Le sigh! That echoes not just a simple agony of ‘powerlessness’ – it symbolizes ‘defeated sigh’ of frustrated consumers and a warning cry of ‘energy insecurity’.
The Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA) was enforced over 20 years ago, and consumers were lured into sweet promises that privatization would solve all our problems—reliable power supply, better services, technological innovations, market competition, and lower/affordable rates.
So, where are we today? Unfortunately, we’re waking up from a nightmare of getting stuck in the dark side of ‘energy starvation’ – consumers are still left with no choice but to endure recurring rumble of tight power supply – especially during summer, while also having our wallets squeezed with rising electric bills; then worse predicaments of service disruptions or lack of electricity access still reign as dangerous game of survival for many off-grid and far-flung areas. Hmm, signs that EPIRA failed big time?
RE vs coal krakens
As power supply chains are strained to breaking points, the Department of Energy (DOE) leadership knows too well that ‘energy security’ is a major problem that it must squarely address—not today, but yesterday!
Consumers are incessantly complaining of high electric bills, but Energy Undersecretary Rowena Guevara repeatedly asserted that if we don’t radically rethink our energy security strategy, blackout costs would be staggering P300 per kWh – significantly higher than the prevailing P10 to P16/kWh rates of various distribution utilities or the P18 to P24 per kWh charges at off-grid domains. Taking a cue from that, the choice seems too clear – we must keep the lights on.
The updated Philippine Energy Plan (PEP) is anchored on the energy transition agenda - placing sharp focus on decarbonizing energy systems through massive renewable energy (RE) installations and embracing other cleaner energy technologies. The energy officials repeatedly declared that the green energy transition – i.e., with solar, wind, hydropower, and geothermal; as well as the introduction of innovative technologies on the nuclear front and alternative solutions like energy storage would bring our energy security goals notches ahead while also doing our share for planetary preservation.
In reality, however, there’s a brutal irony to policies and project developments being executed – because we’re still locked up in fossil fuel buildout spiral, and the DOE seems resigned at the precept that coal would still be the ultimate solution in solving immediate- to medium-term power supply conundrum. The billion-dollar question resonates: on building additional coal plants, is there assurance that we can genuinely change course to greener technologies without unnecessarily burdening consumers with higher rates?
In the dichotomy of policy enforcement, DOE officials are responsible for crafting and directing investment plans—and they could face the harshest reckoning if they fail. Beyond that, invisible and creeping conflicts could also rear their ugly heads if these energy officials antagonize some league of influential players.
For coal developers, this technology remains a ‘necessary evil’ in the country’s energy mix – especially for projects outside the 2020 moratorium. To them, this offers trifecta of benefits: reliable power supply as economic growth lifeline; which in turn generates more job opportunities; and also a major ledge for the Philippine energy security ambition to stand on. The RE investors, however, contend that the continuing deadly allure of coal comes with a huge cost to the environment and humanity – a stunning contradiction to global efforts of climate crisis mitigation.
Conversely, RE developments don’t come ultimately clean and easy as they appear so – the sector remains fraught with challenges, including long-standing grid integration concerns; slow descent in energy storage costs (a technology coupling to enhance the reliability of RE-generated capacities); and there are also major concerns that RE facilities’ rollouts have been clashing with the food chain in troubling ways – with agricultural lands being gobbled up by solar farms; or the prospective offshore wind facilities eating up into fishermen’s catch, These too need prudent attention from policymakers.
There are also ‘dirty tricks’ invading the clean energy business, including concerns of land grabbing, unchecked entry of terrorist financing (e.g., for smaller-scale RE ventures, carbon credits), and endless investors’ complaints of ‘backhanders’ stifling business permit processing.
Just recently, news of the cancellation of many awarded RE service contracts also delivered crushing blow to the previous round of RE investments. Could it be that the DOE has been too lax, or has it been miscalculating the seriousness of some investors?
The energy security trail remains treacherous—for now, two development terrains could still be acceptable. But well-calculated policy and investment approaches moving forward must guarantee that we can finally address energy poverty while also taking serious steps in our climate goals because that’s what will truly shape the future of nations and humanity.
Tidbit: Which is this global energy giant rekindling its investment interest through targeted acquisition in a Philippine oil company?