 50 100 100 790 Baseload Plant 100 720 4.240 Cebu Baseload 4.200 290 390 490 Mindanao Coal Baseload Plant Baseload Plant 200 50 150 370 420 570 1.890 Cebu Baseload Panay Baseload Bohol Midrange Baseload Plant 2010 Midrange Peaking Baseload Plant 2011 Midrange Baseload Plant 2012 Peaking 600 300 450 900 300 600 150 3. Inc. UPEEE Foundation page 5 of 16 .150 Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.190 Cebu Baseload Panay Baseload 990 Baseload Plant 100 970 7.750 690 Baseload Plant 50 620 3.050 San Roque Hydro 2005 345 690 240 Diesel Plant from Luzon Midrange Plant 70 100 170 1.200 5.

061 35.060.1h: 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 78.951.633 164.922 Natural gas 5.865 683.985 42.827.762 94.821 2.536 Oil-based 12.776 3.464 Natural gas 104 125 134 143 152 157 159 158 156 157 1.782 13.429 181. Inc.712 117.229 8.600.840 51.965 83.894 22.680 489.188.937 148.410 89.788 1.958.519 TOTAL 18.307.445 Oil-based 21.273 7.317.462 27.927 8.797 3.855 133.631.577.201 30.803 103.330 25.402.450 295.158.242 75.928 31.982. UPEEE Foundation page 6 of 16 .809.941 384.019 TOTAL 112.710 128.887.993 46.635 582.833.125.477 203.870 225.828 345.644 7.249.939 26.095 Oil-based 2.991 33.897 189.975 14.177 92.829 222.284 24.997 Table C.532 39.568 115.812 32.103 21.422 335.188 139.1f: 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 641.497 195.609 10.388.045.785 39.837 18.918 Coal 10.340 238.816.722 685.088 TOTAL 159.876.032 392.171 29.1g: 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 137.297 33.536.820.963 15.093 679.802.203 265.185 32.138 38.571.921.687 16.304.939 Natural gas 21.936.279 28.011 2.113 283.869.792 8.163 437.493 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.599 168.821 2.820.808 40.100 8.573.452 685.760.449 685.962 16.177 685.416 21.624 7.086 8.020 289.113.676 685.151 243.770 25.531 14.495 685.051.265.317 211.091 57.521 36.849 7.611 309.669.491 97.220 8.352.303 265.086.866.453 Table C.908 32.114.534 8.988 213.076.410 40.855 246.313 685.652 182.927 8.289 28.491.764.324 28.778.850 20.676 6.251 128.289 159.844 147.660 169.503 1.030 2.264 8.896 9.465 5.897.435 81.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.316.460 34.275.528 31.981 303.803.

241 28.580 1.758 42.049 Natural gas 8.730 Natural gas 145 174 186 198 211 218 220 219 217 218 2.125 13.341 1.454 Oil-based 163 195 267 238 302 449 713 770 755 802 4.319 13.966 32.925 4.712 28.078 165.157 2.355 26.053 76.008 Oil-based 33 40 49 44 59 82 121 129 122 131 810 TOTAL 282 314 346 379 423 470 526 566 598 644 4.121 54.268 11.656 12.763 13.045 1.363 36.240 4.999 7.060 6.714 3.810 2.069 14.602 16.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.630 2.571 1.548 Table C. Inc.196 13.554 12.385 11.425 1.671 Table C.228 Natural gas 1.620 20.323 362.008 2.285 13.562 1. UPEEE Foundation page 7 of 16 .586 1.274 13.414 Oil-based 2.595 46.337 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.581 1.1k: Total NMVOC Emissions by Fuel Type for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total for period Geothermal Coal 373 362 399 493 551 610 665 783 933 1.362 23.586 50.432 25.758 24.373 2.176 17.207 TOTAL 21.571 14.1j: Total CH4 Emissions by Fuel Type for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total for period Geothermal Coal 103 100 111 137 153 170 185 218 259 294 1.586 10.529 11.575 13.134 3.250 3.655 TOTAL 1.873 9.193 121.1i: Total CO Emissions by Fuel Type for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total for period Geothermal Coal 9.776 10.971 12.963 3.519 1.397 3.254 1.

03 0.66 358. Inc.78 346.45 2.778 1.013 1.50 0.244 26.952 38.02 0.700 24.466 41.34 0.563 Oil-based 2.589 1.04 1.03 0.647 338.995 Table C. UPEEE Foundation page 8 of 16 .686 Table C.01 0.176 2.01 0.02 0.927 20.39 0.969 2.01 0.44 0.03 0.02 0.923 7.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.02 0.257 1.01 0.342 Natural gas 313 376 402 428 456 471 476 474 469 471 4.353 55.36 0.1n: Environmental Emissions per Unit Generation (tonne/kWh) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Environmental Emissions CO2 340.37 438.336 Oil-based 79 95 121 108 142 202 305 320 308 328 2.01 0.394 15.256 11.41 0.02 0.46 0.209 43.275 1.02 0.69 2.387 TOTAL 19.250 1.01 0.044 Natural gas 836 1.01 NMVOC 0.02 0.221 3.684 7.01 0.02 0.52 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.003 1.140 22.39 0.01 0.424 1.175 1.02 Particulates 0.37 0.50 0.836 7.1l: 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 1.771 53.25 2.39 410.60 NOX 2.41 4.78 CO 0.50 SOX 2.03 0.03 0.073 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 16.973 33.97 421.072 7.620 274.979 29.89 4.14 2.24 3.264 1.01 0.858 29.43 0.122 1.389 15.52 3.03 0.589 9.40 0.42 0.01 2.514 5.03 0.35 2.42 0.36 390.06 3.39 373.49 0.031 46.399 1.51 CH4 0.03 0.008 TOTAL 952 1.55 338.35 0.66 429.47 0.528 3.160 25.84 3.97 2.02 0.67 2.559 21.03 N2O 0.139 4.140 1.03 0.15 4.89 2.653 49.216 1.698 3.268 1.57 2.256 34.50 0.917 17.

09% 8.106 MINDANAO 1.424 12.994 8.034 2. (2003 .378 13.469 11.186 NATIONAL Non-Coincident Peak 8.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.313 1.788 7.106 8.809 1.633 10.60% 8.194 1.359 14.92% 8.014 1.891 2.90% 8.23% Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.176 1.22% 8.94% 8.2a: 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.73% 7.081 1.883 9.65% 7.46% 8. UPEEE Foundation page 9 of 16 .804 13.543 1.281 1.R.2b: System Peak Demand Forecasts for the High Economic Growth Scenario (MW) YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual Ave.862 12.438 10.099 1.815 VISAYAS 1.512 1.428 1.953 2.630 1.186 10.423 15.357 7.992 11.562 16.2012) (2003 .711 9. Inc.2007) (2008 .757 1.2012) LUZON 6. G.59% 7.13% 8.675 1.400 1.790 18.

305 6.149 8.847 12.033 8.60% 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.73% 7.64% 7.363 59.888 51.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.300 6.155 8. Inc.015 11.465 8.658 66.R.59% 7. UPEEE Foundation page 10 of 16 .355 5.314 11.814 60.555 10.732 8.46% 6.187 71.807 6.848 9.09% 8.888 8.578 75.746 64.851 7.2007) (2008 .497 10.124 8.13% 51. G. (2003 .104 81.805 9.2012) (2003 .474 69.94% 8.23% Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.148 97.90% 8.814 43.542 8.22% 5.469 55.266 104.233 11.555 90.938 7.711 77.392 83.094 55.2012) 39.156 46.92% 8.

Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.367 2.763 2.308 2012 1.817 2.317 2.763 2.758 450 3.441 13.2d: DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the High Economic Growth Scenario (MW) Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Local Imported Year 2003 2. UPEEE Foundation page 11 of 16 .707 616 200 200 - 1.658 616 200 200 - 2.583 3.308 2005 2.758 450 3.300 1.141 12.647 1.763 1.700 1.205 907 65 2.657 616 - 1.758 450 3.443 3.443 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 - 1.205 907 65 Luzon Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking 300 1.567 2.308 2006 2.308 2008 2.881 16.443 3.308 2011 1.443 3.607 616 - 1.308 2007 2.763 2.300 750 LUZON TOTAL Oil-based Coal Local Imported 11.067 2.857 616 200 200 - 2.205 907 65 2.763 2.758 450 3.557 616 200 200 - 2.443 3.141 12.763 2.357 616 200 200 - 2.867 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.443 3.604 546 - 1.308 2009 2.381 17.758 450 3.796 12.758 450 3.431 14.500 900 2.308 2004 2.205 907 65 2.583 3.717 1.205 907 65 2.205 907 65 2.767 2.758 450 3.763 1.233 3.007 616 200 200 - 2.800 3.381 11.205 907 65 2.308 2010 1.860 907 65 2.017 2.758 450 3.758 616 200 200 - Natural Gas Mindanao Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 997 104 - 997 104 - 997 104 100 - 997 104 100 - 997 104 50 100 - 997 104 250 150 - 997 104 300 150 - 997 104 400 250 - 997 104 550 300 - 997 104 650 300 - Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking MINDANAO TOTAL 1.758 450 3.583 3.205 907 65 2. Inc.763 2.308 Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 2.510 907 - 2.763 2.763 2.758 450 3.141 12.800 3.

000 4.200 4.615 15.765 18.065 16.970 65 2.763 3.214 1.930 - 2.963 600 3.214 1.155 20.763 3.120 15.214 1.340 4.163 600 3.756 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.250 750 PHILIPPINES TOTAL 14.806 22.214 1.519 1.563 2009 3.869 1.490 3.563 2011 2.250 0 3.130 4.763 2.970 65 2.970 65 2.763 3.563 2010 2.850 3.480 4.005 21.763 3.563 2012 2.163 600 3.963 600 3.865 16.363 2004 3.163 600 3.763 3.150 0 1.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Local Imported Year 2003 3.763 3.163 600 3. UPEEE Foundation page 12 of 16 .970 65 2.763 3.457 3.563 2008 3.340 4.214 1.381 4.163 600 3.970 65 2.163 600 3.163 600 3.970 65 Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking 300 350 150 400 450 800 700 2.214 1.970 65 2.363 2005 3.363 2006 3.214 1.340 3.563 Philippines Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 2.340 4.214 1. Inc.970 65 2.970 65 2.500 0 3.381 4.763 3.632 15.963 600 3.763 2.563 2007 3.

440 Baseload Plant 100 1.290 Cebu Baseload Bohol Midrange Baseload Plant Midrange Plant 100 50 870 6.250 Midrange 1.300 2010 Midrange Baseload Plant 2011 Midrange 900 600 5.340 Baseload Plant Midrange Plant 150 50 1.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.140 940 590 290 440 Midrange Plant 100 2006 2007 Midrange 2008 300 690 690 Panay Midrange Panay Baseload Panay Midrange Mindanao Coal Baseload Plant 200 50 370 420 1.540 Cebu Baseload Panay Baseload 1.550 990 Cebu Baseload Cebu Midrange Negros Baseload Baseload Plant Midrange Plant 200 50 670 2.070 8.190 Cebu Baseload Panay Baseload Baseload Plant 50 720 3.150 Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. UPEEE Foundation page 13 of 16 .790 Cebu Baseload Negros Baseload Cebu Midrange 50 50 100 50 50 1.100 2005 150 50 50 100 50 50 50 50 100 50 50 50 100 150 50 1.2e: DOE Plan for Power Plant Line-Up for the High Economic Growth Scenario LUZON YEAR PLANT ADDITION Kalayaan 3&4 VISAYAS MINDANAO PHILIPPINES MW installed MW installed MW installed PLANT ADDITION PLANT ADDITION cumulative total capacity MW capacity MW capacity MW 350 345 Uprating of LeyteBohol Interconnection from 35 MW to 100 MW from 35 MW to 100 MW Mambucal Geo 40 0 385 PNOC_EDC Wind 2004 Transfer of Hopewell GT to Mindanao (70 MW) Northwind San Roque Hydro 40 -70 40 25 345 690 Uprating of LeyteCebu Interconnection from 200 MW to 400 MW Panay Midrange Negros Midrange 240 Hopewell GT from Luzon 70 170 1.200 2. Inc.170 9.350 1.200 Peaking 2012 750 6.200 4.850 2009 Negros Baseload Cebu Midrange Bohol Midrange Baseload Plant 900 1.

533 32.840.172 22.221 109.774 12.293 82.300.862.258.912.620.839 182.021.743.767 685.124 11.891 11.399.565.434 28.713 217.796 44.683 61.106.706 153.518 214.639 34.002 321.070 305.052 418.220 8.866 288.498 130.989.167.473 51.073.017 30.202 74.927 8.351 79.207 14.033 8.000 684.890.784 157.383 326.951.055 2.590 Table C. Inc.498 264.198.300 Table C.437 242.320 681.792.779 15.922 383.050.370.194 TOTAL 111.734.634 149.891 8.297 33.226 7.686 347.294.537 16.060.812 6.653 27.887 197.722 685.465.2g: 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 139.686 Coal 10.456 Oil-based 27.299 33.895 12.722 685.316 257. UPEEE Foundation page 14 of 16 .051 8.808 243.820.859 7.450 685.2h: 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 79.125.677 174.064 118.585 685.625 1.264 8.180 42.909 224.824 13.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.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 641.897.864 2.808 139.043 41.701 Natural gas 5.945 479.499 TOTAL 167.873 49.206 180.912 293.518 77.785.722 685.704.178.630 162.897.862 11.636 Natural gas 104 126 136 145 155 158 159 158 156 157 1.877.534.211 173.673 35.254 191.879 Oil-based 2.170 89.234.661 30.741 631.396 154.208.198 192.322 12.735.042 17.585 685.939 26.014 42.965 19.185 32.849 7.934.888 232.488.945 1.415 Natural gas 21.490 157.806.198.812 33.708 137.744.609 28.689 Oil-based 9.843 20.035 TOTAL 19.645.233 33.582 40.664.173 56.688 221.526 33.267 121.822 23.970.829 347.787.863.250 284.094 104.921.710 546.793 3.877 20.897 409.341 26.435 2.296 1.297 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.239 10.317 3.572.529 5.124 8.253.941 30.828.

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 3.491 2.983 1.758 3.652 3.971 2.519 14.752 3.053 3.491 2.313 4.547 3.214 80 65 16.205 65 12.583 2.860 25 11.138 2.227 2.917 4.869 25 15.510 11.941 605 205 1.429 545 205 916 12 1.763 1.101 629 205 1.213 3.912 647 250 128 1.763 907 2.491 1.267 2.1a: Installed Capacity (MW) Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Luzon Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind LUZON TOTAL Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind VISAYAS TOTAL Oil-based Coal Mindanao Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind MINDANAO TOTAL Oil-based Coal Philippines Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind PHILIPPINES TOTAL Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.923 2.189 609 205 956 12 80 1.283 1.759 2.652 3.002 3.149 559 205 956 12 1.422 400 14.901 655 205 1.512 2.583 2.971 3.871 5.942 5.804 509 205 956 12 1.263 4.214 50 65 15.871 1.415 12 40 2.758 3.862 647 250 108 997 2.758 3.763 907 2.266 73 100 100 2.747 4.419 609 205 1.213 2.163 2.758 3.491 2.213 4.925 112 520 18.287 3.061 3.781 4.983 2. UPEEE Foundation Visayas page 2 of 16 .216 63 100 80 2.711 4.763 1.583 1.758 3.127 4.116 37 100 60 2.066 12 80 40 2. Inc.678 547 108 997 1.697 4.661 1.952 3.283 2.146 647 250 188 1.213 5.287 4.963 2.558 12 80 2.797 525 14.583 947 2.732 647 108 997 1.763 1.255 12 20 2.758 3.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.697 3.211 650 15.491 2.694 609 205 986 12 80 20 1.763 1.383 977 2.963 2.189 559 205 956 12 50 1.404 130 12.658 12 100 2.213 5.758 3.383 2.763 1.398 647 250 228 1.963 2.782 647 200 108 997 1.624 2.758 2.011 3.831 92 315 17.763 907 2.763 907 1.418 112 685 19.763 907 1.269 647 250 228 1.775 2.213 5.404 235 13.214 25 15.917 4.194 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.191 3.467 12 60 2.931 2.531 3.971 3.671 92 170 16.205 25 12.011 1.011 1.205 65 12.985 5.012 647 250 148 1.971 3.682 547 108 997 1.583 3.312 3.942 112 850 21.895 2.758 3.633 2.

017 17.177 685.536.402.275.689 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.143 59.449 685.975 15.060 33.577.281.523 4.125.076.763 0 0 0 0 0 820 800 900 300 400 1.778.360 92.784 15.415 20.760.1d: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.849 7.975 14.284 24.654 29.835 Natural Gas 13.979.456 758.229 8.099 14.271 21.297 Hydro Biomass Wind Total 18.213 1.624 7.901.636 99.289 106.098 15.133.324 6.100 18.114.797 3.001 16.821 2.215.623.528 31.430 Table D.782 13.152.094.931 0 40 0 0 0 90 130 340 180 70 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 2.916.831 2.086 11.372 64.383 Natural Gas 5.757 846.629 18.519 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 1.865 683.908 Coal 10.596 1.089.968 8.936.249.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.927 8.349 16.235 1.391 1.943 7.757 30.571.652 1.087 19.093 679.061 27.216 13.783 15.020.174.181 69.720 3.580 74.074 24.589 27.576 14.054 15.045.101 Fuel Type Geothermal 641.963 0 0 0 200 50 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 2.550 30.764 6.893 7.644 1.374 30.869.653 821.1b: Annual Capacity Additions (MW) Year Oil-based Current Installed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3.609 10.477 12.097 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 14.982.495 639.462 27.706 1.837 15.857 27.579 1.113.209 Total Addition Table D.928 7.210 19.833.813 19.687 16.141 18.953 24.884 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 0 645 785 785 785 Wind 0 153 153 153 153 153 843 1.263 14.343 16.776 3.534 8.710 18.937 1.906 27.333.148 1.158.948 80.820.590 1.915 Coal 18.011 2.113.151. UPEEE Foundation page 3 of 16 .659 27.484 1.247 3.085 16.850 20.896 9.313 1.452 685.092 15.1c: Power Generation (GWh) Year Oil-based 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.272 Total 55.465 5.951 31.521 27.583 0 0 300 0 50 0 0 20 75 50 Coal 3. Inc.952 3.943 27.816.438 86.125.121 14.894 22.641 6.897.958.388.573.

373 2.06 0.979 29.630 2.01 NMVOC 0.02 0.03 0.840 217.140 22.38 0.451 943.05 3.380 169.09 314.97 2.839 27.06 0.01 0.36 390.951 31.01 0.157 2.06 0.241 28.584 2.06 PhP/kWh 3.897 189.02 0.40 0.03 0.284 24.462 27.758 32.78 346.98 10.044 CH 4 282 314 346 379 423 470 443 470 497 536 NMVOC 1.936.01 0.06 0.34 0.988 213.654 29.03 0.01 0.981 3.01 0.17 2.66 358.535 Particulates 19.275 1.397 943.06 0.113.137 171.04 3.1f: Environmental Emission per Unit Generation (tonne/GWh) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 340.01 0.30 0.249.581 1.06 0.1e: Environmental Emissions (tonne) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 18.954 180.982.70 304.528 31.973 33.152.916.01 0.110 35.402.10 3.687 38.008 2.87 Particulates 0.238 N 2O 952 1.25 2.778.10 3.41 0.84 3.35 0.363 36.28 0.05 NOX 2.20 3.029 NOX 112.013 1.69 Environmental Emissions CO CH 4 0.442 34.02 0.542 Table D.215.03 0.12 3.422 217.850 20.03 0.42 0.589 775.02 8.27 Table D.37 0.810 2.677 28.31 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.147 943.966 32.39 0.355 26.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.06 3.14 2.02 0.36 0.779 2.18 9.03 0.06 0.24 3.429 181.73 1.757 30.650 218.01 0.55 338.88 SO X 2.69 2. Inc.36 0.52 2.02 0.35 1.01 0.39 373.122 1.362 23.937 148.06 3.599 168.50 8.90 1.36 0.03 0.03 0.46 0.83 1.42 0.113 283.927 20.35 2.01 2.151 243.89 2.39 323.06 0.32 299.894 22.37 0.32 0.43 0.19 3.289 159.06 0.952 27.1g: Generation Cost Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Generation Cost US$/kWh 0.05 3.317 164. UPEEE Foundation page 4 of 16 .04 1.52 2.160 25.39 0.424 1.061 27.251 128.726 215.275 Environmental Emissions CO 21.712 117.689 SOX 159.901.03 0.536 27.03 N2O 0.

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

865 14.214 80 65 16.682 547 108 997 1.163 2.697 3.491 2.718 609 205 996 12 80 20 1.418 117 2.531 1.491 2.149 559 205 956 12 1.168 4.096 12 80 40 2.932 117 3.964 977 2.422 25 1.480 23.758 2.807 21.011 1.510 11.130 2.468 907 1.467 12 179 2.963 2.971 3.758 3.214 50 65 15.063 2.168 4.205 65 12.213 5.971 3.971 3.759 907 1.763 1.763 1.053 947 2.063 3.860 25 11.213 4.002 3.227 2.763 2.758 3.963 2.747 4.548 4.758 3.778 2.561 3.146 37 80 60 2.488 1.189 559 205 956 12 50 1.214 25 15.404 10 665 12.404 25 1.782 647 200 108 997 1.205 25 12.346 63 80 80 2.804 509 205 956 12 1.743 2.825 510 205 1.678 547 108 997 1.671 102 718 16.763 2.758 3.468 2.778 4.476 63 80 80 2.763 1.758 3.758 3.963 2.652 3.633 907 2.491 2.971 2.491 2.369 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.042 647 250 148 1.267 2.011 3.763 2.325 3.491 1.922 647 250 128 1.735 1.411 18.831 117 1.917 4.547 3. UPEEE Foundation page 6 of 16 .991 4.265 13.255 12 33 2.287 3.221 3. Inc.519 14.065 17.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.758 3.465 16.213 3.205 65 12.856 609 205 1.283 647 250 228 1.732 647 108 997 1.104 19.841 4.797 25 2.578 2.652 3.213 4.583 3.429 545 205 916 12 1.868 609 205 1.291 510 205 1.925 117 2.697 4.763 1.923 907 2.127 4.968 2.658 12 335 3.558 12 262 2.758 3.267 4.136 647 250 188 1.548 2.758 3.211 25 3.138 907 2.931 2.763 1.862 647 250 108 997 2.413 647 250 228 1.752 3.957 2.763 3.661 1.869 25 15.968 5.213 2.213 3.415 12 106 2.952 3.071 3.763 2.189 609 205 956 12 80 1.011 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 2.871 1.

523 4.704 1.032.573.103.790 1.181 69.545.375 24.760.125.198 29.360 92.931 0 40 0 0 0 100 150 340 280 150 2.636 99.893 7.263 6.655 20.136 2.820.915 Coal 18.093 679.284 24.247 3.017 17.477 12.092 15.891 26.968 15.948 80.117 10.387 1.791.2d: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type (tonne) Year Oil-based 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.113.676.577.550 26.992.333.2b: Annual Capacity Additions (MW) Year Oil-based* Currently Installed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3.281 2.178.850 20.534 8.076. UPEEE Foundation page 7 of 16 . Inc.465 3.849 7.229 8.372 64.692 27.885 32.651 1.158.763 0 0 0 0 0 300 715 770 420 500 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 1.385 3.897.317 16.079 2.764 4.776 3.203.778.324 6.545 16.720 3.534 21.433 2.341 22.452 685.815 19.519 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 2.143 59.138 26.694 Fuel Type Geothermal 641.385 2.709 1.894 22.016.624 7.833.270 21.085 Total 55.320.770 5.245 Natural Gas 13.919 3.2c: Power Generation (GWh) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.054 15.345 16.622 7.177 685.170 867.865 683.942 19.816.365 *includes capacities of diesel engines used as ancillary to wind power plants Table D.908 Coal 10.708 27.087 19.602 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.386 649.361 10.583 0 0 300 0 50 548 548 488 538 528 Coal 3.098 13.158 14.104 20.011 2.975 14.529 26.557.958.809 13.629 18.982.349 16.782 13.388.462 27.737.963 0 0 0 200 50 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 2.741 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 715 820 820 436 259 Wind 0 153 153 153 153 1.082 Natural Gas 5.415 18.449 597.437 86.919 Hydro Biomass Wind Total 18.332 919.369 11.746 23.132.758.157.528 26.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.114.045.430 Table D.778.821 2.928 7.289 106.943 7.953 24.936.210 19.687 14.249.952 3.436.172.797 3.647 13.922 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 14.141 18.536.975 15.609 10.287 9.856 14.896 9.654 1.927 8.659 27.961.580 74.732 12.121 14.973 769.

41 0.301 985.462 27.020 22.25 1.546 150.810 2.737 148.475 31.151 243.40 0.988 213.982.37 0.355 26.48 2.113 232.73 1.03 0.927 20.01 2.34 0.852 Table D.138 26.06 0.06 PhP/kWh 3.06 0.39 0.75 1.00 0.251 128.69 2.03 0.94 Particulates 0.36 0.599 168.84 3.06 0.679 2.289 159.06 0.05 3.35 0.602 SOX 159.78 346.66 358.140 22.05 0.894 22.00 0.64 5.223 151.442 21.89 2.03 0.03 0.03 N2O 0.23 3.275 1.311 525.01 3.849 3.712 117.54 261.03 0.63 1.013 1.39 373.086 24.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.692 27.06 0.89 2.13 SO X 2.05 3.03 0.583 Particulates 19.00 0.01 0.38 3.39 Environmental Emissions CO CH 4 0.32 0.37 0.376 30.06 3.04 1.979 29.21 Table D.10 3.23 0.24 2.241 28.891 26.373 2.737.36 325.702 32.30 0.008 2.01 0.2f: Environmental Emission per Unit Generation (tonne/GWh) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 340.52 NOX 2.961.675 146.00 0.14 2.2g: Generation Cost Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Generation Cost US$/kWh 0.15 3.29 2.35 0.12 3.26 0.937 148.39 0.03 0.90 288.93 1.01 0.02 0.113.778.41 10.43 0.02 0.906 CH 4 282 314 346 379 423 389 418 444 462 492 NMVOC 1.02 0.426 33.150 312.731 171.06 0.966 32.859 NOX 112.06 0.739 161.539 185. Inc.065 214.676.529 26.2e: Environmental Emissions (tonne) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 18.02 0.107 Environmental Emissions CO 21.528 26.424 859.249.34 0.850 20.791.97 2.125 985.33 0.54 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.362 23.01 0.429 181.122 1.01 0.45 308.42 0.02 10.00 1.581 1.63 271.973 28.00 NMVOC 0.04 3.157 2.35 0.010 26.48 1.178.03 0.936.55 338.284 24.154 2.03 0.363 29.160 25.68 11.407 2.06 0. UPEEE Foundation page 8 of 16 .073 N 2O 952 1.897 155.

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

383 907 1.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.758 3.205 65 12.205 65 12.581 2.652 3.763 1.422 440 15.011 3.758 3.658 89 2.694 609 205 996 12 80 20 1.311 717 200 188 1.022 3.763 2.767 3.163 6.758 3.963 2.214 80 65 16.122 717 200 148 1.732 717 108 997 1.971 100 904 22.971 2.763 1.963 2.007 1.357 4.763 2.189 609 205 956 12 50 1.883 80 364 18.658 69 2.547 3.433 7.661 1.733 2.227 2.491 2.214 25 15.287 3.367 2.526 73 100 105 2.941 2.073 947 2.163 7.832 717 200 108 997 2.163 2.703 907 2.945 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Inc.491 2.022 3.581 605 205 1.491 1.758 3.291 629 205 1.491 2.869 25 15.678 547 108 997 1.301 3.163 4.071 3.333 4.763 3.027 977 2.682 547 108 997 1.759 907 1.518 100 739 22.183 7.817 4.652 3.214 50 65 16.041 4.583 4.931 2.043 907 2.963 2.163 7.862 717 200 108 997 2.860 25 11. UPEEE Foundation page 10 of 16 .276 37 100 65 2.971 3.892 2.691 4.476 63 100 85 2.138 907 2.412 3.404 130 12.519 14.758 3.149 559 205 956 12 1.822 3.797 565 16.197 4.922 717 200 128 1.871 1.183 2.189 609 205 956 12 80 1.763 1.163 2.687 109 2.429 545 205 916 12 1.783 80 150 17.491 2.971 3.176 12 80 40 2.804 509 205 956 12 1.763 2.163 3.733 6.809 609 205 1.817 4.341 655 205 1.987 4.832 2.383 3.583 3.467 49 2.267 2.758 3.205 25 12.583 2.011 1.763 2.758 3.758 3.116 100 574 20.534 717 200 228 1.971 3.758 3.011 1.433 2.510 11.511 1.763 1.3a: Installed Capacity (MW) Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Natura Gas l Luzon Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind LUZON TOTAL Oil-based Coal Visayas Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind VISAYAS TOTAL Oil-based Coal Mindanao Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind MINDANAO TOTAL Oil-based Philippines Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind PHILIPPINES TOTAL Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.758 2.434 1.404 275 13.383 4.663 717 200 228 1.763 1.211 690 17.971 4.

602 17.124 8.065 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 14.885 23.125.664.000 684.272 Fuel Type Geothermal 641.108 20.978 27.226 7.458 Natural Gas 5.019 814.051 10.033.050.897.234.952 8.458 14.893 18.672 938 Table D.745 912.891 11.595 66.615 4.773.569.153 85.991 Coal 10.243 26.828.130 20.321 14.704.028 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 561 561 701 343 701 Wind 0 153 153 153 153 402 974 1.573 1.209 26.850 7.450 685.916.640.862.744.110 2.146 29.386 678.496 5.840.807 93.877 1.239 10.156.749 2.963 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 2.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.777 34.000 15.141.879 3.747 Coal 18.471 Table D.407.700 750 200 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 1.484.574 1.756 31.537 18.650 79.269 36.920.759 0 415 715 340 30 1.855.420 4.849 7.252 2.101 15.208 14.3d: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type (tonne) Year Oil-based 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.349 16.874 109.973 27.208.169 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.084 17.768 3.649 6.984 30.317 Total 55.583 0 0 370 50 0 0 0 20 75 50 Coal 3.226.864 3.585.448 Hydro Biomass Wind Total 19.779 15.891 8.190 3.946 20.3c: Power Generation (GWh) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.535 1.791 23.263 72.126 15.739 26.766 19.106.258.016 28.893 7.763 0 0 0 0 0 820 1.020 16.188.107 4.600 16.671 14.964 Natural Gas 13.519 0 350 345 0 0 569 100 233 402 453 Biomass 0 0 0 0 50 30 0 0 20 0 0 Wind 0 0 25 0 40 0 85 214 210 165 165 Total Addition 14.320 681.496 14.734.673 29.646 2.931 0 40 0 0 0 100 230 390 280 70 2.907 937.479 27.694 2.672.859 3.252.115 100.928.919 33.315 118.439 18.534.932 7. Inc.858 1.163 30. UPEEE Foundation page 11 of 16 .585 685.367 2.695.722 2.128.076 15.158 14.722 597.503 42.859.150 1.404 13.218.556 60.964 26.555.324 6.785.850 21.463 2.640.769 22.934 17.578 19.042 15.465 37.897.3b: Annual Capacity Additions (MW) Year Oil-based Currently Installed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3.207 14.104 13.103 16.

202 173.46 Table D.01 0.41 0.03 0.887 173.156.677 42.294 244.750 24.13 373.61 2.39 2.065 2.3e: Environmental Emissions (tonne) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 19.343 31.0544 0.01 NMVOC 0.304 36.71 8.0549 0.733 174.739 26.268 674.3138 3.050.0622 3.916.3g: Generation Cost Generation Cost US$/kWh PhP/kWh 0.284 27.0603 0.9785 2.672.139 288.0554 0.04 0.617 413.9923 2.0175 3.03 3.307 2.3f: Environmental Emission per Unit Generation (tonne/GWh) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 370.591 216.0578 0.43 0.03 0.096 27.43 0. Inc.673 29.01 0.91 376.141.45 0.44 0.15 2.199 33.37 0.43 0.02 0.04 N2O 0.756 31.35 4.50 0.0561 0.447 153.151 31.274 3.25 8.684 207.38 0.506 45.44 2.03 0.68 429.428 38.54 367.344 45.596 2.873 215.0542 0.099 214.0541 0.266 191.42 0.0536 2.828.845 Particulates 19.494 23.01 0.01 0.24 2.862.02 0.01 0.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.984 30.10 3.186 1.372 842.01 0.98 Environmental Emissions CO CH 4 0.755 181.272 41.04 0.686 239.01 0.0868 3.90 406.02 0.101 CH 4 283 321 358 402 456 453 509 540 592 655 NMVOC 1.21 2.859.620 4.566 674.79 385.39 0.024 N 2O 970 1.559 3.16 2.9744 3.676 20.03 0.02 0.777 34.97 1.32 2.17 351.734 179.07 9.389 NOX 111.711 48.264 200.024 3.01 0.0495 3.1790 3.04 Particulates 0.01 1.885 23.599 1.377 1.421 Environmental Emissions CO 21.38 0.25 3.51 0.18 2.500 132.10 2.03 0.01 0.12 2.41 SO X 3.18 351.407. UPEEE Foundation page 12 of 16 .50 0.30 3.130 20.099 Table D.04 0.055 1.163 30.02 8.48 0.0555 0.44 0.166 37.430 43.928.06 NOX 2.04 0.636 217.269 36.42 0.169 S OX 167.69 4.56 0.359 842.44 0.546 36.062 118.858 2.10 354.4193 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.

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

767 3.871 1.214 50 65 16.491 2.163 3.678 717 200 228 1.211 25 3.963 2.758 3.491 1.547 3.163 3.4a: 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 2.763 1.491 2.163 5.966 95 Visayas 771 1.797 25 2.124 18.205 25 12.404 15 3.163 2.465 16.783 2.189 609 205 956 12 80 1.227 2.073 3.661 1. UPEEE Foundation page 14 of 16 .763 907 1.429 545 205 916 12 1.687 12 336 3.548 717 200 228 1.860 25 11.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.071 3.991 4.510 11.561 4.163 2.491 2.063 947 2.138 2.022 3.656 510 205 1.862 717 200 108 997 2.043 2.346 73 100 314 2.336 717 200 188 1.333 1.703 2.011 3. Inc.149 559 205 956 12 1.863 609 205 996 22 80 30 1.763 907 1.548 665 1.333 2.758 3.758 3.065 17.540 152 2.758 3.732 717 108 997 1.337 4.763 907 2.758 3.869 25 15.267 2.197 4.519 14.983 2.011 1.690 510 205 1.238 4.987 4.971 137 3.841 4.333 1.163 4.783 977 2.763 1.963 2.931 2.765 95 609 205 1.687 186 2.758 2.652 3.758 3.678 547 108 997 1.460 3.804 509 205 956 12 1.527 17.041 22.605 5.155 125 2.758 3.763 1.942 717 200 128 1.214 80 65 16.297 5.265 12.287 3.983 1.758 3.817 4.339 76 2.022 3.122 717 200 148 1.163 5.763 1.422 25 1.096 22 80 110 2.094 2.723 13.146 47 100 230 2.652 3.205 65 12.759 2.205 65 12.583 3.291 609 205 1.763 907 2.971 3.476 73 100 314 2.011 1.682 547 108 997 1.180 2.715 23.557 125 3.971 3.189 609 205 956 12 50 1.281 20.238 4.063 2.963 2.491 2.758 3.221 3.763 1.865 15.333 2.214 25 15.757 2.763 907 2.817 4.832 717 200 108 997 2.822 3.741 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.971 3.687 262 3.971 2.404 15 4.978 2.

109 8.050.104 13.207 14.850 21.226 7.978 26.973 769.324 6.942 19.418 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.722 597.4c: Power Generation (GWh) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.953 Geothermal 14.315 118.708.779 15.953 36.000 15.791 21.963 22.534.115 13.600 Coal 18.595 66.722 2.956.479 10.897. Inc.893 7.4b: Annual Capacity Additions (MW) Year Oil-based* Currently Installed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3.326.335.840.234.409 3.419 14.103 11.320 681.101 15.828.867 Coal 10.016 28.578 19.763 0 0 0 0 0 300 720 1.104 20.252.062 2.734.618.673 28.209.963 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 2.538 4.125.045 26.292 2.317 16.012 Natural Gas 13.615 4.746.471 Table D.450 685.556 60.527.704.865.664.186 2.916.382 1.042 14.744.650 79.420 4.862.484.239 21.016 17.849 7.290 36.549 6.653 Total 55.471 3.644 34.387 1.850 7.190 3.398.263 Fuel Type Hydro 6.897.519 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 2.496 5.859 4.960 19.243 26.735 12.326.439 18.200 350 0 1.874 109.130 20.919 Hydro Biomass Wind Total 19.263 72.258.208.931 0 40 0 0 0 100 150 340 280 150 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 2.076 15.080 6.583 0 0 370 50 0 621 582 549 595 529 Coal 3.095 7.807 93.511.993 Natural Gas 5.332 919.060 4.386 649.000 684.585 685.760 23.084 17.158 14.030 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 666 666 876 876 960 Wind 0 153 153 153 153 2.768 3.288.298.118 31.891 11.107 6.020 16.193 6.014 17.091 33.639 Fuel Type Geothermal 641.864 3.984 30.051 9.639 16.193 16.814.891 8.349 16.630.739 26.893 18.883 9.115 100. UPEEE Foundation page 15 of 16 .036.538 2.932 7.952 8.508 29.407.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.239 10.124 8.153 85.170 867.443.650.4d: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.126 15.216 11.779 Total Addition *includes capacities of diesel engines used as ancillary to wind power plants Table D.426 20.633.106.315 24.142 29.885 23.

68 429.03 Environmental Emissions CO CH 4 0.4f: Environmental Emission per Unit Generation (tonne/GWh) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 370.248 42.264 200.45 0.69 4.79 1.09 329.0542 0.9785 3.0670 PhP/kWh 3.01 0.377 1.485 45.062 118.04 0.38 0.4e: Environmental Emissions (tonne) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 19.343 31.644 34.04 0.18 2.25 3.258 34.750 N 2O 970 1.44 0.41 0.511.785 1.2638 3.956.887 168.739 26.00 1.374 800.01 0.686 246.82 11.01 0.0495 3.51 0.199 32.0593 0.202 173.30 3.738 45.050.425 2.654 Environmental Emissions CO 21.60 0.599 1.03 0.106 170.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.118 31.294 38.0550 0.494 23.566 800.03 3.34 9.294 244.1607 3.153.052.754 NOX 111.465 36.02 10.39 0.32 2.01 0.186 1.0549 0.750 24.01 0.75 2.130 20.065 2.746.676 20. Inc.307 2.52 329.0554 0.38 0.4234 3.02 0.596 2.291 CH 4 283 321 358 402 456 439 479 517 559 634 NMVOC 1.01 0.04 0.4g: Generation Cost Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Generation Cost US$/kWh 0.00 Particulates 0.41 0.01 0.50 0.03 SO X 3.03 0.03 0.01 0.679 188.19 2.79 385.91 372.0175 3.500 132.546 36.01 0.151 31.82 1.997 56.54 Table D.09 1.81 2.263 44.40 0.47 0.0575 0.67 NOX 2.44 2.984 30.16 2.479 3. UPEEE Foundation page 16 of 16 .355 Table D.42 0.6854 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.58 11.40 0.073 174.438 1.036.0536 2.885 23.625 166.01 NMVOC 0.42 0.720 234.858 2.48 0.740 1.03 0.862.418 SOX 167.03 0.0544 0.139 288.212 174.02 0.508 29.02 0.13 373.53 0.9923 2.882 164.97 319.814.430 46.916.733 174.828.03 0.02 0.055 1.771 3.12 2.10 3.096 27.052.37 0.90 406.447 153.673 28.0555 0.31 358.0228 3.142 29.44 0.196 3.0622 0.407.18 2.515 212.284 27.68 10.777 Particulates 19.04 N2O 0.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful