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

POWER SWITCH!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3

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

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

...........................2 4...............................1 6.........................82 Incentive Programs ..................................50 DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario .......2 5.........................................................................71 HEGS-ACPD Scenario.................................3..................................................3 6..............................................................................82 Rules and Regulation .......................................................................POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 4 SCENARIOS UNDER THE PHILIPPINE ENERGY PLAN FOR 2003-2012.............................63 5. Inc................................................1 5.............................................................75 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..............81 Transmission and Distribution Development ......................57 5 CLEAN POWER DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS...........1 4.............48 Gross Domestic Product Projections ...84 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.........................1 4.4 Energy Planning ......3 5....49 DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario .........................................................................................81 6..........4 LEGS-MCPD Scenario...............................3 4.................................................................83 7 REFERENCES .................4 National Energy Planning Process ..........2 6.......................... UPEEE Foundation page ii ....................................................68 HEGS-MCPD Scenario ...................................................64 LEGS-ACPD Scenario.............

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

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

..............................................33 Typical Capacity Factors of Power Plants and Levelized Generation Costs........6 Table 2................13 1994 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Philippine Energy Sector .............42 NPC Average Electricity Rates...30 Available Geothermal Resources for Power Generation..2 Table 2... 1991-2001 ...26 Practical Small Hydro Resources in the Philippines...................................3 Table 2...................34 Value of Air Emissions Reductions in California .... Inc...........13 Table 2...... UPEEE Foundation .....26 Projected Supply of Biomass Resources .......28 Philippine Bagasse Electric Potential..........22 Available Large Hydro Resources ..................1 Table 3.................. 1991-2001 ......................9 Table 2..........................................5 Table 2............................46 NPC and IPP Production Cost at 1990 Constant Prices..........2 Table 3............................36 Carbon Dioxide Emissions of Different Power Plant Types .................................1 Table 1..3 Table 3.36 Energy Consumption by Sector.............................................................................................................47 page v University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas....16 Table 2........17 Table 3...................................7 Table 2...........................12 Table 2. 2 Typical Capacity Factors of Power Plants and Levelized Generation Costs................................................................................31 Philippine Natural Gas Resources.................................. 2 1994 Philippine Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector ...4 Table 3....................................................26 Small Hydro Power Sites Verified by the DOE ...32 Cost Comparison of Power Plants.............................5 Cost Comparison of Power Plants...................14 Table 2.................10 Table 2.....4 Table 2....................15 Table 2......................................................... 1991-2001 .............................38 Reserve Margin..................POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines LIST OF TABLES Table 1....................36 Emission Factors for Various Power Plants ..........................................................................1 Table 2.........8 Table 2.......13 Philippine Wind Electric Potential ........22 Practical Wind Resources in the Philippines ..........................................42 Historical Environmental Emissions for the Philippine Power Sector ..................25 Philippine Small Hydro Electric Potential .....2 Table 2.........................11 Table 2......

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

Inc.POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Wind and Hydro Potential in the Philippines Historical Performance of the Philippine Power Sector 1991-2001 Economic Scenarios and DOE Plans for the Power Sector 20032012 Clean Power Development Options University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. UPEEE Foundation page vii .

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

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

capacity factor) were developed based on the life cycle of each power generation technology and the four economic factors mentioned above. and (d) the level of generation (also called capacity factor). years 30 20 20 20 30 30 20 50 30 50 20 Investment Cost.7153 5. Inc.800 1.150 – 1.12 0 0 3.93 32.750 – 1. $/MWh 41.800 1. $/kWa 850 – 1.1 below shows the costs used in this study.0494 0.000 450 .5219 1 A discount rate of 12% was used to derive levelized generation costs. including: (a) investment cost.0625 0.53 0 36. Screening curves (costs per kWh vs.500 700 – 900 Annual Fixed O & M Cost.0602 2. Actual industry discount rates may be higher depending on the following factors: required equity return.8236 4.200 – 1.1059 0. market risks. (c) fuel cost.750 – 1.40 9.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. (b) operation and maintenance cost.1101 0. regulatory risks.56 73.550 700 – 900 550 – 650 1.0557 2.2282 2.0405 0.000 – 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.68 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 0.0512 0.10 11. UPEEE Foundation page 2 . University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 – 3.0193 0.400 1.8174 3.4376 12.2282 2.0794 0.500 1. Table 1.250 2.3644 6.0405 0.1: Cost Comparison of Power Plants Type of Power Plant Oil-fired steam turbine Oil-fired gas turbine Oil-fired combined cycle gas turbine Diesel motors Pulverized coal-fired power plant Fluidized bed coal power plant Wind technologies Hydroelectric power plants Fluidized bed combustors (for biomass) Geothermal technologies Gas-fired combined cycle gas turbine (for natural gas) Typical Economic Life.04 49.2277 1. Table 1. country risks and availability of financing.

These figures were used in the absence of actual abatement cost assessment for the Philippines. including site specificity (e. most power developers are biased to fossil-based power plants because of its comparative advantage in terms of investment cost and shorter recovery period. renewable energy technologies can be competitive with conventional fossil fuel-based technologies. connection to the transmission system. UPEEE Foundation page 3 . if required in the Philippines’ power generation sector. Thus. However. Further. geothermal and natural gas resources for power development. hydro. abatement technologies. Inc. These costs were derived using only the cost of the power plant technology. Studies vary in their estimation of externality costs because of a number of factors. operations and maintenance cost and fuel costs. these costs do not include site development costs. Assessment was made for wind. It can be concluded that if environmental externalities will be considered.. On the other hand. which has the lowest abatement costs among the districts of California. dollar discount rates. abatement cost values for the North Coast of California.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines The above screening curve table was used in preparing the alternative power development plans in this study. geographical and climatological conditions). The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has estimated that there are 76.2 It can be noted that on life-cycle basis. The abatement cost approach uses the cost of pollution control as a proxy to the true externality cost. Moreover. Resource assessment and mapping conducted in the past for the Philippine archipelago have shown that the country has a big wind power potential. were used to compute for the cost of externalities of the different power development plans. It is therefore deemed reasonable to use the lowest available value in developed countries for purposes of evaluating the prospective performance of a power development plan. the damage cost approach puts a value on the damages that may be directly attributable to a particular pollutant. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. 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”. population density. transformer costs and taxes.S.g. In this study. among others. including variability of fuel costs.A or Europe. the need for policy instruments and mechanisms that will create a more secured investment climate for renewable energy developers cannot be overemphasized. biomass. among other things. 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.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. The figures used are only intended for relative comparison. emissions reduction policy. scope of analysis.

A re-analysis of the NREL small hydro resource assessment was also conducted.731 billion cubic feet (BCF)..3 Historical Performance of the Philippine Power Sector The performance (in terms of reliability. The Philippines power sector largely depends on geothermal energy to meet the demand and energy requirements of the country. For the purposes of this study. storage. This first criterion reduced the number of wind sites to 2. cost and environmental emissions. This accounts for 14% and 22% of the total installed capacity and total generation.323 MW.404 MW potential. This potential is spread all over the country where sugar centrals are situated. the most significant of which is that found in Malampaya and San Martin in Palawan.931 MW. a re-analysis of the NREL wind mapping data was conducted.7 MW. A few natural gas finds in the Philippines have been made. (i. 1.200 MW that could generate about 8. UPSL considered only bagasse from sugarcane processing as practical resource for grid connection. In 2001. an estimated capacity of 1. with a combined estimated reserves of 2. This include considering only sites with power density of at least 500 W/m2. Inc. Using the second screening criterion similar to that use in the wind resource assessment.308 MW. Of all the biomass resources in the country. and competing uses to be viable for large-scale power generation.e. If this pushes through. respectively in the country.092 with an aggregate potential of 14. local natural gas production would be supplemented by imported natural gas. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Other biomass resources are still facing problems or issues like collection.771 to 4. A second criterion that relates to grid connection costs was also used. Selecting only the sites with capacities of 5 MW or more as criterion. In addition to existing geothermal power facilities. The Philippine government is considering plans to develop a local natural gas industry.935 GWh annually can be obtained from additional verified geothermal sites in the Philippines. the UPSL identified 236 small hydro sites in the country with an aggregated capacity of about 2. UPSL estimates the electric power potential of bagasse at 235. which generated a total of 10.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 195. Additional screening criteria were imposed to determine practical and viable wind power sites. Only those sites whose connection (i. UPEEE Foundation page 4 .038 with 7.. limiting the transmission investment cost to 25% of total investment cost) resulted to the elimination of three sites from the small hydro resource pool.442 GWh.) of the Philippine power sector from the period beginning 1991 to 2001 was also assessed in this study.200 GWh of electricity per year. 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. total geothermal installed capacity amounted to 1.e. construction of transmission lines) will cost up to 25% of the total life-cycle cost were considered. The application of the second criterion further reduced the number of sites to 1.

generating capacity compared to the system peak) from 1991 to 2001 was determined from historical data. 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 energy demand in the country was distributed among the three (3) main islands of Luzon. that the industrial sector demand grew only by 5. UPEEE Foundation page 5 . respectively.7% annually for the 11-year period.789 MW in 1991 to 13. It should be noted however. Inc. For purposes of this study.3% annually from 1991 to 2001. therefore. The analysis has shown that the generating facilities in the early 1990’s were performing very badly from the point of view of reliability. It was noted that the rates of NPC is for its bundled generation and transmission services. Visayas and Mindanao share the remaining balance almost equally. losses and miscellaneous uses. The interruptions that the country has been experiencing can be attributed to the unreliable transmission and distribution systems and their operations. the reserve margin (i.A. that the generating capacity of the power system in the Philippines can be considered highly reliable. In order to meet the growing demand for electricity. Visayas and Mindanao. 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.5% while that of the residential sector grew by 11.402 MW in 2001. The rest are attributed to own use.049 GWh energy generation which represents 77% of the requirements of the country.184 GWh of the total 47. However. Historical Cost Performance This study also assessed the power development in the Philippines by analyzing the cost of electricity. The rates of NPC appear to be increasing annually except for the year 2001 when R. accounting for 31% and 29% energy share for the year 2001.e. from mid 1990’s onward. Geographically. In 2001 for example. the Luzon Grid has a share of 36. The increase in rates is attributed to the economic performance of the country (as exhibited by the exchange rates) and due to the take-or-pay contracts of NPC with Independent Power Producers (IPPs). respectively. these rates were unbundled into 76% and 24% for generation and transmission. the Philippines power sector performance went to the other extreme of having excessive capacity compared to the demand..POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Energy Demand and Installed Capacity The Philippines electricity consumption posted a moderate growth rate of 8. The commercial sector accounts for 21% of the total consumption for 2001. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. are the biggest users of electricity. It can be concluded. Historical Reliability Performance To analyze the reliability performance of the power system in the Philippines. The industrial and residential sectors. Bulk of the energy demand and consequently the generation comes from the main island of Luzon. the installed generating capacity in the country doubled in 11 years with 6.

which range from PhP 4.00 per kWh.49% in 1991 to 62. the shift is only towards the use of coal. particularly those owned by electricity distributors like Manila Electric Company (MERALCO). Over the period considered. Its contribution increased almost ten times from 1.236. Comparing the average rate of NPC with that paid by the consumers.00 to PhP 6. However. many power plants were installed even though there were already excess generation capacity in the system. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. it can be concluded that that non-renewable energy have remained greatly dominant over renewable energy as source of fuel for power generation. It is also worthwhile to note that with the existence of the Non-NPC IPPs (permitted to operate through Executive Order 215). generation share from oil-based power plants declined from 49. coal power plants are the major contributors.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. 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.338. In addition. renewable hydro share decreased from 20% to 5% over the same period. Inc. 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.665 tons in 2001. the net increase in CO2 for the 11-year period is 73%. Accounting the changes in oil and coal.9% in 1991 to 21. This considerable difference can be attributed to the cost of distribution and to the PPA of IPP’s that sell electricity directly to the distributors.082.541 tons in 1991 to 7. Clearly.00 to PhP 3. The share of non-renewable sources in the energy mix even increased from 57.00 per kWh. on the other hand. particularly the NPC. from 8% in 1991 to 40% in 2001. UPEEE Foundation page 6 . CO2 emissions from oil-based power plants. This scenario allowed the continued dominance of non-renewable fuels. coal contribution increased more than fivefold.9% in 2001.71% in 2001. This explains why the emissions of the power sector almost doubled in only 11 years. which emits more greenhouse gases.471.279 tons in 1991 to 10. Looking into the energy mix to link the environmental performance of the power sector. This indicates the poor coordination of the plans of the IPPs that deal directly with Distributors in the context of centralized planning of the government.222 tons in 2001. there is difference of PhP 1. 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. and not towards the utilization of renewable resources. For the CO2 emissions. decreased by 21 percent from its level of 9.

2 million tonnes of coal would have to be imported. shows that energy generation will increase by 93% (55. this scenario would require 124. renewable energy’s share will decrease to only 22% in 2012.5 million barrels fuel oil equivalent (MMBFOE) of oil. Total installed capacity of 14. 24% and 4%.828 million (UPSL estimate at 2002 present value). Although this is expected to decline to 22% by 2012.706 MW by 2012. Inc. 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. From a share of 37% in 2003. based on the low economic growth projections of NEDA.4 Scenarios under the Philippine Energy Plan 2003 .368 million in abatement cost.142 GWh in 2003 to 106.16/kWh. with the continued dominance of coal plants. In terms of reliability.500 MW) and oilbased plants (1. 65 MW wind and a 40 MW geothermal capacity additions. To meet the energy requirements. Total CO2 emissions for the DOE plan for the low economic growth scenario is 309. Reliability. The increase in the share of renewable energy generating capacity will come from a 795 MW large hydro.775 MW).5 MMBFOE of oil and 80. 124. SOx and other emissions. Of these amounts. respectively. 91. environmental emissions and costs were calculated similar to that of the historical performance assessment. The contribution of non-renewable energy sources to the energy mix.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 1. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.57% annually. No additional capacity addition for natural gas is expected in the period.430 GWh in 2012) over the entire period at an average rate of 7. the planned capacity additions will result in high reserve margins. Capacity additions. operations and maintenance and fuel would require a total cost $ 23. The environmental emissions resulting from DOE’s generation plan for the low economic growth scenario would result in an increase in CO2. For example. on the other hand will increase by 24%. Geothermal plants will contribute only 2%.263 billion cubic feet (BCF) of natural gas. Oil-based and natural gas plants will contribute 17% and 26% to the CO2 emissions. it is still unrealistic to expect that cost of electricity in the Philippines in the near term will decrease under this scenario. The increase in demand will be met mostly by increases in coal power plants (3. This scenario will require $ 29.3 million tonnes. the reserve in 2003 will be 66%.632 GW for 2003 will increase to 20. respectively for year 2003. UPEEE Foundation page 7 . These emissions will be the direct result of the share of coal. While the generation cost for this scenario is estimated at PhP 3.9 million tonnes of coal and 1. PDP for the Low Economic Growth Scenario The PEP. natural gas and oil-based sources in the energy mix which is 34%.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 increase in the use of coal will account to contributing 55% of the total CO2 emissions for the period.

.632 MW in 2003 to 22. nor the scenario for the low economic growth. capacity addition and utilization of renewable energy (geothermal. greenhouse emissions is expected to further soar. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. two (2) alternative power development plans (or strategies) that will meet the demand of the Low Economic Growth Scenario and the High Economic Growth Scenario of the PEP were prepared by UPSL. within the planning period. Notably. 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. PDP for the High Economic Growth Scenario The DOE also prepared a power development plan based on high economic growth projections of NEDA. biomass.24% in 2003 decrease to 17% in 2012 With the continuous decline in the share of renewable energy. Analysis of the PEP under this scenario indicates that the plan is also a business-as-usual plan that will perform no better than the historical performance of the Philippine power sector.5 Clean Power Development Options for the Philippines Using the clean energy technologies and resources. Total installed capacity of wind power plants is allowed to reach a maximum of 5% of the peak demand. wind and hydro power) and natural gas plants are given priority over that of non-renewable plants for power generation.756 MW in 2012 (56% increase for the 10-year period) b) Energy generation: 55. UPEEE Foundation page 8 .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.995 million in abatement cost. and will require $ 32.556 GWh in 2003 to 118.16% in 2003 increase to 47% in 2012 . increasing by 195% from 2003 to 2012. The following performance indicators can be expected if this scenario push through: a) Installed capacity: 14.37% in 2003 decrease to 20% in 2012 Natural gas . Inc.E.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. These strategies are the following: • Moderate Clean Power Development (CCPD) Plan In this plan.5% in 2003 increase to 16% in 2012 . 1.

The share of coal and oil in the mix will be reduced by about 11% at the end of the period.450 MW in 2003 to 8. The plans that correspond to the High Economic Growth Scenario are detailed in Chapter 5.12/kWh. Moderate Clean Power Development (MCPD) Plan To meet the demand of the Low Economic Growth Scenario. 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 plan will increase the renewable energy plant installed capacity by 95% (from 4.000 GWh annually) for the next twenty years. that these reserve margins do not take into account the ancillary diesel engines. This average generation cost is even cheaper than that of the PEP Low GDP scenario.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines • Aggressive Clean Power Development (ACDP) Plan For this plan. This plan will reduce the GHG emissions and abatement costs for the Low GDP Scenario by 14% and 21%. the strategy is to utilize all the practical renewable energy resources where possible without caps.685 MW in 2012) and the natural gas plant capacity by 117% (from 2. from the period 2003 to 2012. the capacity additions starts only in 2008. Note. however. only the power development plan to meet the Low Economic Growth Scenario of the PEP 2003 – 2012 is presented. Cost penalties for intermittent power plant capacity beyond 5% (based on peak demand) was also imposed to account for the additional ancillary services. Assuming a five-year lead-time for the planning to commissioning of the additional power plants. This will translate to a 72% total share of clean energy in the energy mix by 2012. which serve as frequency regulating plants for the wind power plants. The percentage installed reserve margin for the years 2008 onwards is kept as close as possible to the corresponding PEP reserve margins for comparison. The share of renewable energy in the energy mix will increase from 37% to 41%. respectively.983 MW in 2012).800MW natural gas power plants (maximum generation of 23.16/kWh. Total CO2 reduction as compared with the PEP is 44.6 million tonnes. which is PhP 3. The natural gas contribution will also increase from 24% to 31%. The total cost calculated for this plan is $23. Inc.763 MW in 2003 to 5. In this summary. O&M and fuel costs. this plan will save $235 million in the planning period. It was assumed in these plans that the local natural gas industry will be able to supply fuel for up to 3. UPEEE Foundation page 9 . University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. the 2003 to 2007 capacity additions were based solely on the PEP list of committed projects. This translates to a 69% total installed capacity for the combined natural gas and renewable energy plants. For all the plans. Considering the investment.592 million and the average generation cost is PhP 3. as compared with the PEP.

6 Conclusions and Recommendations The Philippine power sector from 1991 to 2001 has not performed very well in terms of reliability and cost to end-users. The share of renewables in the energy mix will increase from 37% to 48%. which is PhP 3. This study also offers two alternative paths (moderate and aggressive) through the alternative clean power development plans. This study has assessed the technologies and resources in the Philippines that could be tapped for clean power development. the ACPD plan will increase the renewable energy plant installed capacity by 159% (from 4.16/kWh but five centavos (PhP 0. This translates to a mitigation cost of $0. UPEEE Foundation page 10 . This plan will reduce the GHG emissions and abatement costs under the PEP Low GDP Scenario by 18% and 27%. This is comparable to the PEP Low GDP scenario. natural gas importation may be pursued. O&M and fuel costs. To support power switching. respectively. new natural gas sites must be identified and developed. wind and natural gas technologies. These alternative plans are comparable to the PEP in terms of costs.763 MW in 2003 to 5. With the current price of CO2 at $2 .383 MW in 2012). this plan will cost an additional $41M in the planning period compared to the PEP low GDP plan.450 MW in 2003 to 11. This translates to a 79% 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 (ACPD) Plan To meet the demand of the Low Economic Growth Scenario. this plan will create an opportunity for the country in the carbon market. The share of coal and oil in the mix will be reduced by about 20% at the end of the period.67/tonne of CO2. The total cost calculated for this plan is $23. Considering the investment. small hydro. The natural gas contribution will also increase from 24% to 31%.05) per kWh more expensive than the Moderate Clean Power Development Plan due to the additional ancillary services for the intermittent wind power supply. Inc. 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. 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.17/kWh. from the period 2003 to 2012. At the current CO2 prices ($5 per tonne) in the market. While the PEP has tried to address these problems. the country has to resort to biomass.520 MW in 2012) and the natural gas plant capacity by 95% (from 2. 1.$10 per tonne. as was done in this study. In addition.881 million and the average generation cost is PhP 3. it fails to consider the implications of the activities in this sector to the environment that could even be more important if only the externalities will be considered in the economics of energy supply. This will translate to a 79% total share of clean energy in the energy mix by 2012.

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

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

given that clean energy technologies and resources are available. Inc. Agriculture B. In 1994. the energy industries.87 227 217 10 50. the energy sector accounted for 50.59 216.359 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 47.548 ktonnes of CO2 for the Energy Industries for the year 1994.738 ktonnes.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.2.980 15. Although it ranks only second to the transport in terms of GHG emissions.2: 1994 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Philippine Energy Sector* (equivalent ktonne CO2) SECTOR A.094 100.157 CH4 1. The UPSL came up with 13.759 11 170 45 1 1. Fuel Combustion Activities 1. or roughly 47 percent.529 2 N2O 717 40 347 43 0 285 3 Total 49.330 954 245 14. Fugitive Emissions from Fuels 1.738 Source: The Philippines’ Initial National Communication on Climate Change Table 2. Residential 6.094 7.72 9.985 7 20. the power sub-sector represents a large opportunity for carbon emissions reduction and sequestration.335 N2O 717 0 12.140 2.497 15.801 3.800 6. as shown from Table 2.246 Total 50. Manufacturing Industries 3. Energy Industries 2.509 9.368 2.1. Commercial/Institutional 5. UPEEE Foundation page 13 . Oil TOTAL EQUIVALENT CO2 EMISSIONS * does not include emissions from biomass Source: The Philippines’ Initial National Communication on Climate Change CO2 47.185 3 CH4 1.038 10.811 15. mainly the power industry.038 ktonnes of the 100.596 0 -2.038 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.890 3.130 7. Table 2.335 10.335 15. as shown in Table 2.544 1.458 8. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.603 33. Coal Mining 2. Of the energy sector GHG emissions.403 31. of total net GHG emissions in the country.369 4.774 55.190 226. Transport 4. accounts for more than thirty (30) percent as a result of the burning of fossil fuels.

e. Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future. Levine and Walter D. it looks into scenarios that would entail switching to clean energy technologies from conventional fossil fuel-based technologies for grid-connected power generation.S. 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. 4 Marilyn A. p. improvement of power plant heat rates). energy conservation. which is expected to achieve a substantial amount of energy savings. These technologies may be classified as4: • • • measures that reduce the energy intensity of the economy (e. a number of clean energy technologies shall be discussed. UPEEE Foundation page 14 .. i. (U. measures that reduce the carbon intensity of energy (e. These technologies will then be evaluated to determine their viability for the Philippine power sector. However. These technologies may be an attractive alternative to conventional fossil fuel-based generation technologies in terms of its environmental benefits. In the following sections. In power generation.. Mark D. Brown.2 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.: Interlaboratory Working Group on Energy-Efficient and Clean Energy Technologies). Inc. Measures that Reduce Energy Intensity One way of reducing the energy intensity of the economy is by minimizing energy losses in the system. 1. turbines and generators. In particular.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines This study focuses on the reliability.. This is done by looking at ways to improve the performance of existing power plant components like boilers. The Philippines Department of Energy (DOE) has already started a Heat Rate Improvement Program. Short. and measures that integrate carbon sequestration into the energy production and delivery system. This measure is a cost-effective method of achieving CO2 reductions in that it would not entail large costs for equipment although it would require capability-building activities. they must compete with the same technologies in terms of other criteria such as cost. improvements could be made to improve the efficiency of existing power plants by decreasing their heat rates. the heat energy in Btu required by the power plants to produce a kilowatt-hour of electric energy. renewable energy technologies). resource availability and technology maturity before application on a significant scale could be expected. In the sections that follow.g.g.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. 2. cost and environmental performance (particularly on GHG emissions) of the power sector.

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

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

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

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

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

34% of total Philippine land area. rotor diameter = 38 m. Cebu. hub height = 40 2 m. capacity/km = 6. would more than double total installed capacity to 173.4 m/s or greater). 5. 6. The NREL study identified six regions in the country where the best wind resource in the country are located.9 MW. turbine spacing = 10D by 5D. In contrast to the optimistic estimate of the NREL.600 MW of installed capacity and generate 195.000 sites in the country. and adjacent islands. with good to excellent resource levels .2 Resource Assessment The technologies described above would be rendered useless without the energy resource required to run them. Leyte. (1994). which will then be subsequently used for the generation of power switching scenarios. however.055 km2 or roughly 3. The NREL study identified around 10. Palawan. The following sections will quantify the amount of clean energy resources in the Philippines. 3. 4. occupying a total area of 11. UPEEE Foundation page 20 2 . 12 In one of the NREL scenarios. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Negros. was not able to include factors such as transmission and grid accessibility constraints in the assessment.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 2. These are: 1.000 installed capacity. 13 Assumptions used by NREL to come up with estimates are: 500 kW turbine size. Inc. these sites could support at least 76. Including sites with moderate wind resource levels. According to the study13. amounting to 97. Mindoro. 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. Assessment of Technical. the northwest tip of Luzon (Ilocos Norte). eastern Mindanao. between Mindoro and Panay (including the Semirara Islands and extending to the Cuyo Islands). well-exposed east-facing coastal locations from northern Luzon southward to Samar. 14 UNIDO. Samar.600 MW bringing the total estimated power generation from wind to 361. the Batanes and Babuyan islands of north Luzon. the higher interior terrain of Luzon. 2. Panay. 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.000 GWh/yr. 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. Financial and Economic Implications of Wind Energy Applications for Power Generation.200 GWh/yr. The study.equivalent to an annual average wind power of 300 W/m2 or greater12 (wind speeds of 6. the wind corridors between Luzon and Mindoro (including Lubang Island).

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

032 Philippines 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.363 44. To compute for transmission cost.132 7. The first criteria reduced the number of wind sites to 2. Inc. km 2 Potential installed capacity. a re-analysis of the NREL data was conducted by the UPSL using the following criteria to screen for viable wind power sites: 1.668 1.1.381 35.404 23.092. The application of the second criteria further reduced the number of sites to 1. This distance was multiplied by a factor of 1.3 and 2.4 summarize the results of the re-analysis.437 Visayas 360 385 2.277 Visayas 305 330 2.363 MW.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines For the purposes of the present study. 2.047 Number of sites Total area.168 6. MWe Estimated Annual Generation. Power density of at least 500 W/m2. Locations of these sites are shown in Figure 2. Tables 2. GWh/yr University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.738 Mindanao 47 49 336 1.755 11. Appendix A identifies the provinces where these wind resources are located. with an aggregate potential of 14.038 1. GWh/yr Luzon 1.699 Table 2.865 Mindanao 64 66 455 1.038 with 7. Table 2. km 2 Potential installed capacity.527 7.3: Philippine Wind Electric Potential (with wind power density ≥ 500 W/m2) Number of sites Total area.092 2. UPEEE Foundation page 22 .400 MW potential.5 to adjust for topography and other factors that may affect the routing of the transmission system. MWe Estimated Annual Generation.206 14. the UPSL computed for the linear distance between the wind site and the nearest existing substation.900 15.397 Philippines 2.4: Practical Wind Resources in the Philippines (with wind power density ≥ 500 W/m2 and transmission cost constraint) Luzon 686 753 4. as well as its corresponding estimated electric capacity and annual generation.

032 GWh Figure 2. Inc.900 MWe Estimated Annual Generation: 15.168 MWe Estimated Annual Generation: 6.1: 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.738 GWh Mindanao Number of sites: 47 Potential Installed Capacity: 336 MWe Estimated Annual Generation: 1.277 GWh Visayas Number of sites: 305 Potential Installed Capacity: 2.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Luzon Number of sites: 686 Potential Installed Capacity: 4. UPEEE Foundation page 23 .

Kalayaan and San Roque. Tables 2. with an annual production of 7. a number of large hydro sites in country to be used as candidate power plants for energy planning.. In addition to the existing hydro power generation facilities.2 shows the location of the sites selected. Table 2. The UPSL made a re-analysis of the small17 hydro resource assessment made by the NREL. a total of 2. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Using this criterion.518 MW of hydro power is installed in the Philippines.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. make use of the natural flow of a rivers as head. UPEEE Foundation page 24 . selecting sites with capacities of 5 MW or more. The DOE has verified a number of these small hydro sites.6 and 2. 17 As per WEC definition.7 shows the results of the application of the criteria mentioned above. are committed projects. Run-of-river systems.8. 16 Two of these sites.104 GWh. on the other hand. as listed in Table 2. 15 Impoundment dams involve the impounding of a large volume of water in or upstream of power plants by use of reservoirs or dams. Inc. By the end of 2001. This water may then be used to augment supply during low flow periods and thus ensure a relatively constant supply of power. These hydro power facilities range in size from 1 to 360 MW and includes reservoir type (dams) and run-of-river systems15. An additional screening criterion was used.5 lists down identified sites for large hydro16. while Figure 2.327 MW. 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. the UPSL identified 239 small hydro sites in the country with an aggregated capacity of about 2. These resulted to the elimination of three sites from the small hydro resource pool. i.e.

3 to 3.9 44 300 68 841.8 Province Estimated Capacity (MW) 60 46 360 13.8 29 29 108.6 93 45 175 24 332 350 113 12 52 to 250 45 42 34 345 27 21 2. UPEEE Foundation page 25 .POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2.9 3.189.338.5: 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 11.6 to 2.387. Inc.3 Negros Oriental Negros Oriental Aklan Antique 33 17.6 Isabela Quirino Apayao Mindoro Oriental Benguet Benguet Abra Mindoro Oriental Quirino Laguna Quezon Ifugao Ifugao Benguet Kalinga Apayao Kalinga Pangasinan Kalinga Kalinga TOTAL PHILIPPINES University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.140.

7: Practical Small Hydro Resources in the Philippines (sites with power capacity ≥ 5 MW and transmission cost constraint) Luzon 131 1.140 Philippines 239 2.0 4.4 14.4 10.786 Visayas 9 58 305 Mindanao 96 978 5.308 12.0 5. GWh/yr Table 2. MWe Estimated Annual Generation.0 1.6 28.131 Number of sites Potential installed capacity.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. UPEEE Foundation page 26 .0 4.8 44.8 7. GWh/yr Table 2.8: 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) 1.0 4.686 Visayas 9 58 305 Mindanao 96 978 5.272 6.140 Philippines 236 2.4 3. Inc.6: Philippine Small Hydro Electric Potential (sites with power capacity ≥ 5 MW) Luzon 134 1. MWe Estimated Annual Generation.231 Number of sites Potential installed capacity.291 6.0 1.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2.327 12.0 3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

page 27

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

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

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

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

18

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

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

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

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

an estimated capacity of 1.0 4. 700 MW. Of the total estimated capacity. if any. as listed in Table 2. Very small. Table 2. 380 MW.6 127. UPEEE Foundation page 30 . additional geothermal resources could be expected in the future as the Philippines has nearly used most of its geothermal resource sites. Inc.7 TOTAL PHILIPPINES Geothermal Power The Philippines power sector largely depends on geothermal energy to meet the demand and energy requirements of the country.8 235.8 32.200 MW and energy of 8. In 2001.1 14. bagasse has traditionally been used in large quantities.7 7. respectively. In addition to existing geothermal power facilities. total geothermal installed capacity amounted to 1. particularly to fuel boilers in sugar mills.6 17. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.2 3.9 5. Despite sugar mills’ own use of bagasse for fuel. Visayas and Mindanao respectively. which are like associated with the use of biomass fuels for large scale power generation.0 22.11.10: 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. and 120 MW come from Luzon. Unlike other biomass fuels. accounting for 14% and 22% of the total installed capacity and total generation. there usually remains a considerable amount of this waste material.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Because of problems with such issues like collection. storage and competing uses.935 GWh can be obtained from the verified geothermal source candidates in the Philippines. which the mills have to dispose.442 GWh.931 MW and geothermal generation was 10. this study only looks on the potential of bagasse for grid-connected electricity generation.

with a combined estimated reserves of 2. local natural gas production would be supplemented by imported natural gas that would come from the Trans ASEAN Gas Pipeline to meet demand.731 billion cubic feet (BCF). Cabalian Leyte Optimization Biliran Mt. Table 2.771 to 4.11: Available Geothermal Resources for Power Generation Name LUZON Bacman I Rangas Tanawon Manito Montelago Daklan Mt. page 31 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2.200 Negros Occidental Negros Oriental Leyte Leyte Biliran Central Leyte Central Leyte Zamboanga del Sur Davao del Norte Natural Gas A few natural gas finds in the Philippines have been made.12 lists down identified natural gas fields in the country and their corresponding resource sizes. The Philippine government is considering plans to develop a local natural gas industry. Inc. Natib Mabini Batong Buhay Buguias-Tinoc Total Luzon VISAYAS Northern Negros* Dauin Mt. 26 These are proven fields. UPEEE Foundation . Lobi Mahagnao Total Visayas MINDANAO Lakewood Manat-Amacan Total Mindanao PHILIPPINES TOTAL *committed plant Source: DOE Location Potential Installed Capacity Sorsogon Sorsogon Albay Oriental Mindoro Benguet Bataan Batangas Kalinga Benguet 10 40 20 20 10 20 20 120 120 380 40 20 60 40 40 200 300 700 80 40 120 1. 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. the most significant of which is that found in Malampaya and San Martin in Palawan26. If this pushes through. Source: PEP 2002-2011.

the prices of fuel are likely to differ at the time this study is released. Mathematically. Furthermore. Renewable energy technologies. The fuel costs in Table 2.340 359 4 7. 29 Capacity Factor (CF) refers to the percentage of the rated capacity of the power plant used for 8. Clearly.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2. Wind and hydro plants do not require fuel but do not run at full capacity due to availability of resources. 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.13 lists for different fuels used for power generation are based on typical power plant efficiencies. The fuel costs used in this study do no include import duties. UPEEE Foundation page 32 .060 1. namely: (a) investment cost. In addition.13 include only the costs of the technologies but not the associated site-specific costs that could be more expensive than the plant itself. Being site-specific.158 322 637 Maximum 4. the economics of power generation technologies depends on several factors.. Using these curves.210 1. 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.e. renewable energy-based power plants have to address these issues that will ultimately determine the viability of the power projects. and (d) the level of generation (also called capacity factor29). one year).538 243 Resource Size (BCF) Prospective 3.594 2.760 hours University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. the total investment costs vary with site preparation and the required transmission lines to enable the plants to deliver power to the grid.760 518 2. in general entail high investment costs.760 hours (i. For example. The costs shown in Table 2. (c) fuel cost. In general. it is notable that the technologies that require low investment normally require fuel with high cost. O & M27 and fuel costs28 comparison of the different types of power plants are shown in Table 2.277 454 2.720 60 176 78 11. 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. renewable energy-based plants have high investment costs.12: Philippine Natural Gas Resources Gas Field PROVEN Camago-Malampaya San Martin San Antonio POTENTIAL Mindoro-Cuyo Cotabato Cagayan Central Luzon Source: Philippine Natural Gas Plan Minimum 2. For fossil-fuel-based power plants. Inc.3 Cost Comparison of Power Generation Technologies The investment. (b) operation and maintenance (O&M) cost. energy production (kWh) CF = × 100 plant capacity(k W) × 8. Screening curves can be developed to determine the optimum power generation plan considering these four factors.13.

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.500 1.53 0 36. These values show that electricity generation from renewable sources. “intermediate” or “peaking” plants (i.12 0 0 3.500 700 – 900 Annual Fixed O & M Cost. Table 2.40 9.750 – 1.14 also shows the corresponding levelized cost of generation for each power plant type using the typical capacity factors.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.93 32. UPEEE Foundation page 33 . the prices of fuel are likely to differ by the time this study is released. $/kWa 850 – 1.150 – 1. Inc.250 2.. $/MWh 41. depending on the site/environment. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Furthermore. coal and natural gas do not include import duties.000 – 1. It should be emphasized that the actual capacity factors that may be achieved in operation may not fall on the v alues given in Table 2.000 450 .68 From “ The Environmental Manual for Power Development”.14 to satisfy the minimum offtake character of the IPP contracts. These figures are intended only for relative comparison of the different power plant technologies. Geothermal steam and biomass fuel costs also vary.200 – 1.400 1. 31 Fuel costs for oil.750 – 1.e. except for Clean Coal Technologies Considering the availability of the resource and reliability of the technologies. Deutsche Gessellschaft für technishe.550 700 – 900 550 – 650 1.000 – 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.04 49. which will operate at high.56 73. medium or low capacity factor) could be determined/selected. Table 2.800 1. years 30 20 20 20 30 30 20 50 30 50 20 Investment Cost. 30 Investment costs used in this study do not include site preparation. They are however useful in evaluating and developing energy plans. Table 2. on a life-cycle basis.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines operate as “baseload”.14 shows the typical capacity factors based on the investment30. is competitive in comparison with conventional fossil fuel-based generation. O&M and fuel costs31 of the different power plant technologies.10 11. transmission line and transformer costs.800 1.

market risks.0405 0. meaning it will be used for load following and/or peaking applications.4376 12.8236 4.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2.14: Typical Capacity Factors of Power Plants and Levelized Generation Costs32 Power Plant Type Geothermal Coal (Pulverized coal plant) Coal (Pulverized coal plant) Hydro Oil-fired steam turbine Natural gas combined cycle Oil-fired gas turbine Wind Without ancillary services With ancillary services Diesel33 Capacity Factor (%) 88 82 82 57 54 54 31 30 30 9 Levelized Generation Cost $/kWh PhP/kWh 0. Inc. 33 The low capacity factor computed for diesel plant is 9%.0625 0.3644 6. country risks and availability of financing.1059 0.0557 2.0494 0.0794 0. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.0405 0.0602 2.8174 3.7153 5.2277 1. Actual industry discount rates may be higher depending on the following factors: required equity return.1101 0. regulatory risks. UPEEE Foundation page 34 .0193 0.0512 0.5219 32 A discount rate of 12% was used to derive levelized generation costs.2282 2.2282 2.

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

30 6.85 0.05 1.00 2.08 0.06 0.43 Ventura County DC 0.01 9.75 16.03 0.76 3.05 0.15: Value of Air Emissions Reductions in California 36 ($/pound of pollutant) District Pollutant South Coast DC SOx NOx CO ROG 4.05 Particulates 0. Inc. 2002).88 Bay Area DC 2.61 763.47 3.71 San Diego DC 1.03 0.44 1.78 1.00 4.10 5.01 0.01 0.01 3.66 2.26 0.99 1.00 0.12 12. 10.00 0.10 0.18 15.52 0.42 1.40 726.72 AC 5.04 0.59 DC – damage cost. Deutsche Gessellschaft für technishe 36 Lifted from “What Causes the Disparity of Electricity Externality Estimates?”.53 0.75 0.57 1.74 2.32 3.39 6.10 867. I – internalized.03 0.07 AC 5.83 0.64 2. AC – abatement cost.99 565.20 2.02 Source: The Environmental Manual for Power Development.02 17.08 0.99 0.45 6.00 0. ROG – Reactive organic gases.71 9.66 0.03 0.72 0.03 NOx 4.45 AC 11.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 2.02 0.55 0.31 AC 1.03 0. Sundqvist cites the 1992 Electricity Report by the California Energy Commission as the source of these data.72 11.65 0.34 1.37 12.84 1.28 4.10 8. “Power Generation Choice in the Presence of Environmental Externalities.52 1.16: Carbon Dioxide Emissions of Different Power Plant Types Power Plant Type Geothermal Pulverized Coal Oil Combined Cycle Natural Gas Combined Cycle Oil Steam Turbine Oil Gas Turbine Diesel tonne CO2/GWh 45.83 441.53 0.00 0.66 0.51 San Joaquin Valley DC 0.96 I 2. and PM – particulate matter Table 2.98 3.00 3.75 11.02 0. except for geothermal which was computed from DOE data Table 2. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.00 2.98 2. SOx – Sulfur Oxide.02 1.4 6.02 0.04 Source: Computed from data give in “The GHG Indicator: UNEP Guidelines for Calculating Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Business and Non-Commercial Organizations.01 North Coast DC 0. NOx – Nitrogen Oxide. UPEEE Foundation page 36 .18 AC 4.88 0.98 Sacramento Valley DC 0.99 4.05 0.71 5.31 PM 31. one of the six selfcontained papers included in Sundqvist’s Doctoral Thesis.85 6.88 9.55 AC 13.08 10. CO – Carbon Monoxide.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 7.07 AC 2.73 Environmental Emissions CO CH4 NMVOC N2O 0.99 4.06 0.37 0.04 0.03 0.82 713.35 0.40 7.85 I 13.02 0. p.87 0. Luleá University of Technology.

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

049 Geographically. the gross domestic product and the population growth from 1991 to 2001 demonstrate a strong correlation with the consumption of electricity.6%.444 921 1. environmental emissions.851 1.875 8. The industrial and residential sectors.1). In 2001 for example.071 25.459 1995 8.238 26.734 30.471 6.849 41.901 12.098 14.072 11.859 823 1.5% while that of the residential sector grew by 11.353 10. the energy demand in the country was distributed among the three (3) main islands of Luzon. Visayas and Mindanao grids.682 MW in 2001.3% annually from 1991 to 2001 as shown in Table 3.649 1992 6. 1991-2001 (GWh) SECTOR Residential Commercial Industrial Others Own Use Losses Total 1991 6.7% annually for the 11-year period.894 9.536 5.3. it also had the highest peak demand (5.339 952 1. are the biggest users of electricity (Figure 3.345 45.226 5. It should be noted however.684 762 1.797 1998 11.167 1. Data for the historical performance of the Philippine Power Sector is given in Appendix B.282 5. and cost.191 957 2.013 12. Significant also was the growth in the consumption of the commercial sector.176 25.725 9.086 3.196 5.395 721 1. The system peak for the whole Philippines reached 7.578 1999 11.432 2000 12.132 4.865 10.543 934 1. Visayas and Mindanao as shown in Figure 3. and the whole of the Philippines.735 33. Both the economic performance and population growth remain as the main factors driving the consumption pattern of energy of the country.847 9.713 47.554 1996 9.067 1.267 1.037 39.725 12.708 1997 10. the Luzon Grid consumed 36.870 1993 6. With most of the industrial and commercial activities centered in Luzon.1: Energy Consumption by Sector. Figure 3.340 6.154 4.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 2001.452 1. Visayas and Mindanao share the balance energy almost equally. UPEEE Foundation page 38 .950 1.049 GWh energy generation which represents 77% of the requirements of the country.531 1.4 shows system peak demand of the power supply system from 1991 to 2001 for the Luzon.1 Historical Energy Demand and Installed Generating Capacity The Philippines electricity consumption posted a moderate growth rate of 8.128 36. Bulk of the energy demand and consequently the generation comes from the main island of Luzon. Visayas and Mindanao lag far behind with only 893 and 954 MW peak demand. 3.1.042 2. that the industrial sector demand grew only by 5.910 8. or at an average annual growth rate of 7.754 41.590 5. Table 3. respectively.132 4.477 8. This is almost twice of the 4. As shown in Figure 3.150 7.249 4.936 8. Inc.2.053 4. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.368 4. with 31% and 29% share respectively.184 GWh of the total 47.290 2001 13.835 MW in 2001).223 6.547 10.390 6.579 1994 7. Performance is assessed in terms of reliability. whose demand grew by 108% from 1991 to 2001.081 MW peak demand in 1991.512 13.

POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Power Losses 12% Utilities Own Use 5% Others 2% Residential 29% Industrial 31% Commercial 21% Figure 3.789 MW in 1991 to 13. Gross Domestic Product and Population.1: Electricity Consumption by Sector. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.5) This corresponds to the growth in demand that also doubled in the same period. 1991-2001 In order to meet the growing demand for electricity. the installed generating capacity in the country doubled from 6. 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. UPEEE Foundation page 39 .402 MW in 2001 (Figure 3. Inc.2: Electricity Consumption.

000 40. 1991-2001 (MW) University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 5.000 10.000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 Luzon 1995 Visayas 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Mindanao Philippines Figure 3. Inc.000 20.3: Electricity Generation by Grid.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 50.000 45.000 35.000 30.000 GWH 25.000 15.4: System Peak by Grid. UPEEE Foundation page 40 . 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 4. the National Power Corporation has to resort to rotating “brownouts”. In the Philippines. Table 3. In other countries such as the U.A. In developing countries.000 6. This criterion is considered high but is needed to support their industries.000 14. the National Power Corporation since the power crisis has adopted 1day/year LOLP. The reserve margin based on dependable capacity shows that there is indeed a large excess generating capacity in the Philippines. people complain of high cost of electricity allegedly due to over supply as there is “too much” installed generating capacity. UPEEE Foundation page 41 . Inc. 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. 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.S..000 10.2 presents the reserve margin of the power system from 1991 to 2001. Hence.000 MW 8.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 16. To analyze further the generating capacity vis-à-vis the system peak. There was not enough generating capacity. the reliability criterion is very much lower compared to that in developed countries.5: Total Installed Generating Capacity by Source. Today. 1991-2001 (MW) 3. 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.000 2.2 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 12. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 0 1991 1992 1993 Oil-Based 1994 Coal 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Hydro 2000 2001 Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 3.

081 6.3 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. Table 3. The environmental performance of the Philippine power sector from 1991 to 2001 is summarized in Table 3.762 189.185 2001 7.45 85.450 9.99 79.2: Reserve Margin.3. Historical Environmental Emissions for the Philippine Power Sector (tonne) Environmental Emissions CO2 SO2 NOx CO CH4 NMVOC N2O Particulates 1991 Level 10.762 1998 6. Inc.816 11.352 11.431 2000 7.98 91.908 12.989 2001 Level 18.682 13.931 1999 6.193 1997 6. A complete list of emissions for each year from 1991 to 2001 is provided in Appendix B.789 1992 4.075 842 29.666 11.209 35. The CO2 emissions increased by 74 percent while the rest of the air emissions increased by 10 to 169 percent.611 % Increase 74 64 150 29 54 10 103 169 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.732 1996 5.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines It can be concluded.014 1994 4.687 8.233 115.91 3.46 8. that the generating capacity of the power system in the Philippines can be considered highly reliable.726 16.808 9.18 74. therefore.17 78.60 83.621 7. Table 3.3. UPEEE Foundation page 42 .796 904 1.36 61. The interruptions that the country has been experiencing can be attributed to the unreliable transmission and distribution systems. This part of the study has quantified the environmental emissions of the power plants in the country. 1991-2001 (%) 1991 Peak (MW) Installed Capacity (MW) Percentage Reserve Margin (installed) Dependable Capacity (MW) Percentage Reserve Margin (dependable) 4.402 66.212 1995 5.411.93 92.48 53.76 70.55 45.72 11.363 11.807 20.124 587 975 415 10.400 13.580.76 37.729 146.725 58.291 9.296 6.497 11.949 1993 4.96 78.

71% in 2001. the share of coal-based generation increased by 427%.222 tons in 2001. it is necessary to look at the power development as measured by the energy mix.6: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type. The net increase in CO2 due to the changes in oil and coal is 74%. However.000.000.000 6.000 14. The share of renewable sources. Inc.471. The energy mix indicates the intensity of contribution of renewable energy resources as fuel for power generation.236. This scenario allowed the continued dominance of non-renewable fuels. In order to analyze the factors that brought about the environmental performance of the power sector. 20.000 18. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.338.49% in 1991 to 62.000.541 tons in 1991 to 7.000. Figures 3.000.279 tons in 1991 to 10. Figure 3.000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Figure 3. UPEEE Foundation page 43 . on the other hand. Figure 3. Its contribution increased almost ten times from 1.082. The CO2 emissions however from oil-based power plants decreased by 21 percent from its level of 9.000 tonne CO2 12. the percentage share of oil-based power generation declined by 58%. 1991-2001 (tonne) The share of non-renewable sources in the energy mix even increased from 57.6 shows that the coal power plants are the major contributors in greenhouse gases.000 2.000.665 tons in 2001.000 16.000 4.29% during the same period.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines For the CO2 emissions. decreased from 42.000 10.000 8. Over the period considered.8 show that nonrenewable energy have remained greatly dominant over renewable energy as source of fuel for power generation.51% to 37.000.7 and 3.000.9 shows how carbon dioxide emissions varied with the energy mix within the 1991 to 2001 period.000. Note from this figure how much the CO2 emissions decreased and increased with the generation from oil-based and coal power plants.000.

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

UPEEE Foundation page 45 . 1999-2001 (%) 50.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Coal and Oil-Based Renewable and Natural Gas Figure 3.000.000.000. Inc.000 5.000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro CO2 20.000.000 10.000.000 35.000 15.000.000 16.000 0 Figure 3.000 18.000 30.000 2.000 14.000 40.000.000 GWh 25.000 45. Renewable Energy and Natural Gas in the Energy Mix.000 4.000 10.000 tonne CO2 12.000 20.000.000. 1991-2001 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.9: Energy Mix and Carbon Dioxide Emissions.000 8.000 6.8: Share of Coal and Oil-Based vs.000.

65 2.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 3. In addition.08 2.85 1.84 2.00 per kWh. As a result. the law has mandates to reduce the rates of electricity in the Philippines. for the years 1995 to 2001 by fuel type. particularly that of the electricity distributors like MERALCO.67 2.34 3.96 1.00 to PhP 6.00 per kWh. 1991-2001 (PhP/kWh) 1995 1.75 2001 3. respectively.A.25 2. the rates of NPC were unbundled into 76% and 24% for generation and transmission.49 0. Comparing the average rate of NPC with that paid by the consumers. and the cost of which has to be paid off through the Purchased Power Adjustment (PPA).29 2.02 1. there is difference of PhP 1. This considerable difference can be attributed to the cost of distribution and to the IPP’s that sell electricity directly to the distributors.12 2.23 1.43 1996 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).52 Year 1998 2.68 2.4 Cost of Electricity This study also assessed the power development in the Philippines by analyzing the cost of electricity.52 1. respectively. the average rates consist of the actual operating expenses and the financing charges of NPC.96 0. IPP costs were always higher than NPC rates.5 show the production cost of NPC and IPPs. Inc.20 0. 9136 (Electric Power Industry Reform Act) was enacted.15 1. except for the year 2001 when R.93 1.63 0.77 1.58 1.47 1997 2. many power plants were installed in excess of what was actually needed.01 3. The average rates and the estimated unbundled generation and transmission rates of NPC from 1995 to 2001 are shown in Table 3.35 0.02 2. Table 2. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.4.64 2000 3. which range from PhP 4.92 3. For purposes of this study.44 1.00 to PhP 3.08 2.25 1.37 0.70 Luzon Visayas Mindanao Philippines Generation Transmission Note: Generation and Transmission Rates assumed 76% and 24% of the average rate.77 2. respectively The average rates of NPC increased annually from 1991 to 2001. many power plants were installed without the benefit of proper coordination through the centralized planning of the NPC or the government.02 0.90 2. It is worthwhile to note that with the existence of the Non-NPC IPP’s (permitted to operate through Executive Order 215).14 1. It was noted that the average rates of NPC is for its bundled generation and transmission services. Table 3.28 1. Interestingly.62 1999 2.4: NPC Average Electricity Rates. UPEEE Foundation page 46 .

0236 0.0284 0. Inc.0369 0.0303 0.0232 0.0366 0.0177 0.0203 * Lifted from “Renewable Energy Prospects for Supplying Electricity in the Deregulated Market in the Philippines” by J.0254 0.0367 0.0360 0.0281 0.0212 0.0450 0.0265 0.0302 0.0110 0.0538 0.0284 0.0331 0.0394 0.0038 0.0662 0.0267 0. UPEEE Foundation page 47 . Guzman University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.0358 0.0137 0.0276 0.0349 0.0431 0.0195 0.0092 0. G.0386 0. N.0281 0.0047 0.0683 Geothermal NPC IPP 0.0150 0.0462 Hydro NPC IPP 0.0244 0.0294 --0.0067 0.0329 0.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 3.0233 Coal NPC 0.0125 0.0109 0.0428 0. Estiva and M.0111 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 0.0230 0.0198 0.0167 0.0100 IPP --0.0326 0.0252 0.0276 0.0270 0.

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

01 6.079. 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).60 1.091.48 1.10 1.51 1.69 1.14 1.311.24 1. Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.04 5.70 6.80 5.44 5.838.29 6.11 1.57 5.467.95 1.70 1.27 1.23 High GDP GDP Growth Rate (billion PhP) (%) 1. Oil.80 5.09 1.343.564.80 5.23 5.96 5. Coal.23 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. Philippine Energy Plan Top-Down Approach Figure 4. UPEEE Foundation page 49 .80 5. For 2007 to 2012.23 5.156.276.737.82 1.203.1: National Energy Planning Process 4.1. as well as the its corresponding growth rates are shown in Table 4.387. In this report.80 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2010 Note: GDP values for 2003 to 2006 are actual NEDA forecasts. The GDP projections for the two scenarios.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.552. etc. the DOE estimated GDP values based on the average growth rates forecasted by NEDA.51 6.2 Gross Domestic Product Projections In the Philippine Energy Plan for the period 2003-2012.23 5.732.64 5.138.646.642.85 4. Table 4. Inc.74 1.59 1.1: Low and High GDP Forecasts for 2003 to 2012 Year Low GDP GDP Growth Rate (billion PhP) (%) 1.80 5.487.413.229.01 1. the DOE uses two economic scenarios from which to forecast future energy requirement of the country.91 1.62 1.

energy generation is projected to increase at an average rate of 7.2: Generation under the Low Economic Growth Scenario 38 Generation costs were calculated using generic data for investment. UPEEE Foundation page 50 . These plans will be discussed in the following sections.3 DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario Energy Generation Figure 4.430 GWh in 2012. For this period. Costs calculated do not include ancillary. 120000 100000 80000 60000 GWh 40000 20000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines In the PEP. generation would almost double to 106.2 shows the energy generation projected by the DOE that would meet the future energy requirements in 2003 to 201239.142 GWh in 2003. the DOE formulates generation plans for the two economic scenarios. In addition. transmission and distribution costs.57% annually and 93% over the entire period. From 55. 39 Details of the calculations made for this section are provided in Appendix C. 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. Inc. O & M and fuel costs. 4. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.

Notably.2 summarizes the results of the UPSL’s calculation for the DOE’s plan for the LEGS.706 MW by 2012.632 GW and will increase to 20. will be due to a 795 MW hydro capacity. 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 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Wind Demand (MW) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4. which are more capital intensive. this scenario is very similar to how the Philippine power sector performed historically. Notable are the considerably high reserve margins for 2003 to 2009. These figures just show the continued preference on the use coal over natural gas. UPEEE Foundation page 51 . 25. and renewable energy plants. the increase in demand requirement will be met mostly by increases in oil-based and coal plant capacities of 1. For indicative plant additions. As shown in Figure 4. Inc. The table also computes the capacity that would be required if the percentage reserve margin was kept at 20%. These high reserve margins would translate to higher electricity prices during the period.3. which is a more expensive fuel.000 MW 10. respectively40. committed and indicative capacity additions for each year in the planning period are given. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 15.000 20. The increase in the share of renewable energy generating capacity.500 MW.3: DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the Low Economic Growth Scenario 40 In the PEP. 65 MW wind capacity and a 40 MW geothermal capacity additions. amounting to 800 MW.775 MW and 3. Reserve Margin and Reliability Table 4.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Installed Generating Capacity Total installed capacity for 2003 is 14.000 5.

renewable energy’s share decreases to 22% in 2012.865 16. Of these amounts.3% of total consumption.615 15.869 13. 24% and 5%.756 20.2: Percentage Reserve Margin for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario.565 17.576 17. Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements.015 16.997 12. natural gas and oilbased sources will supply 34%. will supply 26% and 11%. Imported fuel would cost $4. 124.120 15. Renewable energy sources.277 11.6. of the total 55.033 Installed Capacity (MW) 14.208 GWh energy production annually. and.5) for the planning period indicates minimal thrust towards more use of renewable energy sources and cleaner fuels. 41 This assumes that: local natural gas production can support 3.777 20. Inc.224. 91. The combined contribution of coal and oil to the energy mix. 2003-2012 Peak Demand (MW) 8.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table 4.324 million. as it was in 2001. particularly geothermal and hydro.263 billion cubic feed (BCF) of natural gas for the whole planning period.895. of the total generation.443 16.889 17. • share of imported coal is 87. the PEP expects that for the year 2003.813 14. From a share of 37% in 2003. • University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Clean fuels’ (renewable energy and natural gas) share in the energy mix decreases from 61% to 41% by 2012. A look at the energy mix (Figures 4.396 15.139 11.519 10.600 11. respectively.833 9.4 and 4. UPEEE Foundation page 52 . this scenario would require 124.066 tonnes of coal and 1.505 18.576 16.367 14.332 13.393 tonnes of coal would have to be imported41.143 GWh generation. coal.440 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Energy Mix For the LEGS.706 Percentage Reserve Margin (%) 66 59 52 42 33 29 27 24 24 22 Capacity Required for 20% Reserve Margin 10.423 12.5 tonnes of oil and 80. respectively.5 million barrels of oil.632 15. on the other hand will increase to 59% in 2012 to from a value of 38% in 2003.814 15.800 MW capacity of 23. Contribution from wind sources stays insignificant for the whole period. The breakdown of the fossil fuel that would be consumed in the LEGS-PEP scenario is shown in Figure 4.405 19.

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.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4. Inc.5: Coal and Oil-Based vs. 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. UPEEE Foundation page 53 .

respectively.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. Coal contributes 55% of the CO2 emissions for the period. SOx and other emissions. These generation costs were computed from the values for investment. Geothermal plants contribute only 2%. fuel.292 $ 23.916 42 Abatement costs values in this chapter and the chapters that follow were computed using abatement costs for SOx .3 shows the values for the years 2003 and 2012 and Figure 4. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.479. Table 3.71642.137.1592 per kWh. and operations and maintenance costs involved in the operation of the different plants to meet demand and energy requirements for the scenario. along with the assumptions used. Total cost of abatement for this scenario is $ 29.189 $ 2. the increase in the use of coal would result in an increase in CO2.3 million tonnes. Table 4.454. Appendix C shows the amount of emissions for the whole planning period.368. Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: $ 11.707. UPEEE Foundation page 54 . NOx and particulates for the North Coast of California. Average generation cost for the period is PhP 3. Generation Cost The present value of the costs calculated for the PEP-LEGS is given below. Total CO2 emissions for the period amounts to 309.434 $ 9. As would be expected.324.828.376.4 lists down the generation costs calculated for each year of the planning period. Oil-based and natural gas plants contribute 17% and 26% to the CO2 emissions. Inc.391.744. as given in Chapter 1.7 shows the contribution of each type to the CO2 emissions. These do not take into account the effect on the generation cost by deals made with independent power producers.

000.000 80.669.000.000 (tonnes) 50.432 2.000.821 295.000 60.581 952 19.3: Environmental Emissions for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (tonnes) Emission Type CO2 SO2 NOX CO CH4 NMVOC N2O Particulates Year 2003 18.000.000 0 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 4.000.611 489.000 70.000.000.712 21.362 282 1.850 159.000 30. Inc.778.788 54.000.6: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario Table 4.000.000 40.289 112.000 90.647 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.323 644 3.389 55.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100. UPEEE Foundation page 55 .000 20.000 10.927 Year 2012 46.000.

000.000.0553 0.0429 3.000 35.1592 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.2123 3.1229 3.3636 3.0568 0.0612 0.000 10.3072 3.0584 0.0553 0.1026 3.0564 0.000. UPEEE Foundation page 56 .000 45.0601 0.4: Generation Costs for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario.7: Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario Table 4.000.0554 0.0592 0. Inc.000 25.000.000.000.0409 3.0564 0.0997 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 0.0447 3.000.000 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 30.000.000.0574 12% 3% 2% PhP/kWh* 3.2548 3.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 50.000 5.000 15.000 20.

Reserve Margin and Reliability Similar to LEGS.632 MW in 2003 to 22. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.556 GWh in 2003 to 118. Table 4. generation is expected to increase from 55. A large part of this increase is due to the addition of coal plants. the percentage reserve margin in the HEGS is considerably high.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 4. Figure 4.5 lists down the percentage reserve margins for the PEP Plan for the HEGS. 140000 120000 100000 80000 GWh 60000 40000 20000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4.470 GWh in 2012.756 MW in 2012. with a minimum value of 26% and a maximum of 65%. Figure 4.4 DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario Energy Generation In the high economic growth scenario.9 shows how the installed generating capacity would change from 2003 to 2012. Inc.8: Generation under the High Economic Growth Scenario Installed Generating Capacity Installed generating capacity would increase from 14. increasing more than 200 percent within the ten-year planning period. UPEEE Foundation page 57 .8 shows the expected generation under the HEGS. corresponding to a 56% increase within the ten-year planning period.

359 14.000 20.660 11.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25.469 11.727 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.563 13.709 14.756 Percentage Reserve Margin (%) 65 57 49 39 30 25 26 29 30 26 Capacity Required for 20% Reserve Margin 10.854 16.632 15.765 18.148 21.9: DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the High Economic Growth Scenario Table 4.674 20.806 22.865 16.633 10.790 18.000 MW 10.883 9. Inc.000 5.378 13.562 16.155 20.560 12.423 15.5: Percentage Reserve Margin for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Wind Demand (MW) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 4.005 21.308 18.120 15. UPEEE Foundation page 58 .065 16.106 Installed Capacity (MW) 14.424 12. 2003-2012 Peak Demand (MW) 8.000 15.615 15.031 17.

835.10 and 4.5 million barrels of oil 85. Inc. 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 4.322. Total cost of imported fuel is $5.10: Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements.127 million.12.211 tonnes of coal would have to be imported.120 tonnes of coal and 1. Much of the increase in the share of non-renewable energy may be attributed to oil whose shares increase from 5% to 17%.5 million barrels of oil.11. The breakdown of fossil fuels that will be used in the HEGS-PEP scenario is shown in Figure 4.272 BCF of natural gas for the whole planning period. it is quite evident that dependence on non-renewable energy for power generation remains strong. While the share of renewable energy declines to 20% by 2012 from 37% in 2003. 98. and natural gas whose contribution ranges from 24% to 17% for the period considered. the share of non-renewable energy increases to 80%. Of these amounts.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Energy Mix From Figures 4. UPEEE Foundation page 59 . Coal share remains very significant at 47% in 2012. 184. this scenario would require 184. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.

000.000.000 90.000.000 80.000 (tonnes) 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 Non-Renewable Energy (w/o Nat Gas) Renewable Energy with Nat Gas Figure 4.000 70. Inc. UPEEE Foundation page 60 .000.000 40.000 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 4.000.000.11: Share of Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy in the Energy Mix for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario 100.000 30.000 60.12: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 20.000 10.000.000.000.

236.6.568. the UPSL obtained the following shown in Table 4. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.132 Generation Cost The PEP-HEGS Scenario will require the following costs: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: $ 12.6: 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.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.751 283 1. Total CO2 emissions for the period is 347. An estimate of the environmental emissions is provided in Table 4.076.843 167.758 $ 25.995.7 for energy generation cost for 2003 to 2012.165. Inc.610 778 4.13 illustrates the contribution of each energy source to CO2 emissions resulting from the DOE plan for the HEGS.211 111.779. Total abatement cost for the HEG-PEP Scenario is $32. UPEEE Foundation page 61 .680.317 326.050.064 21. Figure 4.409 2.677 Year 2012 565.2 million tonnes.945 70.829 631.225 $ 10.764.896 Based on the installed capacities and energy generation indicated in the PEP for the HEGS.059.059.913 $ 2. Table 4.820 61. greenhouse has emissions is to further soar.599 970 19.294.022.

000.0555 0. Inc.0549 0.0542 0.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 60.000.0612 0.000.4908 3.0543 0.0557 0.0640 2.0553 0.7: Generation Costs for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario.0598 0.0573 12% 3% 2% PhP/kWh* 3.000 40.13: Carbon Dioxide Emissions for the DOE Plan for the High Economic Growth Scenario Table 4. UPEEE Foundation page 62 .000.000.9810 2.0635 0.0582 0.0545 3.2889 3.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 4.2021 3.000 tonne CO2 30.000. 2003-2012 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average Assumptions: Discount rate Inflation rate Fuel escalation rate * $1 = PhP 55 Generation Cost $/kWh 0.0175 3.1488 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.3646 3.000 10.0392 3.000 50.9853 3.000 20.

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

58. The total share of clean energy in the energy mix increases by 18% due the 148% boost in energy generation from natural gas power plants. which were used in this option to address the additional power and energy demand. By 2012. This is shown in Figure 5. UPEEE Foundation page 64 .3. This is because more power plants are required to meet Mindanao’s energy demand.554. which were used in the PEP scenarios. the Moderate Clean Power Development option is applied to the Low Economic Growth Scenario.279 tonnes of coal and 1. For Mindanao. the reserve margin is quite higher at 42% to 48%. however. The energy mix and share of clean energy for the option are shown in Figure 5. which cannot be addressed with the low dependable capacity of its existing plants. Also.060 million.228 tonnes of coal and 154.2 and 5. have lower capacity factors compared to coal power plants. Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements.8 million barrels of oil. this scenario would require 58.9 BCF of natural gas would have to be imported.502.945. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Note also that wind power plants.450 MW in 2003 to 8.4.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 5. Of these amounts. respectively.4 BCF of natural gas for the whole planning period.1 LEGS-MCPD Scenario In this scenario. Total cost of fuel that need to be imported for this scenario is $ 3. 73. 64.8 million barrels of oil. natural gas capacity would continue to increase until the end of the planning period. The share of coal and oil in the mix would reduce by about 28% at the end of the period.1. Installed Capacity As shown in Figure 5.685 MW in 2012. Inc. Energy Mix The share of renewable energy for the LEGS-MCPD option would increase by 10% from the period 2003 to 2012. Details of this scenario is given in Appendix D. 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%. renewable energy plant installed capacity is increased by 95% from 4. natural gas and renewable energy plant capacities would amount to 69% of the total installed capacity.

113. The LEGS-PEP abatement cost is $6. computed cost values for the planning period are as follows: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: Average generation cost: $ 12.254 $ 2.723.479.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25. Total cost of abatement of other emissions for this option is $23. Inc. Figure 5.755. GHG emissions from the LEGS-MCPD are much lower than that from the LEGS-PEP.202 million.592. Total CO2 emissions for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario is 264.166 million higher than that of the LEGS-MCPD.1235 The LEGS-MCPD will achieve a net savings of $ 236 million as compared with the LEGS-PEP. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.5 illustrates the CO2 emissions calculated from this option.0568 or PhP 3.969.6 million tonnes of CO2 as compared to the LEGS-PEP.000 20.955. Generation Cost For this LEGS-MCPD.507.1: Installed Generating Capacity for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario Environmental Emissions and Abatement Cost As would be expected.815 $ 0.053 $ 23.000 5. achieving net reduction of 44.000 MW 10.7 million tonnes.508 $ 8.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Oil-based Hydro Coal Biomass Natural Gas Wind Geothermal Demand (MW) Figure 5. UPEEE Foundation page 65 .000 15.

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

000.000.000 15.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Coal 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 5.000 20. UPEEE Foundation page 67 .000 30.000.000.000.000.000.000.5: CO2 Emissions for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 5.000 50.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 80.000 25.000 10.000.000 35.000.000.000.000.000 20.000 70.000.000 60.000 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 5.000.4: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the LEGS-MCPD Scenario 40.000. Inc.000 10.000 (tonnes) 40.000 30.

brings the clean energy generation from 33.2 million barrels and 139. the average reserve margins are 33% and 26%.480 MW in 2012 and the further increase in the utilization of geothermal and biomass resources. The 30% increase in renewable energy share from 37% to 48% over the planning period.4 BCF.4 million tonnes. respectively.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 5.7 BCF of natural gas and 57. The average for the country is 34%. wind power plants take 20.6 shows the installed capacities for the LEGS-ACPD option.715. This 159% increase in renewable capacity is largely attributable to the increase in wind capacity from zero in 2003 to 3.34 tonnes/GWh. brings the CO2 emission level at 321.270 GWh in 2012. in this option. respectively.175 tonnes of coal.7 illustrates the energy mix resulting from the LEGS-ACPD option. UPEEE Foundation page 68 .294. which is 60. Fuel Consumption Total fuel requirement for the LEGS-ACPD is 66. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Mindanao’s average reserve margin. Figure 5. The total CO2 emissions for the period is 248. In this option. for 2008 to 2012. Reserve Margin For Luzon and Visayas.450 MW in 2003 to 11. Figure 5.2 million barrels of oil.9 million tonnes less than the LEGS-PEP.633.8 shows the increase in clean energy share in the mix. The total CO2 emissions for each year are shown in Figure 5. Environmental Emissions and Abatement Cost The increased utilization of renewable energy resources.2 LEGS-ACPD Scenario In this scenario. 1471.074. Total cost of fuel that is needed to be imported for this scenario is $ 2. Installed Capacity In this option. Inc. Total cost of abatement for this option is $ 21. while importation of oil and natural gas stand at 57.794 GWh in 2003 to 84.731 tonnes. Energy Mix Figure 5.40% of the peak demand.520 MW in 2012. The mix of imported and indigenous fuel is shown in Figure 5.523. Coal importation for this option reaches 58. the Aggressive Clean Power Development Option is applied to the Low Economic Growth Scenario. is 53%. renewable energy capacity is increased from 4.9.860 million.10.

UPEEE Foundation page 69 .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 5.000 5.000 15.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Oil-based Hydro Coal Biomass Natural Gas Wind Geothermal Demand (MW) Figure 5.000 MW 10.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25.7: Energy Mix for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 20. Inc.

000 30.000 10.000.000 80.000 (tonnes) 50.000 70.9: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000.000.000.000 60.000.000.000. Inc.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Coal and Oil-Based Renewable and Natural Gas Figure 5.000 40.000. UPEEE Foundation page 70 . Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario 90.000.000 20.8: Coal and Oil-Based vs.000 0 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 5.

000 30.1698 This scenario would cost $52 million more than the LEGS-PEP.000 20.816.000. Renewable energy capacity accounts for 30% in 2003 and 39% in 2012.132.000 5.11.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 40. 5.403.000 25.094 $ 8.880.000.603.000.3 HEGS-MCPD Scenario In this scenario.414.10: CO2 Emissions for the LEGS-ACPD Scenario Generation Cost For this LEGS-ACPD. UPEEE Foundation page 71 .000.671 $ 0. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 10.012 $ 23. 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: $ 12.057.000.000 0 2003 2004 Oil-based 2005 Coal 2006 2007 2008 Geothermal 2009 Hydro 2010 Biomass 2011 Wind 2012 Natural Gas Figure 5.000 15.0576 or PhP 3.000.000. Natural gas capacities are increased throughout the period and would account for the biggest share in installed capacity by 2012.564 $ 2.000.661. Inc. the Moderate Clean Power Development option is applied to the High Economic Growth Scenario.000 35.

0565 or PhP 3. This difference is attributable to the inevitable higher reserve margin for Mindanao.322 million. computed cost values for the planning period are as follows: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: Average generation cost: $ 12. 70.8 million tonnes.349. which is 63.580. 64. Total cost of fuel imports is $ 3.13 illustrates the clean energy mix.549. Of this mix.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. Total abatement cost for this option is $ 24. Energy Mix With its installed capacities dominating. which falls within 35% to 48%.665.7 million barrels of oil. UPEEE Foundation page 72 .718. Generation Cost For this HEGS-MCPD. while Figure 5. Of these amounts.686.456 $ 0. renewable energy and natural gas contribution to the energy mix increases from 61% to 74% for 2003 to 2012. this scenario would require 70. 2% is contributed by wind power plants.807.030 $ 2.781.9 BCF of natural gas for the whole planning period.390.271 tonnes of coal and 1.1065 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.8 BCF tonnes of natural gas would have to be imported.124 $ 9. The total CO2 emissions is at 283.7 million barrels of oil.4 million tonnes lower than the HEGS-PEP. 73.940. Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements.076. Inc. Environmental Emissions Figure 5.857 tonnes of coal and 342.769.302 $ 24.778.15 shows the CO2 emissions resulting from the HEGS-MCPD option.12 shows the corresponding energy mix for the HEGS-MCPD option.347. Figure 5.

12: Energy Mix for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000 15.11: Installed Generating Capacity for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 5. Inc.000 MW 10.000 5.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Oil-based Hydro Coal Biomass Natural Gas Wind Geothermal Demand (MW) Figure 5.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 25.000 20. UPEEE Foundation page 73 .

14: Fossil Fuel Consumption for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000. Inc. UPEEE Foundation page 74 . Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario 80.000 70.000 50.000 20.000.000 10.000 30.000.000.000.000 60.13: Coal and Oil-Based vs.000 (tonnes) 40.000.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Coal and Oil-Based Renewable and Natural Gas Figure 5.000.000 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 5.000.

000 10.000.4 HEGS-ACPD Scenario In this option. Figure 5.000 15.000.000 35.000 25.16 illustrates this. Inc.000.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 40.17 and Figure 5.000 20. 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. University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000. Figure 5. UPEEE Foundation page 75 .000.000.000.000 30.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Coal 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 5.000.000 5. Energy Mix While oil-based and coal share in the energy mix decreased by 38%. the Aggressive Clean Power Development option strategy is applied to the High Economic Growth Scenario. the country’s effective reserve margin ranges from 28% to 32%.15: CO2 Emissions for the HEGS-MCPD Scenario 5. clean energy share increased by 24% over the planning period. Reserve Margin With the inevitably high reserve margin of 45% to 51% for Mindanao.18 illustrate these changes in the energy mix.

513 million.0575 or PhP 3.791. All of the oil would have to be imported.1 million tonnes lower than that for the HEGS-PEP. this scenario would require 90. along with 59. Cost of fuel imports is $ 3.7 BCF of natural gas.568 $ 0. 67. Generation Cost For this HEGS-ACPD.402.0 million barrels of oil. 72.5 BCF of natural gas for the whole planning period.682 tonnes of coal and 1.182. computed cost values for the planning period are as follows: Investment cost: O&M cost: Fuel cost: Total: Average generation cost: $ 12.567 $ 9.842.730 $ 2.19 shows the sharing of the imported and indigenous fossil fuels.1647 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. NOx and particulates for this option is 23.1 million tonnes.583. Inc. Figure 5.638.271 $ 25.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Fuel Consumption To meet demand and energy requirements.199.139 tonnes of coal and 276.584. Environmental Emissions and Abatement Cost Carbon dioxide generation for the HEGS-ACPD option is shown in Figure 5.20.723.458.824. The cost of abatement for SOx .288. Total CO2 emissions is at 275.532. UPEEE Foundation page 76 .560.

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

000 10.19: Fuel Consumption for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Inc.000 20.000 50.000.000 70.000.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. Renewable and Natural Gas Energy Mix for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario 80. UPEEE Foundation page 78 .000 (tonnes) 40.000.000 30.000 60.000.18: Coal and Oil-Based vs.000.000 0 Oil-based Coal Imported Fuel Indigenous Fuel Natural Gas Figure 5.000.000.000.

000 10.20: CO2 Emissions for the HEGS-ACPD Scenario University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.000.000 25.000.000.000 5.000 15.000 35.000.000.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines 40.000.000.000.000 30. Inc.000 20.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Coal 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based Natural Gas Geothermal Figure 5. UPEEE Foundation page 79 .

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

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

6. most of which are site specific. The System Operator should be allowed to procure ancillary services needed by the Grid to accommodate intermittent wind power and pass on the cost to all users of the Grid. particularly on the required technical analysis and compensating equipment. Transmission facilities should deliberately be expanded toward locations of promising renewable energy sources. run-of-river small hydro and biomass) should be given priority in the dispatch of generating units.POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines National Energy Plan National Level Centralized System Planning and Integration of Provincial Plans Figure 6. This cost mechanism will ensure that all electricity consumers will share the cost of such a development.1: Recommended Bottom-Up Approach to Energy Planning 6.3 • 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. Inc. The Philippine Grid and Distribution Code (PGDC) must be clear on its requirements and procedures on the connection. UPEEE Foundation page 82 . These plants must “feed-in” the Grid at minimum prices that will guarantee the returns of power developers. operation and control of nonconventional. Private Sector Proposals Provincial Energy Plan Provincial Level Resource Assessment and Local Supply and Demand Balance City/Municipality Level City/Municipality Energy Plan Electrification Planning • • University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.2 Transmission and Distribution Development Transmission and distribution infrastructure should be developed to increase access to renewable energy sites. The Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) should allow such an expansion even if it does not initially show recovery of investment. renewable energy-based power plants. The cost of such an expansion should be borne by the transmission or distribution utility.

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

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

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

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

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. UPEEE Foundation page 1 of 4 .1: Locations of Practical Wind Resources in Luzon Province Abra Albay Aurora Bataan Batangas Benguet Bulacan Cagayan Camarines Norte Camarines Sur Cavite Ifugao Ilocos Norte Ilocos Sur Isabela Kalinga Laguna Mountain Province Nueva Ecija Nueva Vizcaya Pampanga Pangasinan Quezon Quirino Rizal Sorsogon Tarlac Zambales LUZON TOTAL Estimated Estimated Number of Sites Aggregate Capacity Aggregate Annual (MWe) Generation (GWh) 26 183 567 26 183 576 46 320 1.011 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 1.280 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.

UPEEE Foundation page 2 of 4 . Inc.113 169 519 347 1.065 75 229 259 795 2.3: Locations of Practical Wind Resources in Mindanao Province Agusan del Norte Agusan del Sur Camiguin Surigao del Norte Surigao del Sur MINDANAO TOTAL No. 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 1.031 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.Appendix A POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table A.738 Table A.2: Locations of Practical Wind Resources in Visayas Province Aklan Antique Biliran Bohol Capiz Cebu Eastern Samar Iloilo Leyte Negros Occidental Negros Oriental Samar Southern Leyte VISAYAS TOTAL Number of Sites 24 41 20 6 1 30 2 12 52 26 48 10 33 305 Estimated Capacity Estimated Annual (MWe) Generation (GWh) 163 517 309 965 144 466 39 120 7 20 202 620 14 43 85 266 357 1.170 6.

030 1 10 53 9 79 415 3 32 168 3 22 116 4 40 210 8 72 378 30 318 1. UPEEE Foundation page 3 of 4 . Inc.671 6 35 184 3 34 179 15 181 110 4 26 951 3 28 147 19 179 941 1 6 32 129 1.585 Table A. Locations of Practical Small Hydro Potential Resources in Visayas Province Aklan Eastern Samar Negros Occidental Negros Oriental VISAYAS TOTAL Number of Sites Estimated Capacity Estimated Annual (MWe) Generation (GWh) 1 5 2 1 9 5 33 13 7 58 26 173 68 37 304 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.Appendix A POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table A.4.258 6. 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 1.5.

UPEEE Foundation page 4 of 4 . Locations of Practical Small Hydro Potential Resources in Mindanao Province Agusan del Norte Bukidnon Davao Davao Oriental Lanao del Norte Lanao del Sur Maguindanao Misamis Oriental North Cotabato Sultan Kudarat Surigao del Sur Zamboanga del Norte MINDANAO TOTAL Number of Sites 3 21 7 18 7 4 6 10 18 1 2 1 98 Estimated Capacity Estimated Annual (MWe) Generation (GWh) 18 95 322 1.6. Inc.209 7 37 11 58 7 37 826 4.692 7 7 18 18 53 279 26 137 58 305 69 363 230 1.237 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.Appendix A POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table A.

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

226 5.353 10.072 11.870 26.910 8.875 8.223 6.914 10.477 8.132 4. UPEEE Foundation page 1 of 2 .320 6.348 2.949 7.708 1997 10.154 1.296 5.128 36.368 4.345 45.063 Geothermal 888 888 963 1.185 13.797 1998 11.104 Source: DOE Table B.073 1.301 2.963 3.301 2.442 5.696 11.086 3.290 2001 13.859 823 1.301 2.135 6.865 10.150 7.200 3.1: Installed Generating Capacity.339 952 1.162 11.547 10.301 2.942 1.626 10.649 25.684 762 1.758 5.388 11.145 4.212 9.030 6.554 1996 9.849 41.531 1.238 26.267 1.804 13.471 6. 1991-2001 (MW) Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Fuel Type Oil-based 3.928 12.797 41.176 25.254 2.959 9.183 16. Inc.259 2.050 12.154 4.340 6.402 Source: DOE Table B.452 1.432 2000 12.037 39.078 18.847 9.290 47.109 4.053 4.069 5.927 Coal 405 405 441 550 850 1.578 1999 11.754 41.963 Natural Gas 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 1.649 1992 6.791 2.444 921 1.237 8.191 957 2.851 1.590 5.568 4.799 9.931 Hydro 2.973 5.579 30.867 16.512 13.015 1.600 1.862 6.856 1.789 6.554 36.440 5.534 7.067 1.939 13.232 7.839 4.3: Energy Consumption by Sector.578 41.536 5.459 33.987 3.713 47.459 1995 8.929 19.725 9.390 6.594 11.493 3.867 1.190 11.734 30.301 2.196 5.185 9.116 18.931 1.167 1.013 12.725 12.600 2.363 9.098 14.417 1.789 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 20 16 17 848 5.Appendix B POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table B.425 5.894 9.132 4.071 25.395 721 1.901 12.518 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 6.579 1994 7.799 7.663 18.432 45.049 Source: DOE University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.667 6.030 5.567 13.707 39.257 2.066 7.543 934 1.950 1.936 8.399 4.931 1.730 11.870 1993 6.700 5.819 1.042 2.335 5.735 33. 1991-2001 (GWh) Year Year 1991 Residential Commercial Industrial Others Utilities Own Use Power Losses Total 6.855 7.840 7.2: Power Generation by Source (1991-2001) (GWh) Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wind 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 25.249 4.341 3.155 2.301 2.844 5.282 5.288 19.

967 2.582 11. tonne CO2 Year Oil-based 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 9.820 474.763 25.652 4.745 4. Inc.175.928 278.529 296. tonne Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Environmental Emissions CO 2 10.232.553.233 11.698 4.808 Fuel Type Geothermal 261.563 127.448 16.283 15.084 4.781 24.459 1995 25.687.702 7.345 2.816 1997 4.411.675 10.396 18.184 5.789 3.492 144.511 2.611 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.464 45.649 Table B.414 162. 1991-2001 (MW) Year Luzon Visayas Mindanao Philippines Source: DOE 1991 3.119.6: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Source.131.990 99.Appendix B POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table B.206 3.004 101.908 2000 5.116 20.338.147 5.360 14.639 16.835 893 954 7.519.915 12.233 11.273 1.831 189.351.521 18.376 3.991 5.204 160.428.671 16.708 23.127 1.067 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 10.164 19.400 2001 5.554 1996 27.671 16.530 15.679 8.296 1993 3.279 998.004 906 1.962 751.413 258.076 792 805 904 NMVOC 975 1.870.896 136.131.521.159 13.343 41.932 154.727 29.238 106.665 Coal 1.083 18.704 18.726 67.580 27.547.311 10.103.076 2.448 16.309 146.808 1995 3.131.552 135.286.028 770 868 6.678 117.902 2.122.553.283 15.586 126.4: Peak Demand.566.351.762 SOX 115.679 5.261 9.870 1993 19.580.163 5.541 10.989 12.311 20.045 410 626 4.291 1.231.755 4.725 117.882 149.441 5.530 15.633 130.226 789 893 6.471.903 21.337 25.222 Natural Gas 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.566 3.411.688 3.081 1992 3.705.747 25.649 812 939 7.036 4.733 24.049 19.124 17.585.396 18.5: Generation by Grid.854 6.290 2001 36.836 18.708 1997 30.403 1.712.561 551 696 4.164 19.038 973 1.578 1999 31.970 527.644 13.491.872 6.687 1994 3.365 39.428.133 1.291 1996 4. UPEEE Foundation page 2 of 2 .585.848 164.362 14.580.090 16.159 13.473 523 691 4.348 2.432 2000 34.250 473 573 4.674 480.109 23.062 1.347 5.687.133 30.6: Environmental Emissions.582 11.175 5.644 328. 1991-2001 (GWh) 1991 Luzon Visayas Mindanao Philippines Source: DOE 1992 19.762 Table B.282 286.729 NOX 58.695 33.547.245 41.566.521.920 591 780 5.082.964 114.556 404.306 682 828 5.094.185.242 1.069 84.797 1998 31.555 30.290 3.703 47.579 1994 23.616 28.486 20.666 1999 5.682 Table B.029 36.796 CH4 587 643 685 835 963 974 1.864 26.807 CO 16.236.780 257.352 1998 5.481 5.704 18.359 1.813 3.794 13.773 727 852 6.509.

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

139 11. UPEEE Foundation page 1 of 16 .459 1.2012) (2003 .93% 7.041 7.39% NATIONAL Non-Coincident Peak 8.997 12.R.275 7.319 12.26% 7.829 1.95% 6.673 1.149 13.789 1.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.869 13.168 1.277 11.814 15.074 1.57% Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.707 1.548 11.752 7.254 1.95% 7.830 10.276 1.360 1.563 1.855 8.1b: System Peak Demand Forecasts for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (MW) YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual Ave.13% 7.889 17.1a: DOE Plan for Power Generation for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (GWh) Type Oil-Based Fuel Oil Diesel Coal Local Imported Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal Wind Others Baseload Midrange Peaking 2003 2720 2377 343 18629 2820 15809 13349 6324 14121 0 0 0 0 0 2004 3247 2747 500 18087 1101 16986 16017 6893 14975 153 0 0 0 0 2005 3127 2740 388 19953 1289 18664 17141 7928 15054 153 825 0 825 0 2006 2777 2701 75 24659 2216 22443 18210 7943 15092 153 746 0 746 0 69580 Year 2007 4318 4166 151 26446 2586 23860 19415 7968 15098 153 1551 1104 446 0 74948 2008 5117 4998 119 27561 2862 24698 20074 8001 15099 153 4433 2960 1473 0 80437 2009 5673 5499 174 29218 3200 26018 20260 8042 15095 153 7920 4028 3852 39 86360 2010 4577 4365 212 28828 3108 25720 20192 8069 15104 153 15713 10338 4881 495 92636 2011 3710 3580 130 27420 2789 24630 19965 8029 15103 153 24910 19206 5339 365 99290 2012 4015 3859 157 27606 2842 24764 20068 8038 15103 152 31448 25371 5545 531 106430 TOTAL 55142 59372 64182 Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 Table C. G.958 8.2007) (2008 .58% VISAYAS 1.503 9.912 2.159 1.161 9.91% 7.007 1.034 7.377 1. (2003 .67% MINDANAO 1. Inc.519 10.31% 7.30% 7.2012) LUZON 6.033 7.477 1.084 1.833 9.592 1.813 14.

(2003 .320 5. G.391 71.726 6.452 7.26% 7.R.420 11.154 59.754 7.548 64.95% 6.260 76.924 8.13% 7. UPEEE Foundation page 2 of 16 . Inc.604 42.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.870 66.2012) (2003 .735 57.827 92.57% Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.801 8.170 6.135 11.2007) (2008 .1c: Electricity Sales Forecasts for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (GWh) YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual Ave.103 9.91% 7.306 7.411 9.506 74.93% 7.539 69.274 7.39% TOTAL 51.875 53.342 8.743 10.892 7.182 55.95% 7.258 6.740 7.675 46.2012) LUZON 39.67% MINDANAO 6.661 10.660 61.057 98.31% 7.024 85.564 80.016 9.30% 7.58% VISAYAS 5.686 7.497 9.072 49.

717 1.308 2011 1583 3758 450 3.107 616 200 200 - 2.308 2004 2443 3758 450 3.017 2. UPEEE Foundation page 3 of 16 .141 12. Inc.141 12.807 616 200 200 - 1.367 2.1d: DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (MW) Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Local Imported Year 2003 2443 3758 450 3.907 616 200 200 - 2.796 12.381 11.308 616 200 200 - 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 1.604 546 - 1.441 13.208 616 200 200 - 2.217 2.207 616 200 200 - 2.308 2008 2443 3758 450 3.607 616 - 1.067 2.308 2009 2233 3758 450 3.131 13.781 468 431 281 281 281 281 281 281 182 182 300 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - 205 150 55 - Visayas Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 12 919 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking VISAYAS TOTAL Oil-based Coal Local Imported 200 - 250 - 100 250 - 200 250 - 300 350 - 400 350 - 500 350 - 600 350 - 1.308 2010 1583 3758 450 3.308 Luzon Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 2763 1510 907 - 2763 1860 907 65 - 2763 2205 907 65 - 2763 2205 907 65 - 2763 2205 907 65 - 2763 2205 907 65 - 2763 2205 907 65 2763 2205 907 65 2763 2205 907 65 2763 2205 907 65 Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking LUZON TOTAL Oil-based Coal Local Imported 600 1500 2100 900 1200 1500 1500 300 750 750 900 11.308 2006 2443 3758 450 3.031 15.517 2.141 12.647 1.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.308 2012 1583 3758 450 3.657 616 - 1.308 2007 2443 3758 450 3.707 616 200 200 - 1.617 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.308 2005 2443 3758 450 3.831 15.267 2.817 2.

163 600 3.763 3.363 2004 3.563 2008 3.763 3.930 - 2.340 3.120 15.405 19.763 3.563 Philippines Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 2.970 65 150 350 - 2.632 15.214 1.340 4.563 2009 3.381 4.500 1.970 65 3.970 65 1.763 3.650 750 2.381 4.214 1.363 2005 3.763 3.963 600 3.970 65 400 650 - 2.563 2007 3.756 20.563 2012 2.565 17.214 1.214 1.763 3.350 300 2.970 65 550 1.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Local Imported Year 2003 3.015 16.214 1.519 1.163 600 3.163 600 3.963 600 3.763 3.340 4.363 2006 3.457 3.214 1.490 3.163 600 3.130 4.865 16.300 1.970 65 - 2.350 1.963 600 3. UPEEE Foundation page 4 of 16 .563 2011 2.763 2.505 18.340 4.950 750 2.615 15.163 600 3.950 900 Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking PHILIPPINES TOTAL 14.970 65 300 - 2.214 1.563 2010 2.480 4. Inc.763 3.970 65 350 - 2.163 600 3.869 1.706 Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.970 65 2.163 600 3.763 2.214 1.

1e: DOE Plan for Power Plant Line-Up for the Low Economic Growth Scenario LUZON YEAR PLANT ADDITION VISAYAS MINDANAO PHILIPPINES MW installed MW installed MW installed PLANT ADDITION PLANT ADDITION cumulative total capacity MW capacity MW capacity MW Uprating of LeyteBohol Interconnection from 35 MW to 100 MW Mambucal Geo 40 Kalayaan 3&4 350 2004 PNOC_EDC Wind Transfer of a Diesel Plant to Mindanao (70 MW) Northwind 40 345 40 385 -70 25 Uprating of LeyteCebu Interconnection from 200 MW to 400 MW Panay Midrange Negros Midrange 150 50 50 100 50 50 50 50 100 100 790 Baseload Plant 100 720 4. UPEEE Foundation page 5 of 16 .190 Cebu Baseload Panay Baseload 990 Baseload Plant 100 970 7.350 1.750 690 Baseload Plant 50 620 3.200 5.200 290 390 490 Mindanao Coal Baseload Plant Baseload Plant 200 50 150 370 420 570 1.150 Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas. Inc.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.100 2006 2007 Midrange 2008 Midrange 2009 Peaking 300 690 690 990 Panay Midrange Panay Baseload Cebu Baseload Negros Baseload 600 300 1.500 2.440 Cebu Baseload Negros Baseload 50 50 50 50 890 Baseload Plant 150 870 6.240 Cebu Baseload 4.050 San Roque Hydro 2005 345 690 240 Diesel Plant from Luzon Midrange Plant 70 100 170 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.

849 7.177 92.833.792 8.125.809.493 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.445 Oil-based 21.927 8.829 222.770 25.532 39.095 Oil-based 2.908 32.113.821 2.1h: 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 78.573.435 81.201 30.534 8.188.609 10.086.330 25.812 32.962 16.503 1.816.429 181.477 203.011 2.521 36.797 3.635 582.865 683.981 303.894 22.284 24.762 94.113 283.827.869.076.091 57.600.138 38.460 34.687 16.850 20.402. UPEEE Foundation page 6 of 16 .982.324 28.776 3.229 8.045.531 14.712 117.855 133.416 21.020 289.1f: 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 641.061 35.313 685.937 148.568 115.680 489.495 685.927 8.340 238.273 7.644 7.669.410 40.088 TOTAL 159. Inc.019 TOTAL 112.828 345.462 27.855 246.497 195.921.788 1.093 679.821 2.265.264 8.388.032 392.086 8.030 2.297 33.963 15.887.866.571.837 18.103 21.844 147.275.803 103.985 42.660 169.676 685.289 159.939 26.465 5.802.624 7.941 384.922 Natural gas 5.760.870 225.896 9.803.820.676 6.158.599 168.808 40.307.060.840 51.251 128.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.997 Table C.528 31.051.317 211.633 164.242 75.991 33.951.965 83.464 Natural gas 104 125 134 143 152 157 159 158 156 157 1.536 Oil-based 12.352.928 31.410 89.422 335.452 685.722 685.785 39.491.820.449 685.652 182.220 8.782 13.185 32.897.177 685.171 29.631.203 265.491 97.151 243.279 28.577.453 Table C.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 137.939 Natural gas 21.876.975 14.316.764.897 189.611 309.936.289 28.993 46.114.536.710 128.988 213.958.304.163 437.918 Coal 10.249.100 8.317.450 295.303 265.188 139.778.519 TOTAL 18.

250 3.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.176 17.228 Natural gas 1.337 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.656 12.655 TOTAL 1.971 12.580 1.595 46.620 20.274 13.240 4.581 1.873 9.121 54.049 Natural gas 8.529 11.373 2.586 1.562 1.134 3.554 12.810 2.193 121.548 Table C. UPEEE Foundation page 7 of 16 .519 1.776 10.254 1.414 Oil-based 2.397 3.053 76.207 TOTAL 21.602 16.671 Table C.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 1.571 1.1i: Total CO Emissions by Fuel Type for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total for period Geothermal Coal 9.966 32.1j: 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 1.008 2.586 50.060 6.425 1.963 3.319 13.630 2.078 165.363 36.069 14.323 362. Inc.196 13.712 28.571 14.362 23.341 1.714 3.125 13.730 Natural gas 145 174 186 198 211 218 220 219 217 218 2.432 25.157 2.454 Oil-based 163 195 267 238 302 449 713 770 755 802 4.763 13.925 4.999 7.268 11.241 28.285 13.045 1.758 24.575 13.385 11.355 26.586 10.008 Oil-based 33 40 49 44 59 82 121 129 122 131 810 TOTAL 282 314 346 379 423 470 526 566 598 644 4.758 42.

41 4.02 0.072 7.35 0.50 0.03 0.653 49.927 20.04 1.140 22.424 1.387 TOTAL 19.140 1.044 Natural gas 836 1.46 0.589 9.41 0.008 TOTAL 952 1.66 429.01 0.559 21.01 NMVOC 0.03 0.15 4.60 NOX 2.216 1.02 0.14 2.979 29.139 4.39 0.01 0.563 Oil-based 2.97 2.57 2.01 0.160 25.264 1.89 2. Inc.647 338.01 0.03 0.686 Table C.66 358.03 0.917 17.256 11.01 0.37 438.952 38.02 0.01 0.44 0.394 15.52 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.03 0.78 CO 0.01 0.336 Oil-based 79 95 121 108 142 202 305 320 308 328 2.97 421.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.221 3.36 390.031 46.03 0.389 15.003 1.42 0.39 373.836 7.589 1.073 1.49 0.700 24.256 34.995 Table C.37 0.45 2.698 3.39 0.923 7.40 0.02 0.01 2.275 1.34 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.51 CH4 0.209 43.1n: Environmental Emissions per Unit Generation (tonne/kWh) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Environmental Emissions CO2 340.858 29.353 55.25 2.69 2.02 0.03 0.973 33.620 274.89 4.50 0.1l: Total N 2O Emissions by Fuel Type for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total for period Geothermal Coal 559 543 599 740 827 916 997 1.42 0.55 338.257 1.84 3.78 346.67 2.01 0.778 1.50 0.39 410.02 Particulates 0.52 3.969 2.771 53.175 1.122 1.01 0.466 41.03 N2O 0.02 0.36 0.06 3.013 1.268 1.250 1.24 3.514 5.03 0.244 26.47 0.43 0.35 2.02 0.1m: Total Particulate Emissions by Fuel Type for the DOE Plan for the Low Economic Growth Scenario (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total for period Geothermal Coal 16.176 2. UPEEE Foundation page 8 of 16 .50 SOX 2.684 7.528 3.342 Natural gas 313 376 402 428 456 471 476 474 469 471 4.399 1.

Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.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.281 1.65% 7.186 NATIONAL Non-Coincident Peak 8.09% 8. (2003 .099 1.891 2.809 1.194 1.804 13.788 7.2012) LUZON 6.630 1.176 1.92% 8.953 2.2a: 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.862 12.675 1.2007) (2008 .994 8.815 VISAYAS 1.992 11.543 1. Inc.94% 8.2012) (2003 .423 15.357 7.438 10.711 9.23% Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.378 13.106 MINDANAO 1.90% 8.22% 8.014 1.790 18.512 1. G.562 16.034 2.757 1.883 9.59% 7.46% 8. UPEEE Foundation page 9 of 16 .359 14.R.313 1.424 12.73% 7.428 1.081 1.633 10.13% 8.60% 8.106 8.469 11.400 1.186 10.

92% 8.094 55.814 60.13% 51.658 66.104 81.46% 6.363 59.355 5.2007) (2008 . G.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.124 8.R.2012) 39.497 10.848 9. Inc.233 11.814 43.938 7.469 55.22% 5.746 64.732 8.90% 8.711 77.23% Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.187 71.033 8.807 6.888 51.73% 7.392 83.555 10.09% 8.474 69.156 46.266 104.888 8.578 75. (2003 .60% 8.149 8.555 90.155 8. UPEEE Foundation page 10 of 16 .465 8.542 8.847 12.59% 7.148 97.851 7.2c: Electricity Sales Forecasts for the High Economic Growth Scenario (GWh) YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual Ave.305 6.314 11.015 11.805 9.64% 7.2012) (2003 .300 6.94% 8.

308 2011 1.443 3.510 907 - 2.763 1.657 616 - 1.233 3.007 616 200 200 - 2.205 907 65 2.583 3.763 2.758 450 3.205 907 65 Luzon Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking 300 1.067 2.860 907 65 2.758 450 3.131 468 205 150 55 - 431 205 150 55 - 281 205 150 55 - 281 205 150 55 - 281 205 150 55 - 281 205 150 55 - 281 205 150 55 - 281 205 150 55 - 182 205 150 55 - 182 205 150 55 - Natural Gas Visayas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 12 919 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - 12 959 - Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking VISAYAS TOTAL Oil-based Coal Local Imported 200 - 250 - 100 300 - 200 350 - 400 500 - 550 550 - 650 650 - 750 650 - 1.205 907 65 2.317 2.308 Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 2.583 3.205 907 65 2.758 450 3.308 2004 2.707 616 200 200 - 1.367 2.2d: DOE Plan for Installed Capacity for the High Economic Growth Scenario (MW) Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Local Imported Year 2003 2.441 13. Inc.500 900 2.763 2.308 2008 2.758 450 3.308 2012 1.308 2007 2.817 2.308 2005 2.881 16.604 546 - 1.443 3.300 750 LUZON TOTAL Oil-based Coal Local Imported 11.647 1.758 450 3.763 2.443 3.141 12.381 17.443 3.767 2.800 3.763 2.758 450 3.796 12.308 2010 1.763 2.205 907 65 2.800 3.308 2009 2.141 12.758 450 3.443 3. UPEEE Foundation page 11 of 16 .583 3.205 907 65 2.658 616 200 200 - 2.607 616 - 1.763 2.857 616 200 200 - 2.308 2006 2.763 2.431 14.205 907 65 2.567 2.758 616 200 200 - 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 1.205 907 65 2.357 616 200 200 - 2.300 1.017 2.758 450 3.867 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.443 3.700 1.763 2.141 12.557 616 200 200 - 2.758 450 3.717 1.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.763 1.758 450 3.381 11.

563 2008 3.214 1.930 - 2.763 3.457 3.563 2012 2.250 0 3.806 22.850 3.970 65 2.214 1.381 4.480 4.155 20.163 600 3.200 4.363 2006 3.250 750 PHILIPPINES TOTAL 14.563 Philippines Natural Gas Hydro Geothermal NRE Wind 2.963 600 3.869 1.763 3.214 1.563 2009 3.490 3.150 0 1.970 65 2.970 65 2.214 1.615 15.963 600 3.865 16.163 600 3.214 1.763 3.340 3.763 3.163 600 3. UPEEE Foundation page 12 of 16 .519 1.763 2.763 3.765 18.970 65 2.500 0 3.632 15.363 2005 3.970 65 2.756 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.065 16.214 1.340 4.005 21.000 4.214 1.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Local Imported Year 2003 3.120 15.340 4.163 600 3.381 4.214 1.563 2010 2.363 2004 3.970 65 2.763 3.163 600 3.340 4.163 600 3.970 65 Others Baseload Intermediate Peaking 300 350 150 400 450 800 700 2. Inc.970 65 2.563 2007 3.763 3.970 65 2.963 600 3.763 2.563 2011 2.163 600 3.130 4.763 3.

070 8.550 990 Cebu Baseload Cebu Midrange Negros Baseload Baseload Plant Midrange Plant 200 50 670 2.200 4.290 Cebu Baseload Bohol Midrange Baseload Plant Midrange Plant 100 50 870 6. UPEEE Foundation page 13 of 16 .2e: DOE Plan for Power Plant Line-Up for the High Economic Growth Scenario LUZON YEAR PLANT ADDITION Kalayaan 3&4 VISAYAS MINDANAO PHILIPPINES MW installed MW installed MW installed PLANT ADDITION PLANT ADDITION cumulative total capacity MW capacity MW capacity MW 350 345 Uprating of LeyteBohol Interconnection from 35 MW to 100 MW from 35 MW to 100 MW Mambucal Geo 40 0 385 PNOC_EDC Wind 2004 Transfer of Hopewell GT to Mindanao (70 MW) Northwind San Roque Hydro 40 -70 40 25 345 690 Uprating of LeyteCebu Interconnection from 200 MW to 400 MW Panay Midrange Negros Midrange 240 Hopewell GT from Luzon 70 170 1.300 2010 Midrange Baseload Plant 2011 Midrange 900 600 5.340 Baseload Plant Midrange Plant 150 50 1.200 Peaking 2012 750 6.250 Midrange 1.350 1. Inc.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.790 Cebu Baseload Negros Baseload Cebu Midrange 50 50 100 50 50 1.200 2.540 Cebu Baseload Panay Baseload 1.170 9.150 Source: Philippine Energy Plan 2003-2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.850 2009 Negros Baseload Cebu Midrange Bohol Midrange Baseload Plant 900 1.440 Baseload Plant 100 1.100 2005 150 50 50 100 50 50 50 50 100 50 50 50 100 150 50 1.140 940 590 290 440 Midrange Plant 100 2006 2007 Midrange 2008 300 690 690 Panay Midrange Panay Baseload Panay Midrange Mindanao Coal Baseload Plant 200 50 370 420 1.190 Cebu Baseload Panay Baseload Baseload Plant 50 720 3.

293 82.254 191.050.253.456 Oil-based 27.351 79.033 8.297 33.490 157.178. Inc.565.792.198.877 20.233 33.198.701 Natural gas 5.862.863.529 5.526 33.664.793 3.498 130.864 2.465.713 217.051 8.822 23.498 264.965 19.774 12.710 546.534.661 30.735.824 13.812 33.399.922 383.518 77.897 409.220 8.683 61.945 479.170 89.939 26.820.912.198 192.590 Table C.499 TOTAL 167.625 1.167.537 16.488.221 109.779 15.741 631.796 44.106.630 162.450 685.806.250 284.722 685.767 685.812 6.173 56.473 51.2f: 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 641.585 685.124 11.934.849 7.207 14.035 TOTAL 19.708 137.645.194 TOTAL 111.873 49.300.322 12.843 20.208.897.912 293.582 40.234.396 154.909 224.341 26.636 Natural gas 104 126 136 145 155 158 159 158 156 157 1.970.686 347.866 288.000 684.785.673 35.941 30.891 8.042 17.808 139.064 118.704.744.518 214.620.787.653 27.206 180.828.808 243.722 685.888 232.434 28.890.989.017 30.202 74.317 3.688 221.634 149.784 157.239 10.055 2.370.677 174.383 326.Appendix C POWER SWITCH: Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table C.862 11.895 12.264 8.572.226 7.859 7.951.609 28.743.070 305.945 1.320 681. UPEEE Foundation page 14 of 16 .734.437 242.840.267 121.021.297 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.689 Oil-based 9.891 11.686 Coal 10.073.124 8.300 Table C.294.299 33.415 Natural gas 21.585 685.211 173.879 Oil-based 2.877.296 1.921.043 41.2g: 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 139.172 22.722 685.897.002 321.533 32.060.014 42.639 34.927 8.829 347.094 104.706 153.316 257.258.180 42.185 32.887 197.2h: 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 79.839 182.125.435 2.052 418.

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

671 92 170 16.694 609 205 986 12 80 20 1.531 3.1a: Installed Capacity (MW) Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Luzon Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind LUZON TOTAL Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind VISAYAS TOTAL Oil-based Coal Mindanao Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind MINDANAO TOTAL Oil-based Coal Philippines Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind PHILIPPINES TOTAL Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.862 647 250 108 997 2.583 2.053 3.923 2.283 2.763 907 2.263 4.624 2.971 3.146 647 250 188 1.491 1.983 1.831 92 315 17.758 3.763 1.711 4.287 4.747 4.752 3.491 2.763 907 2.211 650 15. UPEEE Foundation Visayas page 2 of 16 .758 2.583 947 2.860 25 11.398 647 250 228 1.963 2.519 14.985 5.061 3.189 609 205 956 12 80 1.697 3.781 4.917 4.732 647 108 997 1.213 5.869 25 15.758 3.216 63 100 80 2.491 2.942 112 850 21.804 509 205 956 12 1.066 12 80 40 2.983 2.952 3.558 12 80 2.012 647 250 148 1.255 12 20 2.547 3.214 50 65 15.214 80 65 16.011 3.652 3.404 235 13.101 629 205 1.583 3.763 907 1.758 3.871 5.116 37 100 60 2.011 1.491 2.312 3.925 112 520 18.189 559 205 956 12 50 1.661 1.205 65 12.758 3.963 2.917 4.194 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.941 605 205 1.491 2.971 2.633 2.797 525 14. Inc.901 655 205 1.266 73 100 100 2.213 5.011 1.213 5.422 400 14.763 1.758 3.583 1.467 12 60 2.213 4.763 1.163 2.313 4.267 2.912 647 250 128 1.415 12 40 2.775 2.191 3.213 3.214 25 15.871 1.205 25 12.149 559 205 956 12 1.942 5.283 1.782 647 200 108 997 1.763 1.758 3.429 545 205 916 12 1.227 2.971 3.213 2.758 3.287 3.269 647 250 228 1.404 130 12.652 3.931 2.418 112 685 19.658 12 100 2.759 2.138 2.697 4.678 547 108 997 1.510 11.963 2.383 977 2.971 3.002 3.758 3.583 2.895 2.205 65 12.419 609 205 1.763 907 2.758 3.383 2.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.512 2.127 4.763 1.763 907 1.682 547 108 997 1.

125.979.580 74.521 27.100 18.523 4.901.778.152.151.372 64.797 3.757 846.360 92.076.536.958.216 13.706 1.181 69.820.835 Natural Gas 13.857 27.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.465 5.931 0 40 0 0 0 90 130 340 180 70 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 2.687 16.577.837 15.831 2.763 0 0 0 0 0 820 800 900 300 400 1.528 31.415 20.849 7.438 86.477 12.074 24.452 685.652 1.579 1.641 6.757 30.915 Coal 18.623.865 683.210 19.760.936.636 99.952 3.085 16.624 7.783 15.272 Total 55.764 6. Inc.121 14.782 13.094.101 Fuel Type Geothermal 641.235 1.177 685.571.388.916.061 27.1d: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.148 1.897.821 2.133.141 18.297 Hydro Biomass Wind Total 18.054 15.550 30.313 1.943 27.114.374 30.213 1.573.174.893 7.093 679.099 14.776 3.020.1b: Annual Capacity Additions (MW) Year Oil-based Current Installed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3.906 27.281.011 2.869. UPEEE Foundation page 3 of 16 .953 24.271 21.229 8.928 7.896 9.908 Coal 10.484 1.324 6.975 15.884 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 0 645 785 785 785 Wind 0 153 153 153 153 153 843 1.653 821.060 33.125.158.689 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.087 19.247 3.113.534 8.963 0 0 0 200 50 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 2.596 1.383 Natural Gas 5.720 3.456 758.391 1.263 14.001 16.215.343 16.659 27.1c: Power Generation (GWh) Year Oil-based 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.948 80.519 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 1.333.583 0 0 300 0 50 0 0 20 75 50 Coal 3.275.092 15.495 639.249.654 29.462 27.943 7.710 18.968 8.209 Total Addition Table D.086 11.402.097 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 14.813 19.975 14.982.589 27.017 17.576 14.609 10.644 1.850 20.590 1.629 18.951 31.045.289 106.143 59.089.430 Table D.784 15.113.284 24.894 22.349 16.816.937 1.927 8.098 15.833.449 685.

044 CH 4 282 314 346 379 423 470 443 470 497 536 NMVOC 1.380 169.289 159.32 0.758 32.36 0.061 27.973 33.151 243.36 390.894 22.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.89 2.249.01 2.03 0.41 0.536 27.03 0.18 9.01 0.424 1.113.97 2.778.275 Environmental Emissions CO 21.241 28.584 2.06 0. Inc.43 0.70 304.06 0.06 3.1g: Generation Cost Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Generation Cost US$/kWh 0.451 943.712 117.35 2.02 0.39 323.20 3.462 27.589 775.1e: Environmental Emissions (tonne) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 18.113 283.317 164.02 0.06 0.03 0.442 34.397 943.19 3.03 0.01 0.30 0.757 30.34 0.27 Table D.936.528 31.630 2.06 0.215.37 0.952 27.979 29.363 36.422 217.954 180.05 3.689 SOX 159.03 N2O 0.284 24.988 213.535 Particulates 19.73 1.373 2.28 0.966 32.39 0.69 2.927 20.55 338.06 0.122 1.52 2.01 0.029 NOX 112.06 0.02 0.87 Particulates 0.840 217.147 943. UPEEE Foundation page 4 of 16 .01 NMVOC 0.05 NOX 2.98 10.542 Table D.35 1.01 0.66 358.654 29.12 3.84 3.429 181.31 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.10 3.05 3.09 314.42 0.650 218.275 1.36 0.238 N 2O 952 1.40 0.42 0.46 0.897 189.04 1.06 PhP/kWh 3.06 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.32 299.1f: Environmental Emission per Unit Generation (tonne/GWh) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 340.160 25.251 128.03 0.69 Environmental Emissions CO CH 4 0.03 0.36 0.850 20.137 171.937 148.839 27.687 38.03 0.981 3.110 35.152.03 0.02 8.01 0.90 1.01 0.83 1.810 2.008 2.982.03 0.362 23.52 2.35 0.599 168.04 3.402.140 22.25 2.39 373.10 3.78 346.50 8.355 26.39 0.157 2.901.88 SO X 2.06 0.38 0.24 3.951 31.581 1.06 3.02 0.14 2.37 0.01 0.013 1.677 28.726 215.916.01 0.779 2.17 2.

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

871 1.422 25 1.804 509 205 956 12 1.491 2.291 510 205 1.758 3.758 2.758 3.491 2.053 947 2.205 25 12.763 2.957 2.932 117 3.211 25 3.213 3.415 12 106 2.807 21.011 3.163 2.763 1.413 647 250 228 1.488 1.213 3.283 647 250 228 1.168 4.971 3.682 547 108 997 1.467 12 179 2.678 547 108 997 1.213 4.189 609 205 956 12 80 1.758 3.418 117 2.865 14.130 2.697 4.825 510 205 1.658 12 335 3.661 1.369 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.214 80 65 16.491 2.758 3.758 3.411 18.214 25 15.763 1.267 2.869 25 15.758 3.096 12 80 40 2. UPEEE Foundation page 6 of 16 . Inc.578 2.548 2.743 2.221 3.778 2.063 3.758 3.763 1.227 2.763 1.782 647 200 108 997 1.404 10 665 12.136 647 250 188 1.468 2.2a: 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 2.763 3.213 5.267 4.735 1.213 4.841 4.468 907 1.146 37 80 60 2.002 3.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.519 14.633 907 2.255 12 33 2.778 4.063 2.763 2.480 23.561 3.763 1.189 559 205 956 12 50 1.922 647 250 128 1.548 4.925 117 2.011 1.797 25 2.747 4.759 907 1.963 2.971 3.991 4.265 13.931 2.971 3.971 2.963 2.531 1.149 559 205 956 12 1.465 16.042 647 250 148 1.968 2.652 3.758 3.205 65 12.868 609 205 1.325 3.862 647 250 108 997 2.652 3.491 2.346 63 80 80 2.065 17.168 4.429 545 205 916 12 1.763 2.558 12 262 2.491 1.547 3.917 4.213 2.763 2.214 50 65 15.952 3.963 2.758 3.831 117 1.856 609 205 1.968 5.404 25 1.923 907 2.104 19.964 977 2.476 63 80 80 2.732 647 108 997 1.287 3.718 609 205 996 12 80 20 1.071 3.205 65 12.671 102 718 16.860 25 11.011 1.583 3.510 11.138 907 2.127 4.697 3.752 3.

602 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.629 18.545.927 8.465 3.557.132.203.655 20.281 2.349 16.580 74.704 1.263 6.452 685.341 22. Inc.138 26.270 21.365 *includes capacities of diesel engines used as ancillary to wind power plants Table D.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 2.982.928 7.172.865 683.085 Total 55.045.247 3.573.093 679.737.229 8.437 86.462 27. UPEEE Foundation page 7 of 16 .287 9.333.117 10.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.833.178.764 4.2b: Annual Capacity Additions (MW) Year Oil-based* Currently Installed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3.583 0 0 300 0 50 548 548 488 538 528 Coal 3.776 3.659 27.361 10.098 13.942 19.317 16.125.908 Coal 10.622 7.791.433 2.647 13.961.975 15.770 5.385 3.372 64.245 Natural Gas 13.284 24.896 9.758.958.973 769.694 Fuel Type Geothermal 641.2d: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type (tonne) Year Oil-based 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.017 17.523 4.778.249.968 15.529 26.032.816.821 2.952 3.076.158 14.114.651 1.687 14.709 1.360 92.922 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 14.919 Hydro Biomass Wind Total 18.082 Natural Gas 5.103.778.915 Coal 18.891 26.415 18.746 23.369 11.636 99.790 1.782 13.849 7.850 20.386 649.809 13.430 Table D.536.797 3.528 26.820.170 867.289 106.2c: Power Generation (GWh) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.624 7.943 7.141 18.885 32.975 14.894 22.534 21.387 1.157.936.104 20.198 29.708 27.436.931 0 40 0 0 0 100 150 340 280 150 2.609 10.092 15.897.143 59.948 80.545 16.992.919 3.692 27.760.763 0 0 0 0 0 300 715 770 420 500 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 1.324 6.113.388.963 0 0 0 200 50 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 2.054 15.449 597.732 12.087 19.181 69.893 7.385 2.741 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 715 820 820 436 259 Wind 0 153 153 153 153 1.332 919.953 24.121 14.720 3.011 2.177 685.534 8.856 14.550 26.345 16.815 19.375 24.676.320.158.016.136 2.577.477 12.654 1.210 19.079 2.

739 161.937 148.48 2.06 0.66 358.06 0.966 32.602 SOX 159.06 3.407 2.00 0.10 3.897 155.39 0.00 0.25 1.01 0.086 24.462 27.737.988 213.151 243.289 159.00 0.073 N 2O 952 1.2f: Environmental Emission per Unit Generation (tonne/GWh) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 340.13 SO X 2.2e: Environmental Emissions (tonne) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 18.810 2.01 2.936.34 0.93 1.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.06 0.35 0.02 10.26 0.73 1.03 0.41 0.906 CH 4 282 314 346 379 423 389 418 444 462 492 NMVOC 1.68 11.02 0.35 0.2g: Generation Cost Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Generation Cost US$/kWh 0.34 0.06 0.712 117.376 30.29 2.982.84 3.692 27.02 0.64 5.859 NOX 112.223 151.150 312.54 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.39 0.737 148.675 146.546 150.731 171.791.52 NOX 2.12 3.107 Environmental Emissions CO 21.48 1.961.30 0.90 288.251 128. Inc.03 N2O 0.75 1.05 3.23 3.373 2.06 0.05 0.891 26.04 3.065 214.301 985.178.013 1.03 0.363 29.69 2.122 1.849 3.89 2.63 271.04 1.01 0.15 3. UPEEE Foundation page 8 of 16 .529 26.78 346.97 2.03 0.583 Particulates 19.113 232.020 22.00 NMVOC 0.973 28.676.94 Particulates 0.154 2.36 325.03 0.979 29.21 Table D.157 2.249.37 0.362 23.599 168.442 21.528 26.36 0.39 373.23 0.02 0.41 10.140 22.850 20.03 0.14 2.539 185.03 0.008 2.581 1.125 985.426 33.03 0.24 2.01 0.06 0.63 1.894 22.010 26.113.284 24.06 0.05 3.03 0.475 31.275 1.679 2.01 0.40 0.39 Environmental Emissions CO CH 4 0.38 3.54 261.01 0.241 28.06 PhP/kWh 3.35 0.02 0.355 26.89 2.160 25.32 0.06 0.01 3.424 859.03 0.00 1.33 0.00 0.778.43 0.702 32.429 181.55 338.927 20.42 0.138 26.45 308.37 0.311 525.852 Table D.

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

491 1.227 2.892 2.945 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.404 275 13.862 717 200 108 997 2.703 907 2.214 25 15.383 907 1.763 2.491 2.963 2.197 4.116 100 574 20.467 49 2.043 907 2.652 3.694 609 205 996 12 80 20 1.412 3.511 1.971 3.534 717 200 228 1.404 130 12.871 1.797 565 16.763 1.971 4.763 1.333 4.691 4.733 6.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.583 2.832 2.583 3.758 3.733 2.987 4.832 717 200 108 997 2.041 4.022 3.763 1.383 3.687 109 2.860 25 11.205 65 12.491 2.732 717 108 997 1.429 545 205 916 12 1.759 907 1.291 629 205 1.883 80 364 18.971 100 904 22.971 3.163 3.783 80 150 17.433 2. UPEEE Foundation page 10 of 16 .963 2.804 509 205 956 12 1.311 717 200 188 1.581 2.027 977 2.678 547 108 997 1.163 2.011 1.476 63 100 85 2.073 947 2.822 3.817 4.963 2.547 3.163 4.434 1.287 3.189 609 205 956 12 50 1.763 3.491 2.767 3.163 6.022 3.526 73 100 105 2.367 2.581 605 205 1.763 1.163 7.763 1.011 1.652 3.276 37 100 65 2.422 440 15.763 2.214 80 65 16.071 3.971 2.758 3.583 4.149 559 205 956 12 1.763 2.758 3.122 717 200 148 1.433 7.491 2.518 100 739 22.267 2.922 717 200 128 1.163 2.301 3.205 25 12.758 3.163 7.869 25 15.211 690 17.519 14.763 2.183 2.658 89 2.214 50 65 16.341 655 205 1.758 3.663 717 200 228 1.357 4.183 7.007 1.383 4.817 4.941 2.205 65 12.758 3.809 609 205 1.138 907 2.510 11.011 3.971 3. Inc.661 1.931 2.758 3.658 69 2.758 3.758 2.682 547 108 997 1.758 3.176 12 80 40 2.189 609 205 956 12 80 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.

840.130 20.744.931 0 40 0 0 0 100 230 390 280 70 2.673 29.465 37.897.640.573 1.749 2.115 100.963 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 2.496 5.569.916.272 Fuel Type Geothermal 641.226.471 Table D.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.016 28.252 2.973 27.000 684.640.946 20.978 27.695.919 33.671 14.768 3.535 1.207 14.033.150 1.042 15.028 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 561 561 701 343 701 Wind 0 153 153 153 153 402 974 1.769 22.439 18.324 6.051 10.574 1.897.101 15.3b: Annual Capacity Additions (MW) Year Oil-based Currently Installed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3.125.503 42.874 109.859 3.188.964 26.672.756 31.855.263 72.891 8.450 685.108 20.076 15.928.984 30.209 26.763 0 0 0 0 0 820 1.448 Hydro Biomass Wind Total 19.907 937.084 17.104 13.722 597.000 15.777 34.879 3.141.891 11.602 17.849 7.243 26.128.126 15.153 85.258.791 23.885 23.458 14.163 30.850 7.704.107 4.773.877 1.320 681.583 0 0 370 50 0 0 0 20 75 50 Coal 3.785. Inc.050.317 Total 55.458 Natural Gas 5.208 14.649 6.734.020 16.190 3.110 2.556 60.234.218.3c: Power Generation (GWh) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.479 27.864 3.484.722 2.158 14.420 4.862.850 21.807 93.664.555.519 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 14.650 79.952 8.404 13.146 29.315 118.964 Natural Gas 13.463 2.269 36.585 685.893 7.615 4.694 2.169 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.672 938 Table D.065 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 14.779 15.585.920.700 750 200 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 1.208.226 7.766 19.991 Coal 10.858 1.600 16.321 14.828.932 7.156. UPEEE Foundation page 11 of 16 .747 Coal 18.859.103 16.124 8.893 18.934 17.106.367 2.646 2.407.534.3d: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type (tonne) Year Oil-based 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.739 26.745 912.578 19.349 16.537 18.759 0 415 715 340 30 1.595 66.019 814.239 10.386 678.252.496 14.

97 1.447 153.01 0.01 0.10 3.3g: Generation Cost Generation Cost US$/kWh PhP/kWh 0.828.01 0.0561 0.17 351.984 30.04 0.18 2.676 20.739 26.304 36.04 N2O 0.636 217.38 0.500 132.90 406.9744 3.03 0.0578 0.777 34.266 191.055 1.43 0.10 2.596 2.617 413.268 674.48 0.01 0.677 42.0554 0.151 31.858 2.0555 0.139 288.03 0.024 3.0868 3.506 45.0544 0.79 385.3138 3.06 NOX 2.35 4.61 2.01 NMVOC 0.062 118.885 23.733 174.099 214.21 2.98 Environmental Emissions CO CH 4 0.3e: Environmental Emissions (tonne) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 19.163 30.01 0.284 27.686 239.620 4.30 3.03 0.44 0.42 0.130 20.32 2.43 0.39 0.01 1.377 1.68 429.01 0.50 0.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.02 0.672.734 179.04 Particulates 0.38 0.099 Table D.559 3.4193 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.69 4.12 2.0175 3.02 0.307 2.02 0.755 181.15 2.344 45.599 1.421 Environmental Emissions CO 21.711 48.01 0.0536 2.10 354.44 2.372 842. UPEEE Foundation page 12 of 16 .199 33.845 Particulates 19.46 Table D.430 43.04 0.54 367.873 215.9785 2.37 0.13 373.02 0.272 41.591 216.169 S OX 167.03 0.166 37.03 3.91 376.45 0.566 674.050.0549 0.24 2.9923 2.673 29.01 0.56 0.51 0.42 0.684 207.494 23. Inc.359 842.04 0.156.264 200.03 0.41 SO X 3.02 8.25 8.065 2.756 31.428 38.04 0.3f: Environmental Emission per Unit Generation (tonne/GWh) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 370.0603 0.862.07 9.0541 0.928.43 0.18 351.44 0.01 0.101 CH 4 283 321 358 402 456 453 509 540 592 655 NMVOC 1.0495 3.0622 3.16 2.546 36.343 31.71 8.389 NOX 111.750 24.024 N 2O 970 1.41 0.859.44 0.294 244.916.269 36.887 173.186 1.39 2.25 3.0542 0.50 0.1790 3.407.096 27.274 3.141.202 173.

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

189 609 205 956 12 80 1.339 76 2.862 717 200 108 997 2.011 1.759 2.297 5.987 4.871 1.519 14.687 262 3.163 5.763 1.783 977 2.011 1.678 547 108 997 1.265 12.767 3.758 3.180 2.333 2.971 3.652 3.682 547 108 997 1.510 11.690 510 205 1.491 2.197 4.022 3.333 2.971 3.214 25 15.763 907 1.715 23.678 717 200 228 1.491 2.763 907 2.548 717 200 228 1.333 1.758 3. Inc.041 22.491 2.869 25 15.652 3.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.281 20.763 1.763 907 2.043 2.865 15.221 3.978 2.491 2.214 50 65 16.763 907 2.333 1.205 65 12.491 1.763 1.732 717 108 997 1.605 5.163 5.189 609 205 956 12 50 1.804 509 205 956 12 1.146 47 100 230 2.073 3.983 1.931 2.661 1.163 2.963 2.155 125 2.214 80 65 16.337 4.429 545 205 916 12 1.758 3.832 717 200 108 997 2.860 25 11.966 95 Visayas 771 1.797 25 2.741 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.963 2.124 18.817 4.547 3.540 152 2.971 137 3.863 609 205 996 22 80 30 1.336 717 200 188 1.205 65 12.687 12 336 3.758 3.346 73 100 314 2.822 3.205 25 12.096 22 80 110 2.238 4. UPEEE Foundation page 14 of 16 .122 717 200 148 1.094 2.063 947 2.963 2.011 3.227 2.841 4.163 4.758 3.149 559 205 956 12 1.422 25 1.758 3.138 2.238 4.723 13.022 3.983 2.656 510 205 1.703 2.971 3.163 3.211 25 3.267 2.557 125 3.757 2.548 665 1.465 16.163 2.291 609 205 1.758 2.287 3.071 3.561 4.758 3.942 717 200 128 1.163 3.527 17.404 15 3.763 907 1.583 3.763 1.817 4.765 95 609 205 1.4a: Installed Capacity (MW) Fuel Type Oil-based Coal Luzon Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind LUZON TOTAL Oil-based Coal Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind VISAYAS TOTAL Oil-based Coal Mindanao Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind MINDANAO TOTAL Oil-based Coal Philippines Natural Gas Geothermal Hydro Biomass Wind PHILIPPINES TOTAL Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.404 15 4.065 17.758 3.063 2.971 2.763 1.991 4.687 186 2.758 3.476 73 100 314 2.783 2.460 3.

893 7.859 4.387 1.534. UPEEE Foundation page 15 of 16 .874 109.439 18.519 0 350 345 0 0 551 201 189 402 414 Biomass 0 0 0 0 50 30 15 0 30 0 12 Wind 0 0 25 0 40 0 706 756 754 760 674 0 415 715 340 30 2.722 597.216 11.734.953 Geothermal 14.000 684.615 4.045 26.080 6.130 20.426 20.865.292 2.942 19.409 3.779 15.932 7.193 6.828. Inc.016 28.142 29.4c: Power Generation (GWh) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.000 15.891 11.633.807 93.012 Natural Gas 13.190 3.538 2.332 919.814.673 28.084 17.4d: Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Fuel Type (tonne) Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Oil-based 2.106.315 24.124 8.960 19.760 23.234.239 21.103 11.091 33.630.317 16.956.060 4.051 9.104 20.479 10.030 Biomass 0 0 0 0 0 666 666 876 876 960 Wind 0 153 153 153 153 2.722 2.893 18.549 6.708.735 12.193 16.407.650.200 350 0 1.639 Fuel Type Geothermal 641.036.243 26.126 15.897.973 769.450 685.850 7.298.076 15.263 Fuel Type Hydro 6.471 3.050.744.763 0 0 0 0 0 300 720 1.885 23.263 72.125.471 Table D.867 Coal 10.931 0 40 0 0 0 100 150 340 280 150 Fuel Type Geothermal Hydro 2.014 17.508 29.208.418 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.419 14.209.326.095 7.600 Coal 18.207 14.398.258.850 21.324 6.963 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 Natural Gas 2.496 5.101 15.897.118 31.704.653 Total 55.963 22.746.016 17.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.115 100.644 34.883 9.382 1.578 19.618.583 0 0 370 50 0 621 582 549 595 529 Coal 3.650 79.288.739 26.664.170 867.984 30.484.840.527.595 66.919 Hydro Biomass Wind Total 19.107 6.779 Total Addition *includes capacities of diesel engines used as ancillary to wind power plants Table D.862.420 4.993 Natural Gas 5.349 16.326.768 3.953 36.891 8.062 2.226 7.042 14.315 118.511.4b: Annual Capacity Additions (MW) Year Oil-based* Currently Installed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 3.556 60.290 36.538 4.335.153 85.791 21.443.849 7.104 13.978 26.916.186 2.158 14.585 685.386 649.109 8.115 13.864 3.639 16.952 8.020 16.239 10.252.320 681.

153.6854 University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas.052.862.885 23.0575 0.887 168.03 0.750 24.03 Environmental Emissions CO CH 4 0.18 2.062 118.248 42.984 30.686 246.39 0.0175 3.485 45.500 132.10 3.0549 0.02 0.264 200.44 0.465 36.479 3.02 0.625 166.0622 0.956.0550 0.37 0.828.01 0.4234 3.38 0.118 31.03 0.52 329.40 0.60 0.0554 0.0670 PhP/kWh 3.16 2.81 2.03 0.12 2.42 0.596 2.01 0.68 429.307 2.42 0.38 0.04 0.01 0.294 38.785 1.01 0.4e: Environmental Emissions (tonne) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 19.199 32.48 0.654 Environmental Emissions CO 21.771 3.1607 3.139 288.44 2.09 329.75 2.263 44.4f: Environmental Emission per Unit Generation (tonne/GWh) Year CO2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 370.13 373.511.754 NOX 111.739 26.777 Particulates 19.430 46.882 164.34 9.355 Table D.0495 3.90 406.03 0.142 29.2638 3.258 34.01 0.41 0.294 244.673 28.814.644 34.720 234.096 27.343 31.02 0.733 174.0228 3.0536 2.738 45.036.065 2.291 CH 4 283 321 358 402 456 439 479 517 559 634 NMVOC 1.0593 0.91 372.284 27.377 1.04 0.546 36.03 0.9785 3.09 1.418 SOX 167.438 1.679 188.30 3.03 0.4g: Generation Cost Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Generation Cost US$/kWh 0.58 11.073 174.04 0.31 358.47 0.19 2.202 173. Inc.51 0.53 0.69 4.916.407.00 1.750 N 2O 970 1. UPEEE Foundation page 16 of 16 .212 174.196 3.997 56.02 10.25 3.566 800.32 2.40 0.746.00 Particulates 0.54 Table D.676 20.425 2.03 3.18 2.740 1.01 0.515 212.02 0.9923 2.494 23.01 0.151 31.186 1.508 29.01 NMVOC 0.04 N2O 0.79 1.01 0.67 NOX 2.106 170.0542 0.052.Appendix D POWER SWITCH! Scenarios and Strategies for Clean Power Development in the Philippines Table D.599 1.0544 0.44 0.41 0.130 20.79 385.50 0.858 2.374 800.447 153.050.0555 0.97 319.01 0.03 SO X 3.68 10.82 1.45 0.82 11.055 1.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful