While Filipinos are being told to feast on crumbs for a ₱500 noche buena this Christmas, how can anyone expect us to stomach a power capacity addition that will compel consumers to pay a gut-wrenching ₱14 per kWh for offshore wind? This energy source is being served like a luxury entrée to a populace already choking on financial survival.

That is the reported price level arising from the Energy Regulatory Commission's (ERC) initial estimate to back the Department of Energy’s (DOE) 5th Green Energy Auction (GEA-5) for 3,300-megawatt offshore wind capacity, expected for deliveries between 2028 and 2030. However, such alarming pricing signals are already raising alarms before the projects can even break water.

A ranking energy official also tipped off that ERC officials are considering a price model that could slash offshore wind tariffs to ₱10/kWh by using Chinese technologies, as they are typically three times cheaper than Western alternatives. The intent is to make offshore wind projects more affordable to ratepayers.

With the ERC set to drop the reserve price for offshore wind capacity bidding this month, relevant industry stakeholders are holding their breath, waiting to see if the final price tag will hit the hopeful ₱10/kWh or less, skyrocket to a punishing ₱14/kWh, or settle somewhere in the costly middle ground.

But here’s the billion-dollar question: why is the Philippines targeting offshore wind tariffs that are ₱4 to ₱6 per kWh more expensive than Vietnam’s, even though both countries are pursuing similar projects along parallel timeframes?

Industry insiders pointed out that the Philippines carries a higher risk premium. Yet, when pressed on why—whether it is government corruption or the greed of industry players—no one would give a definitive answer. And still, Filipinos are expected to sign an expensive ‘blank check’ without ever knowing what hidden costs they are truly paying for.

Another industry stakeholder indicated that Vietnam is already backed by solid port infrastructure and completed marine spatial planning (MSP), while the Philippines is still lagging behind on both fronts.

Using a blended finance approach in bankrolling offshore wind projects, the Global Wind Energy Council’s own calculations put targeted Philippine tariffs at ₱10.50/kWh ($0.18/kWh) to ₱16.2/kWh ($0.28/kWh) versus Vietnam’s 2,931.45 VND/kWh ($0.11) to 4,579.60 VND/kWh ($0.17), equivalent to ₱6.56 to ₱9.86 per kWh. Hence, the glaring price gap is quite obvious.

At this stage in the Vietnamese market, its progressing offshore wind industry reads like a masterclass in affordability: with the regional price caps set by its Ministry of Industry and Trade at just 3,078.9 to 3,975.1 VND/kWh, or roughly ₱6.89 to ₱8.89. Meanwhile, Filipinos are still left staring at a potential ₱14 per kWh rate and wondering if our planned offshore wind installations have been hijacked by extravagance.

Here’s the kicker: it’s the same technology genre in an emerging market that is relatively similar to us. So why is offshore wind in the Philippines priced like it’s made of gold?

Again, the DOE is asking us to write a blank check for offshore wind even though marine spatial planning remains incomplete and port facilities are not ready, leaving investors to warn of a high-risk capital gamble that will push Philippine projects into the costly league.

So why the rush for GEA-5? It’s like telling consumers: “We’ll build you an expensive house, but don’t expect a solid foundation,” as the government pushes ahead with contract awards even without completed MSP or port support facilities.

The DOE’s argument that developers can handle community engagement and environmental risks on their own falls flat, because offshore wind developments need a comprehensive plan where every potential risk is fully mapped and managed—not piecemeal initiatives.

Which markets have auctioned offshore wind without a finished marine spatial plan? I’ll wait—because even the home markets of the foreign investors here haven’t pulled off such a reckless act!

Lacking offshore wind MSP could compromise our seas into hazard zones—i.e., turbines near major shipping lanes that may eventually spark collisions with cargo ships, fishing boats, or even recreational/tourism crafts. That, in turn, may trigger hikes in insurance costs for the affected industries.

Additionally, turbines that choke access to vital fishing grounds won't just displace fisherfolk; these could also push overfishing elsewhere or spark economic losses. This will essentially ignite tensions with coastal communities, which is why many markets have simply abandoned offshore wind projects.

Without careful planning, offshore wind turbines may likewise risk clashing with naval training zones, radar lines, and scientific monitoring areas for defense and military agencies. And during storms or extreme emergencies, they could flip rescue and evacuation routes into unwarranted obstacles.

Skipping coordinated planning under MSP prior to auction may likewise turn sensitive marine habitats into an ill-considered turbine graveyard—inflicting damage on seagrass beds, reefs, nursery grounds, and even on migration corridors, including those of protected birds. This triggers long-term economic losses across fisheries, shipping, tourism, and the wider biodiversity networks.

Then on grid integration, poor cabling or system interconnection planning increases capital development costs and energy losses. Furthermore, poor siting could also instigate legal cases, permitting challenges, and project delays.

At the end of the day, the government or developers ignoring full stakeholder engagement are only fanning the flames of resistance, not just from the host communities but from consumers in general.

I support offshore wind development in the Philippines and recognize the efforts of prospective developers, but it must be done right—not as a half-baked plan with incomplete planning and unestablished infrastructure—because what is currently on the table is nothing short of a recipe for disaster.

And trust me, Santa won’t be dropping gifts down your chimney this Christmas if you keep cutting corners and refuse to do things properly!

For upcoming renewable energy investors in the Philippines, here is a cautionary red flag: even awardees of 20-year PSAs under DOE’s GEA contracts had to endure roughly eight months of incomplete Feed-in Tariff (FIT) payments this year because of the near-depletion of the FIT-All fund.

And that mess happened because the previous ERC leadership failed to act promptly on TransCo’s FIT-All adjustment application—the very mechanism meant to guarantee timely payments to RE developers.

This note matters because if the new ERC leadership hadn’t recently approved the FIT-All hike from ₱0.1189 to ₱0.2073/kWh (despite consumer backlash), lenders might have walked away from new RE projects, or worse, the country could face lawsuits for failing to honor contractual obligations.

For RE investors, then, this means one thing: their balance sheets must be rock-solid, ready to cover lender payments when the government-managed FIT-All fund fails to deliver.

ERC data showed that by September 2025, unpaid obligations to RE developers had already ballooned to ₱5.311 billion, and that was before the FIT-All rate adjustment decision had been rendered.

Surely, delays in FIT-All or eventual GEAR-All payments drive up investment risks and make power rates expensive. But as consumers, we also ask investors to temper their greed, because that’s one of the simplest ways to bring electricity prices down for Filipino ratepayers.

Which key energy executive has been turning company vehicles into a personal school bus for their kids and treating the office into an all-you-can-smell pantry (and this has been happening for years already)? Clue: this is an entity whose decisions somehow affect consumers’ electric bills. That’s just so PG-coded for a C-suite post!