FIT rates to help reverse PH reliance on 'dirty' power

WWF says approval of FIT rates to help reverse PH reliance on 'dirty' power

By: Orti Despuez, InterAksyon.com

The online news portal of TV5

MANILA - World Wildlife Fund-Philippines said the approval of feed-in-tariff rates for renewable energy projects will help reverse the country's growing dependence on highly-polluting power sources.

The non-government organization's statement comes on the heels of the Energy Regulatory Commission's release of FIT rates for hydro (P5.90 per kilowatt-hour), biomass (P6.63), wind (P8.53), and solar (P9.68). The ERC however deferred approval of the tariff for ocean thermal energy conversion pending the results of its study.

The FIT rates represent the guaranteed returns for renewable energy project proponents. The approved rates however are lower than those proposed by the National Renewable Energy Board, the body created by the Renewable Energy Act to oversee the development of the nascent industry.

“The Philippines is a fossil fuel-poor country," lawyer Gia Ibay, Climate Change Programme director of the WWF-Philippines said, adding that the approval of the FIT rates would help shield the country from the volatility of the fossil-fuel market.

With over a third of its power sourced from coal plants, the Philippine power mix - which previously was dominated by renewables - has gradually turned from green to black.

“Fortunately, the country now has a chance to reverse this trend as one of the Philippines' few competitive advantages is its vast renewable energy base,” the lawyer said.

According to a WWF study, the country can develop 1200 megawatts of geothermal, 2308 megawatts of hydro, 235 megawatts of biomass and 7404 megawatts of wind power capacities in the next decade, raising the share of indigenous renewables in the power mix to 50 percent.

WWF said the expected increase in electricity rates because of the FIT amounts to five centavos per kilowatt-hour, which compares favorably to the increase of 69.04 centavos in Luzon, 60.60 centavos in the Visayas, and 4.42 centavos in Mindanao a few months ago brought about by higher fossil-fuel prices.

Rafael Senga, WWF-International Asia Pacific energy policy manager, said Philippine electricity rates continue to increase almost on a quarterly basis even without the FIT.

“We need to ask ourselves what causes this. Is it because of renewable energy or is it because of an over-reliance on a fossil fuel based system? I think we all know the answer to that," Senga said.

He said this trend would continue as the government has anchored its near-term capacity development program on coal-fired power plants.

Electricity from most renewable energy projects are expected to achieve grid parity rates within 10 years, by which time their cost would approximate that of coal-fed plants, the WWF said.

Coal-fired power plants have a minimum life of 30 years, thus locking in the country to this "dirty" energy source, the WWF said. 

"The FIT allows renewable energy projects to become cost competitive today, rather than tomorrow. This will allow us to invest in clean and cheap energy in the long run and prevent the Philippines from being locked-in for 20 extra years to dirty, expensive energy. This is why WWF-Philippines believes that the FIT is an investment, and not a subsidy as some have claimed," Ibay said.

Greenpeace, WWF cheer FIT rates

Greenpeace, WWF cheer FIT rates

By: Amy R. Remo

Philippine Daily Inquirer

MANILA, Philippines—Environment group Greenpeace and leading renewable energy advocate World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF-Philippines) have hailed the issuance of the feed-in-tariff (FIT) rates that are seen paving the way for increased use of renewable energy in the country.

In a statement, Greenpeace said that with the FIT rates now in place, there was “no reason to proceed with more coal power projects. Other neighboring countries like Thailand and Malaysia, where FIT rates have been approved, are seeing an increase in development and mainstreaming of RE.”

These FIT rates, which were issued by the Energy Regulatory Commission last week, are critical in ensuring the viability of an RE project as these will ensure fixed cash flows over the next 20 years.

WWF-Philippines Climate Change Programme director Gia Ibay, meanwhile, stressed that the Philippines was a fossil fuel-poor country and thus, investing in RE will help shield Filipinos from the “volatility of the fossil fuel market while taking advantage of what we have been endowed with.”

A study by WWF showed that the country can develop an additional 1,200 megawatts of geothermal capacity; 2,308 MW of hydropower; 235 MW of biomass and 7,404 MW of wind power capacities in the next 10 years.

WWF also said that the estimated increase in power rates that will be borne by end power consumers with the issuance of FIT rates was “marginal” compared to the expected increase in the cost of traditional fossil fuels like coal over the long term.

Based on WWF’s figures, the estimated impact of FIT on power rates would only be 5 centavos per kilowatt-hour, as against the electricity hikes of 69.04 centavos per kWh in Luzon, 60.60 centavos per kWh in the Visayas, and 4.42 centavos per kWh in Mindanao just a few months ago—a “vicious trend which is bound to get worse if fossil fuels such as coal succeed in dominating our power sector.”

“Philippine electricity rates continue to increase almost on a quarterly basis and at much larger amounts too than the FIT [rates]. We need to ask ourselves what causes this. Is it because of renewable energy or is it because of an over-reliance on a fossil fuel based system,” added WWF-International Asia Pacific energy policy manager Rafael Senga.

From Rappler: Investors rethink renewable energy projects due to low tariffs

Investors rethink renewable energy projects due to low tariffs

BY RAPPLER.COM

MANILA, Philippines - Renewable energy developers are reviewing the viability of their projects after the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) approved lower-than-expected feed-in tariff (FIT) rates.

While they are thankful to the ERC for finally approving the rates, they said these may not be enough to cover the high costs required to roll out their projects.

"We are very thankful to ERC for finally releasing the FIT. [But the rates are] significantly lower than what the industry applied for," said Tetchie Capellan, founder of the Philippine Solar Power Alliance (PSPA).

Capellan said they will see in the coming year whether the rates will be enough to attract investments.

JJ Samuel Soriano, president of US-based solar energy firm Sunconnex, said: "We have to study what were the considerations of the ERC in coming up with the FIT for solar then we can assess if it will still be financially feasible to construct and operate."

Gabino Ramon Mejia, PhilNewEnergy Inc project director, said the lower solar FIT will be very challenging especially to the small players. PhilNewEnergy is a joint venture between Ayala Corp and Mitsubishi Corp that is pursuing the construction of the P7-billion Darong solar power project in Davao del Sur.

"But if Department of Energy (DOE) will allow a higher capacity allocation, who knows it may still work," Mejia said.

The ERC approved on Friday, July 27, the FITs for solar, wind, biomass and hydropower projects. It however postponed the fixing of FIT for ocean thermal energy conversion pending further study.

In calculating the FITs, the ERC accepted the methodology used by National Renewable Energy Board (NREB) that takes into account, among others, the cost of constructing and operating the plants for each renewable energy, the generation output or capacity factors of these plants, and the reasonable return on investment to be granted the developers of the plants.

Hike, then reduce, power prices

The imposition of the tariffs is expected to further increase the already high power prices in the Philippines before reducing them in the long term.

This is because the tariff system offers a guaranteed price at which renewable energy will be sold, and the costs will be passed on to consumers.

Renewable energy is more expensive than traditional sources like coal and oil.

However, the industry expects renewable energy to be cheaper over time for one reason: FITs are set, while coal and oil prices fluctuate and continue to go up.

"We express our appreciation for the ERC in keeping with mandate of the Electric Power Industry Reform Act by deliberating and issuing the FIT rates at the soonest possible time," Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Jose Rene Almendras said.

Almendras said they hope that all stakeholders will continue to contribute in efforts to set up a competitive and dynamic power market that will benefit the whole country.

Approved rates

The ERC approved the following renewable energy tariff rates:

• P9.68 per kilowatt-hour for solar,
• P8.53 per kWh for wind,
• P6.63 per kWh for biomass, and
• P5.90 per kWh for run-of-river hydro.

The rates are lower than what the NREB had proposed. The NREB's proposed rates were:

• P17.95 per kWh for solar,
• P10.37 per kWh for wind,
• P7 per kWh for biomass, and
• P6.15 for run-of-river hydro.

The ERC explained it arrived at substantially lower rates, particularly for solar and wind, after it took into account the downward trend in the costs of putting up generation plants for these.

It said that for all renewable energy technologies, project costs, such as those for the switchyard and transformers, transmission interconnection and access/service road, were revised in line with the benchmarks of similar projects of the regulated utilities.

The ERC said it also adopted a lower equity internal rate of return of 16.44% in calculating the FITs, except for biomass, which was allowed a higher return of 17% to account for fuel risks.

The approved FITs will be subject to review and adjustment after an initial implementation period of 3 years or when the installation targets for each technology as set by the DOE have already been met.

The DOE approved a 3-year installation target of 250 megawatts for run-of river hydro, with anticipated investments of P891.25 million, 250 MW for biomass (P759.75 million), 50 MW for solar (P170 million), 200 MW for wind (P551.6 million) and 10 MW for ocean (P126.37 million). - Rappler.com

Philippine FIT now approved, FINALLY!

Finally 4 years after the approval of the RA 9513, FIT for RE is now approved.

Next battle ground: NET METERING... net metering will be the most appropriate incentive for small scale level such as house roof tops and small buildings less than 100 kW capacity - EastGreenfields.

Philippines Approves Tariffs On Alternative Energy Sources

The Philippines’ Energy Regulatory Commission approved feed-in tariff rates for hydroelectric, biomass, wind and solar energy sources, lower than what the nation’s renewable energy board asked for.

Run-of-river hydroelectric power sources will enjoy a 5.90 pesos a kilowatt-hour tariff, biomass 6.63 pesos, wind 8.53 pesos and solar 9.68 pesos, the commission known as ERC said in an e-mail. The ERC deferred fixing the tariff for ocean thermal energy conversion resource pending further study, it said.

The lowered tariffs will cushion the impact of the incentive mechanism on electricity rates, while attracting investments in renewable energy, ERC Executive Director Francis Saturnino said in the statement.

The renewable energy board in its May 2011 petition sought a 6.15 a kilowatt-hour tariff for hydroelectric, 7 pesos for biomass, 10.37 pesos for wind and 17.95 pesos for solar energy sources. Under a feed-in tariff, investors are paid a cost-based price to provide a reasonable return.

To contact the reporter on this story: Norman P. Aquino in Manila at naquino1@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Clarissa Batino at cbatino@bloomberg.net


Post on FIT click here.

The case for renewable energy

The case for renewable energy

By Tony La Vina | Posted on July 21, 2012 

On this fourth column of a series on energy, I make the case – in general terms – for renewable energy. Later, I will dedicate whole columns on specific RE sources such as geothermal, wind, and solar.

Shifting to a renewable energy-centric strategy for rehabilitating the Philippine electrical infrastructure is a radical option, and it will require significant investment of time, resources, and political will, beginning with the implementation (and monitoring) of the Renewable Energy Act.  It has, however, the potential to transform the power industry, and establish the foundations of clean energy and energy security. That transformation ironically centers on one complaint of RE technology aired by its critics: that they do not yield as much power as traditional fossil fuel, big hydroelectric, or nuclear generation, in absolute numbers and on a per-peso basis.

By their economics and technology the traditional means were suited for large-scale production of electricity, and in particular for baseload generation, to meet the expected, constant demand of consumers connected to a centralized electrical grid (some environmentally-friendly power generation can also serve as baseload power plants, such as geothermal plants, though they have their limitations). In contrast, solar photovoltaic (solar panels) and wind, the two commonly touted RE power options, cannot meet the requirements of baseload generation: small-scale and/or high expense, plus the intermittency of clear skies and wind.

Looking at this from the baseload, large-grid perspective, though, is like missing out the trees for the forest: emphasizing the main point of getting more power into the grid but missing out on the finer details of getting there. Instead of plopping down a few traditional, low cost-high yield-but-high environmental/fuel cost plants to address a geographic shortfall, why not spread it out across smaller RE plants and smaller grids?

RE power opens up the potentials of microgrids, distributed generation, grid energy storage, and grid-tied systems to revolutionize the otherwise traditional and centralized Philippine electrical infrastructure: large geographic grids fed by large-scale plants, transmitted across large distances through multiple substations to serve a large consumer base.

Microgrids we should be familiar with, because of projects combining these with RE to distant rural communities too far to be economically connected to the electrical grid. They are what the name implies: small-scale grids fed by small-scale plants to feed a small consumer base. They are perfect for such small-scale communities because households typically do not have the demand and voltage loads of heavy industry and dense urban areas.

Distributed generation spreads out the production of electricity from centralized sources, usually placing the power plant much closer to its intended consumer base than the traditional, centralized power plant—sometimes even on-site, such as solar panels on the roof of its intended user. Grid energy storage allows the infrastructure to smooth out the peaking nature of electrical demand by storing excess electricity for future use. These technologies also include the emerging use of electrical vehicles to serve as part of the storage medium. Finally, grid ties allow the grid storage system to safely interact with the main electrical grid, allowing the user to feed from the grid when his demand is high—and give his own excess electricity to the grid when his own demand is low.

These tools afford us an opportunity to decentralize the Philippine power industry in a radical fashion: subdividing and complementing the main grid, turning consumers into part-time producers. Industrial parks, places like seaports and airports, and dense urban communities (like the Makati Central Business District) can be served, even partially (e.g., low-voltage office loads in heavy industry) by grid-tied microgrids-cum-storage systems powered by on-site RE, feeding from and to the distribution grid powered by traditional and RE (e.g., large wind farms) power plants. Since these tend to shut down at specific times (e.g., business hours for industry and commercial), they can store energy produced at these times, or sell their production at Feed-in-Tariff (FiT) rates—an attractive incentive for industrial parks, commercial centers, and even household communities to set up their own private RE generators to supplement income.

All this will require heavy research and infrastructure investment, not just in the power plants, but also in the grid—the transmission and distribution sides of the electrical industry. But the truth is our power infrastructure, from plants to power lines, is aging. A change is due and the choice is clear. We can continue to do things the old-fashioned way with a business-as-usual approach that dooms us to the current situation of inadequate and expensive power. Or we can be bolder and take the RE route which give us the chance to permanently alter the bad status quo and guarantee in the long term cheaper, more reliable, and environmentally friendlier energy.

Off Grid PV Generation System

Off Grid PV Generation System

(Double click image for clearer picture)


The system uses the sun to provide electricity to the household local loads.


During day time, electricity can be directly supplied to loads.


When load demand is less than energy generated, excess energy will be stored to the batteries.


During night time, energy will be withdrawn from the batteries to supply electricity to loads.


System size depends on the amount of energy the batteries can hold. More batteries the more energy stored.


Number of panels depends on the number of batteries to charge. 


More batteries means more panels that also means higher investment.


Batteries should be maintained.


The system is most advantage to use in locations without regular electricity coming from the gird.
Also, the system can be use in the cities during black outs after or during tropical depressions or other calamities that disrupts regular power supply.

Click here to learn more.

Grid Connected PV Generation System

Grid Connected PV Generation System

(Double click image for clearer picture)


The system uses the sun to provide electricity to the household local loads.


When there is an excess energy not used by the local loads, these excess energy will be exported to the main utility grid, operation in GENERATION and EXPORT mode (Local demand < PV Generation).


When local demand loads are greater than what the system produce, the system will draw these energy from the grid, operation both IMPORT and GENERATION mode (Local demand > PV Generation).


At night when of course the sun is not present, the system is on 100% IMPORT mode operation.


This system is the most economical set-up since this does not require batteries for energy storage, the grid is your storage. The excess energy exported can be re-imported during night time.


Click here to learn more.

Malampaya shutdown to hike power rates

Malampaya shutdown to hike power rates

Sourece: http://business.inquirer.net/71157/malampaya-shutdown-to-hike-power-rates

The eight-day shutdown of the Malampaya natural gas facility starting last Friday is expected to jack up electricity prices by less than P1 a kilowatt-hour, according to the Department of Energy (DoE).

The shutdown, which will last until July 21, has prompted the three gas-fired facilities being served by the Malampaya to use the more expensive liquid condensates to enable them to continue providing electricity to the Luzon grid.

Collectively, the three gas-fed plants—the 1,200-MW Ilijan, 1,000-MW Sta. Rita and 500-MW San Lorenzo facilities—generate 1,950 MW out of their total capacity of 2,700 MW. The Ilijan plant produces only 450 MW out of its 1,200 MW capacity due to a scheduled maintenance activity, according to Energy Undersecretary Josefina Patricia M. Asirit.

The DoE, however, was hoping that the impact of the Malampaya shutdown on electricity pricing would be further mitigated by the entry of more coal-fired power facilities and hydropower plants in the Luzon grid, Asirit said.

The energy official identified the plants helping shore up power supply reserves in Luzon as the Kalayaan hydropower facility, which is contributing 180 MW (and can be doubled to 360 MW), and a unit of the Calaca coal plant in Batangas that is expected to start generating electricity this week. Also further increasing supply is the Malaya thermal facility in Rizal, which is projected to contribute 200 MW.

Asirit was quick to note that the impending rate increase, which would be felt by consumers in their power bills next month, would ensure an adequate and stable power supply this week and throughout the shutdown period.

Asirit said the peak power demand (or the highest level of consumption by Luzon) this week was forecast to reach 7,300 MW, a comfortable level given the 8,700 MW of available supply in the Luzon grid.

“Even with the first day of the Malampaya shutdown last Friday, we still have a normal supply situation for the Luzon grid. We have roughly 8,700 MW of available supply, which means we have more than enough reserves just in case any of the plants will go offline unexpectedly,” Asirit explained.

As of Saturday, the Luzon grid registered 1,676 MW in power supply reserves.

After the eight-day shutdown, the Malampaya facility is again expected to go offline for 30 days in the second half of next year.

Among the preparations included the formation of a “grid reliability task force” that would enable the government to enforce strictly the existing implementing rules governing power-generation companies and penalize those found to be violating their existing contracts.

The move was meant to help the DoE better manage the available capacities and ensure adequate supply at any given time, especially when a major facility would be shut down.  

Negros Coal Plant Project Opposed

From Manila Bulletin

(http://ph.news.yahoo.com/negros-coal-plant-project-opposed-080749770.html)

***

Negros Coal Plant Project Opposed

MANILA, Philippines - An environmental group slammed the construction of more coal-fired power plants in the Philippines, citing the proposal to construct two coal-fired power plants in Negros Occidental.

Greenpeace Southeast Asia said the project proposal is a ''clear violation of the 100 percent Renewable Energy (RE) policy established in Negros Island in 2002.''

The group called on Cadiz City Mayor Patrick Escalante to reverse his decision. The proposed coal plants in Negros are targeted to generate 170 megawatts (MW).

''This decision is technically illegal and sabotages Negros Island's pioneering renewable energy policy which has been hailed worldwide as a model for energy sustainability,'' Greenpeace Southeast Asia climate and energy campaigner Anna Abad said.

''The people of Negros Island do not want coal plants-Negros was the first ever province in Southeast Asia to reject coal power, and to commit to 100 percent renewable power generation. Mayor Escalante has committed a grave disservice to Negrenses. Instead of promoting dirty coal power, he should keep Negros on track with its RE commitments, which he is duty-bound to do,'' she added.

Greenpeace pointed out that burning of coal for fuel pollutes the air and water, ruins crops and negatively impacts community health and livelihood.

It also cited that Negros Occidental is the first province in Southeast Asia to embark on a sustainable energy-based development agenda crafted collectively by local and national government, progressive industry, and civil society.

In 2002, Negros became the first ever community in Asia to reject a coal power plant installation, and to commit to becoming the first province in Southeast Asia to be powered 100 percent by renewable energy such as wind, solar, geothermal and modern biomass.

Abad said Negros Island has a vast potential for clean energy such as wind, solar and modern biomass that is just waiting to be harnessed.

She added that crucial to the development of the RE sources in the island is the implementation of the Renewable Energy Law which, four years after it was passed, is still not yet fully implemented by the Department of Energy.

Greenpeace also expressed its disappointment with Negros Governor Joseph Marañon's support for the coal plants.

Non-tangible cost of Electricity in the Philippines

Non-tangible cost of Electricity in the Philippines

by: Phetz Zantua

EastGreenfields Enterprises

Meralco has already published it's July 2012 Typical Consumption Level Table (from Php6.1375 to Php6.4549 per kW-hr generation cost plus other charges, of course plus "other" it's not fun without "other charges" isn't it?)

Typical household consumption level are the following:

100 kW-hr you will pay at least Php 958.36 

200 kW-hr you will pay at least Php 2394.56 

300 kW-hr you will pay at least Php 3698.66

But do you know your carbon foot print? How much Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emission did you generate in consuming your electricity?

International standard is 0.68 kg CO2 per 1 kW-hr 

(source: Campus Sustainability & Energy Solutions)

For typical Pinoy household:

100 kW-hr has an equivalent CO2 emission of 68 kg CO2 per month  or 815 kg  CO2 per year (almost 1 ton!)

200 kW-hr has an equivalent CO2 emission of 136 kg CO2  per month  or 1632 kg CO2 per year (1.6 Ton!)

300 kW-hr has an equivalent CO2 emission of 204 kg CO2  per month  or 2448 kg CO2 per year (2.45 Ton!)

Actually Philippine household is still conservatively greener than Americans, an American has an electric carbon foot print equivalent of 20 Tons per year.

Let's picture it this way...

1 Ton CO2 is equivalent to driving a car 3218.7 kilometers.

So your typical monthly use of electricity 

100 kW-hr monthly is equal to 2623.24 kilometers of driving 3 times to Vigan and 3 times back home in Manila each year.  

200 kW-hr monthly is equal to 2623.24 kilometers of driving 6.3 times to Vigan and 6.3 times back home in Manila each year.

300 kW-hr monthly is equal to 7885.8 kilometers of driving 10 times to Vigan and 10 times back home in Manila each year.

Or 1 Ton of CO2 is equal to fill a 204 square meter house... Don't you feel choking filling your own house of your carbon dioxide emission equivalent? 204 Sqm house is almost twice the average Filipino house!

You can reduce your CO2 emission by of course conserving electricity, converting to renewable energy sources (like Solar Panels) or by planting trees.

Do you know how many trees is your household equivalent?

100 kW-hr monthly should plant 33 trees in one year.

200 kW-hr monthly should plant 64 trees in one year.

300 kW-hr monthly should plant 98 trees in one year.

So there it is... to decelerate the global warming we need to reduce our carbon dioxide emission equivalent by conserving electricity, by going green electric or by planting trees.

Which one do you think is the easiest thing for you to do? Money is just money... and there's only one Earth and future... you can choose to go as business as usual or you can choose to make a difference.

Commercial muna, we can help you go green electric... visit us: www.eastgreenfields.com


Yes, its okay to share this in your Facebook.          

Energy efficient buildings

Visit us: www.eastgreenfields.com

We can help you make your home Greener by utilizing renewable energy provided by the sun.

***
Chamber pushes for energy efficient buildings
By Alena Mae S. Flores | Posted on July 11, 2012

The European Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines wants the Makati City government to get all 369 buildings in its central business district be energy efficient.

“There is a need for Makati City Mayor Jejomar Erwin Binay to push for the passage of a local ordinance that effectively puts every building in the city on a path towards energy efficiency. It can be done with the right political will,” ECCP president Hubert d’Aboville said in a statement.

He said a timely move by the country’s financial hub would encourage other key cities to follow suit.

D’Aboville said the chamber was willing to work with city hall, the Makati Commercial Estate Association, Makati Business Club, the Joint Foreign Chambers, and other business organizations in assisting the 369 buildings to be updated on the importance of being energy efficient.

He said only a handful of buildings have undergone measures towards energy efficiency, with only the new Zeullig Building deserving accreditation.

“Building owners should care about their electricity consumption. They should do away with the current thinking that their tenants would be willing to pay the cost of electricity even in its current upward trend. The building tenants themselves should never accept the rising cost of electricity without a whimper. High cost of electricity is a burden to their operations.”

D’Aboville said the country has the distinction of having the highest electricity cost in the world.

“Investments in energy efficiency would be recovered in three years or less. It is a no-brainer for businesses if they want to be competitive,” he said.

The chamber’s Philippine Energy Efficiency Forum has built strategic alliances among the private sector, government, international donor organizations, and environmental organizations toward a common goal of promoting energy efficiency since 2010.

He said that if the Philippines reduce energy consumption by 20 to 30 percent a year, it would equal the capacity of one small power plant.

ECCP, together with its core members on the project have conducted free energy audits on several companies prior to the 3rd Philippine Energy Efficiency Forum 2012 to identify aspects where energy consumption on their part can be reduced and make their operations more compliant to standards.

ECCP has also continuously conducted best practices seminars, forums, and workshops on energy efficiency.

Zaaaappp by Power Hike...

Zaaaappp by Power Hike...

Just wait for your July Meralco Bill

Click here, we can help you unzapped.

From Inquirer Editorial Cartoon... July 9 2012.

Wrong energy choices

EastGreenfields agree with the author below.

Its because the cost of externalities of conventional power generation system (fossil-thermal, large hydro electric and Nuclear) cannot be easily quantified... the most glaring example of all is GLOBAL WARMING which has been proven to be caused majorly by carbon dioxide emission. 

******

Wrong energy choices

Manila Standard Today

By Tony La Vina | Posted on July 07, 2012 | 12:01am 

Three means of electricity generation are often raised as solutions to our looming power crisis: fossil fuel-based (coal and oil most especially), large-scale hydroelectric (big dams), and nuclear power. 

While some look at them as saviors, I view them with apprehension, and not just from an environmental aspect. These options come with overlooked costs, that fossil fuels, big hydro, and nuclear power cannot truly live up to the promise of cheap and abundant energy—that cheap energy is itself an utopian illusion.

Relative availability of the resource, and the maturity of combustion and turbine technologies are the reasons why fossil fuel power generation is relatively cheap compared to emerging RE technologies. 

Coal and oil plants (and diesel generators for independent power producers) are financially easy to set up compared to other options, explaining their appeal as the go-to option for large-scale and rural electrification. Yet we know that this cheap attractiveness doesn’t reflect or take into account greenhouse gas emissions (and prospects for emission caps) and the supply and price of fossil fuels, costs that, in the long run, we will pay dearly for.

Arguably, we have arrived at that point. We need not mince words about volatile fuel prices, influenced by global supply and demand, politics in the Middle East, and so on, and now even coal supplies are facing the crunch. For example, in an op-ed, Pete Maniego of the National Renewable Energy Board and analyst Dennis Posadas noted that in June 2011, the approved rate for Panay Energy Development Corporation, which operates a coal plant, was P7.40/kwh, when coal was at $53/metric ton. By January 2012 coal became twice as expensive, at $116/ton. Electricity costs in Iloilo in fact rose to as high as P8.30/kwh in March, before increased power consumption and reduction in rates and taxes lowered charges to P7.95—a reduction some fear is only temporary considering its bases.

All this is on top of the health effects of coal and oil combustion (localized to the plant’s surroundings), greenhouse gas emissions, and the expense required to “clean up” coal oil-fired plants with pollution-mitigating technology. The last of these increases the costs of fossil fuel plants themselves, while the rest are costs absorbed instead by society and the environment: increased health expenditures (both in private and government budgets), climate change, and other downstream effects.

As for large hydroelectric dams, they may not emit greenhouse gases like fossil fuel plants, and are so efficient that their electricity is practically as cheap as coal, but they carry just as heavy a cost. Unlike fossil fuel plants, large dams involve an equally large investment of resources and time in their establishment. Further, their reservoirs, inundating lands upriver from the dam, displace both environmental and human habitats—and in the Philippines, that usually means sensitive ecologies, and marginalized indigenous peoples and/or communities who depend on the river and land for a living—all the more true in poverty-afflicted Mindanao, an island with vast hydro resources being eyed for power generation.

It’s too easy to rationalize their loss, the sacrifices made by these people as one made “for the good of the many,” or that they will be properly compensated. (And here, the questions must be asked: how much electricity do they use, on average? Are their chances of gainful employment and a decent income truly increased by the hydro project, or do these go to more qualified outsiders/migrants? Will these people gain more access to the social services powered by the dam?) In doing so, however, we are asking a vulnerable land and people to pay the price for the benefits of sufficient electricity and energy security. In developing countries like ours, too often this price is paid with little benefit or compensation to those who bear the cost. We should remember Macliing Dulag, a Cordillera leader, whose people opposed the Chico River Dam project during the Marcos regime. He paid with his life—which also claimed the dam was for the “good of the many.”

There are however smaller-scale hydro projects—micro and mini—which are not as disruptive or destructive as the Chico Dam could have been, which I am wholly in favor of, and which I will talk about in a succeeding column.

However attractive any electrification project may be, we must remember that the opportunity costs are not always measured in dollars and pesos, and are not always taken at the national level. National development is too precious an objective to lose, but so are environmental health and human security. We need economically affordable power, but we must expand our notion of what “affordable” means, incorporating the environmental and human dimensions as well as the economic.

Next Tuesday, I look at nuclear power and its risks, concluding that this too, like coal and big dams, is a wrong energy choice. 

http://manilastandardtoday.com/www2/2012/07/07/wrong-energy-choices/

Meralco warns power rates will increase again in July

Another increase... another reason somebody step up and offer solution.

visit www.eastgreenfields.com we can offer solution.

***

Meralco warns power rates will increase again in July

By Alena Mae S. Flores | Posted on July 05, 2012 | 12:10am

Consumers may have to brace for another round of electricity rate hike in July, as distributor Manila Electric Co. expects generation charges to go up following the tight supply in June.

“The direction is towards higher generation charges,” a source said.

There is normally a one-month lag time before the power generation cost is passed on to consumers by power distributors such as Meralco.

Meralco’s generation charge reached P6.1375 per kilowatt-hour in June, up by P0.54 per kWh from P5.5983 per kWh in May, owing to higher prices at the wholesale electricity spot market, which acts as trading floor of electricity.

The source said the generation charge was influenced by the tight power supply experienced in June, when cheaper coal plants were shut down for maintenance. Several units of the Sual and Calaca coal plants were offline in the first week of June.

The Malampaya gas pipeline also went offline on June 8 to 12, which affected the operations of 1,500-megawatt Sta. Rita and San Lorenzo power plants of First Gas Power Corp.

The two power plants had to use the more expensive liquid fuel, during the Malampaya gas pipeline shutdown.

“We experienced tight generation supply in June. This pushed up WESM prices,” the source said.

The source explained the spot market had no choice but to tap the more expensive oil-based plants, as ‘must-run’ units due to the unavailability of the coal and natural gas plants.

Electricity prices in the spot market had already doubled to P16.30 per kWh in May from P7.91 per kWh in April because of high demand during the summer season and the low output of coal-fired and hydroelectric power plants.

Electricity traded by WESM accounted for only 5.5 percent of Meralco’s power requirements in May but the distributor said the steep P8.39 per kWh increase in spot market charges caused a rise in the overall generation charge.

Meralco sources most of its power from its independent power producers as well as the power plants managed by state-owned National Power Corp.

The overall rate charged by Meralco IPPs also increased by P0.0139 per kWh in May from the previous month.

The Sun and the Philippine Government Initiative

The Sun and the Philippine Government Renewable Energy Initiative

With a declared state policy of exploration, development and utilization of Renewable Energy resource, Renewable Energy Act of 2008 (RA 9513) was enacted.

The law aims to reduce the over reliance on imported fossil fuels for power generation and to mitigate the harmful emission of carbon dioxide.

There are two important provisions in the law that is most appropriate in the development of residential and small scale (Distributed Generation) set up.

Feed-in-Tariffs (Section 7 of RA 9513).

The Feed-in Tariff system as stipulated aims to accelerate the development of RE resources by giving incentives by institutionalization of special subsidies to developers to recuperate the capital investments.

FIT is vital to RE developers since this will make the deployment of RE technologies attractive. Although RE energy is acceptable to the public there is wide spread skepticism in the way subsidies will be incorporated into end users monthly payment since it will be the end users who will foot the bill for FITs.

Click here to learn more about FITs implemented in other countries.

Amidst the power price hikes and the immediate manifestation of environmental impact of global warming, there is a clamor for the full implementation of RA 9513, the first step is the implementation of FIT.

Update (Oct 12, 2012) : The ERC approved the FIT rates for Run-of-river hydro, Biomass, Wind and Solar. Approved Solar FIT rate is pegged at Php 9.68 per kW-hr.  Click here for approval by ERC.

Net-metering  (Section 10 of RA 9513)

Net-metering is most appropriate for small scale installation of less than 100 kW rated capacity. Net metering is a scheme or system in which end user with installed RE energy generator such as rooftop or ground mounted Solar Panel modules is credited with energy credits for the excess power generation exported into the grid.

Click here to learn more about net metering system implemented in other countries.

The law mandates distribution utilities (e.g. Meralco) to enter without discrimination into net metering agreement with end users who has installed RE system.

Net metering is supposed to be the incentives for residential and small building owners to attract them into Renewable Energy utilization and generation at a small but wide scale level. With net metering small scale owners will not only be able to save their electricity bill since what they produce shall be used locally but will also earn credits for whatever excess energy they have exported to the grid. With net metering credits the payback period of investment is further accelerated.

Again four years after the law, net metering scheme is yet to be formulated.

Other Laws Pending

House Bill 5405 (HB 5405) or One Million Solar Roof Act of 2011

HB 5405 is a house bill filed by Ted Casino (Bayan Muna), co-sponsored by the Representatives of AnakPawis, Kabataan, Gabriela, and Act. The Bill aims to enact incentives and provide credit facilities for small solar power systems. The Bill should be deemed urgent by the government for implementation in the middle of the unstoppable price hike almost every month for various of reasons but mostly on the limited supply of fossil fuels (Coal, gas, bunker and diesel).

Click here for more information on HB5405.

Senate Bill 2751 (SB 2751) or Solar Roof Acts of 2010

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago had filed a SB 2751 with the aim of providing competitive grants to LGU’s for rebates, loans and other incentives to individuals or entities for the purchase and installation of SOLAR ENERGY systems. The main goal of the Senate bill is that the Act promotes the installation of solar energy systems to ONE MILLION ROOFTOPS.

There is a sense of urgency each passing day to actively utilize renewable energy in particular SOLAR ENERGY.

SOLAR power systems are the most practical for distributed generation systems because they are compact and the solar energy is abundantly available within our geographical location.

It is an accepted fact that there is a cost for technology. The cost of technology should not hinder the public to accept and use it since a law (RA 9513) has been enacted already to accelerate the payback and mitigate the capital investment needed to start SOLAR power utilization.

As a follow-up, there are pending bills in the Lower House and the Senate that aims to accelerate the financial acceptability of SOLAR POWER systems making it more affordable by giving incentive and credits to ONE MILLION ROOF TOP owners.

Four years of inaction since the signing of the first and most agressive RENEWABLE LAW in South East Asia and yet... 

The Sun is out there... but the Philippine government is somewhere else...

Our energy choices

By Tony La Vina | Posted on July 03, 2012
Manila Standard



This is the first of a series of columns on the energy choices of the Philippines. I write on this topic as the Philippines confront a power crisis, most evident in Mindanao, and looming for Visayas and Luzon as well. Unfortunately our recent history does not give comfort to citizens that the government will make the right energy choices; indeed, it has frequently worsened things in the long run. But clearly the country must implement a strategy of rectification, a reform agenda in energy. And that agenda must begin by urgently and fully implementing Republic Act No. 9513, the Renewable Energy (RE) Act of 2008.


The heart of the RE Act is its Feed-in Tariff (FiT) mechanism of promoting RE-based electricity. FiT assures the RE power producer of attractive fixed purchase prices (per kilowatt-hour), for a fixed number of years. Critics hit FiT precisely because of their fear that because some RE sources, such as solar, appear to cost more than traditional electricity generation from fossil fuel or hydroelectric dam sources, they will drive the average price of electricity up, an effect which would be frozen in place by fixed rates. But as I have written before, quoting extensively from RE visionary Ramon C. Abaya, who died earlier this year, this criticism of FiT as applied to solar is not correct.


In any case, critics see FiT as an enforced subsidy taken out of consumer pockets, while pointing out that the Philippines already has the highest electricity rates in the Southeast Asian region. Concerns about the economic impact of higher electricity prices should be taken seriously but applying its criticism to FiT is over-generalized. It makes us miss out on the finer details of the Philippine energy picture. Our traditional reliance on coal and oil-based electricity, lacking any indigenous fuel reserves, leaves us at the mercy of the world fossil fuel market and competition from other energy-hungry economies—not to mention the environmental impacts, which costs are not perfectly addressed by market prices. The country’s higher electrical rates are themselves a consequence of energy policy over the past two decades, and properly are the subject of energy policy and industry reform.


FiT, on the other hand, addresses objectives as equally important as lowering electrical rates (though it runs in parallel with that policy objective). One obvious objective is environmental: increasing the Philippines’ electrical generating capacity without increasing greenhouse gas emissions or otherwise destroying the environment. RE technologies, such as solar, wind, micro-hydroelectric generators, and biomass/biofuel, don’t depend on extracting, storing, and burning fossil fuels, and can safely be established on locales with highly sensitive ecologies (e.g., critical island ecosystems detached from the main electrical grid).


A second objective is localization and rural electrification. Because they do tend to generate less electricity than their traditional counterparts, RE technologies are best suited to filling gaps and shortfalls in the electrical grid, a non-polluting complement to large-scale electrical generation, and to provide power at individual (residential, commercial, industrial) and community levels. To date, this function is met by provincial-level independent power producers (IPPs) running diesel generators. A third objective, meanwhile, is ensuring an indigenous supply of power that, while dependent on the elements, is otherwise not dependent on the world market for fossil fuels.


Not mentioned is another approach to FiT, adopted in the more affluent West: private non-utility power generation. Governments provide incentives for homeowners (as opposed to IPPs) to provide for their own electricity using RE technologies—and an additional incentive to sell any excess generated electricity to the grid under FiT rates. While the average Filipino household certainly could not afford this approach, commercial and industrial centers, which can afford this, could set up their own turbines or solar panels under the same FiT terms as IPPs, lowering their demand on the public power grid and consequently making more power available for other users.


These three objectives are essentially tactical, short and medium-term. RA 9513’s ultimate objective is energy resiliency, or Philippine electricity’s survival in a world dominated by increased energy resource competition and climate change. FiT should be seen as an indirectly taxed, government-directed investment into clean energy, deferred consumption in order to grow the economy in the long run. The primary weakness of most RE technologies—their higher relative costs of power generation and initial investment—can be offset by increased economies of scale of production through widespread adoption, at national and global levels.


An old saying goes: “the best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago; the second best time is now.” If we don’t establish the incentives for renewable energy now, we will be draining momentum on our country’s push for resilient energy in the future. Already potential RE investments have fled to countries like Thailand which have chosen to make a stand for clean power. Contrary to some views, FiT is not unfit for the country. So it’s time to flex some muscles and clean up Philippine energy.

Our Choice, from Manila Standard

The following is our comment to the article that appear in Manila Standard article: Our Energy Choice

The author has outlined the fined points of going RENEWABLES, and we would like to follow up for the readers of our blog.

http://manilastandardtoday.com/www2/2012/07/03/our-energy-choices/

***
EastGreenfields comment

The best way forward is to give incentives to all would be investors by immediately implementing the FIT, this is to encourage the rapid deployment of various RE technology.

Second is to follow up with the formulation of net metering to encourage distributed power generation on micro scale (residential).

Third and is tied with the net metering scheme is to implement the RPS, so that the generation / utilization mix of the distribution utilities will increase their RE portfolios.

There is no better choice but to implement now… fossil fuels are finite sources and prices will soon jack up to economically disastrous level when developed and developing countries compete for the supply.

There is mis-information when opponents of FIT says it will burden the end consumers… its true that there is cost to RE technology, but the question is by how much ? By how much FIT ALL will be when integrated to end users bill ? Compared to 67 cents increased since January 2012 to June 2012 and as compared to Php2.22 increased since January 2010 to June 2012. Computation by RE advocates varies from 1 cents to 50 cents per kW-hr impact to end users bill, but take note that these cost impact to end users is locked for 20 years! Within 20 years by how much rate increase will be by the fossil fuel based electricity will be? 2012 records show, in 6 months increase could be as high as 67 cents! And for 20 years how high would that be compared to 50 cents (the highest FIT rate, as last been publicly debated by the pros and cons) for the entire 20 years!

The choice is clear… we don’t have any recourse but to go RENEWABLES!