Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Will DOE’s DASAP solve power crisis?

BIZLINKS By Rey Gamboa (The Philippine Star) | Updated October 28, 2014 - 12:00am

The answer is negative, according to Matuwid na Singil sa Kuryente (MSK). MSK is a consumer alliance group formed in late 2011 by concerned Meralco consumers who claim to have a “deep knowledge of the electric power industry privatization and deregulation and the inner workings of the industry.”

One of its avowed missions is to enlighten the public and policy makers on the specific rules and practices that have been causing the “abusive power costs.” One of its claimed accomplishments is the opposition and review of a proposed P11-billion charge by National Grid Corporation.

I recently received the consumer group’s position on the proposed Demand Aggregation and Supply Auctioning Policy (DASAP) of the Department of Energy, one of the suggested measures that will help avert any serious power shortages next year during the summer months.

The DOE had posted the draft guidelines in its website requesting for comments by October 10, 2014, which was the day when a news article was published about it, and when MSK learned about DASAP. Nevertheless, MSK submitted its position paper, parts of which follow:

“After reading the draft, you get the feeling that the authors are sheepishly tiptoeing into tinder territory, apparently being careful not to step on some very big toes. The initial version is an NGE (not good enough) and on its way to keeping the WD [watered down] tradition of power and energy laws including the Epira Law.

“Our comments, clarifications, and suggestions on DASAP.

“1. Premises of the Guidelines (Pages 1 to 3)

“One main reason power cost in the country is high is because low power cost is not a declared government policy.

“The premises of the DASAP Guideline are not an exception. With all the big words contained in the premises up to Section 1 ‘eneral policies and principles,’ it failed to categorically state that the objective of the guideline is to ‘aggregate demand and subject them to competitive bidding to reduce power costs.’

“2. Coverage. Who and what will be subjected to bidding (or auctioning)?

“Will Meralco and the private utilities be really covered by this guideline even if Section 2 says the DUs are mandatory participants? Private DUs serve about 72 percent of the energy needs of the country, with only 28 percent served by the 119 electric cooperatives.

“a. Only the “un-contracted” energy requirements of the DUs will be included in an ‘auction.’ So, what if Meralco says they already contracted the next 3,000 MW of its energy requirements to Meralco PowerGen through its self-negotiated contracts? So DASAP will not mean anything to the Meralco consumers? Davao Light and Visayan Electric Co. would have all its future energy requirements contracted to Therma South companies.

“To provide real teeth and purpose to this guideline, why not include a standstill provision that says all new power supply requirements for delivery starting in 2017 will be subjected to competitive bidding under DASAP. And all un-contracted energy requirements for delivery in 2015 onwards will also be subjected to this bidding.

“b. It is not clear in Section 3 which agency will aggregate the power demand from the private DUs. It doesn’t say it is under the Department of Energy’s responsibilities. The need to sign commitment to buy agreements with the DUs is not provided. Is this an oversight?

“The National Electrification Administration (NEA) on the other hand is clearly mandated to aggregate and facilitate the ‘auctioning’ of the demand of electric cooperatives under Section 3 (c).

“c. ‘Aggregation must be amongst the contiguously located DUs.’

“In a grid-connected system where most DUs are connected by transmission lines to the national grid, there is no reason why DUs of Northern Luzon cannot be aggregated with the demand of those DUs in Southern Luzon even if they are not contiguously located because they are all part of the delivery system of NGCP’s system. The winning generator can deliver power to all of them in Luzon through the Luzon transmission grid. Why cannot an Isabela coop aggregate with a Meralco big tender, and benefit from the economies of scale?

“Geographical contiguousness unnecessarily limits the potential for aggregation.

“d. Short Term contracts to existing generating plans

“Section 4 (e) proposes to offer only one- to three-year contracts to existing generators. This discourages the new investments in the expansion and upgrading of existing power plants and effectively promotes only greenfield new projects by offering them up to 25 years. Existing plants that are made more efficient and increased in capacity would most likely offer lower rates at sure timetables because they don’t have to deal with the permitting, financing, construction, and start-up challenges of new greenfield projects. New plants tend to run into environmental resistance. Why not give at least 10 years for upgraded existing power plants?

“Let us hope the DOE Committee will address the above concerns with an open mind. Unless there are powerful influences behind the writing of yet another watered down rule and regulation that is always derailing well intended objectives to truly achieve what they are supposed to deliver to the electric consumers.”

It would be interesting to hear what DOE technocrats and bureaucrats will say to the above points raised by MSK. source

No comments:

Post a Comment