February 25, 2018 | 10:27 pm
“When PV Solar rely on up to 67% of
revenues from subsidies, the state becomes a counter-party that is critical to
sustaining the firm’s financial viability. Vagaries of politics imply
constantly changing priorities, making for a fickle advocate.”
— Ricardo Barcelona,
author of Energy Investment: An Adaptive Approach to Profiting from Uncertainties (2017).
author of Energy Investment: An Adaptive Approach to Profiting from Uncertainties (2017).
This is a lesson and reality that
will be hard to appreciate for solar energy advocates and developers, that
without politics, without forcing and coercing energy consumers to subsidize,
directly or indirectly, solar, wind, and other renewables, their advocacy is a
losing proposition.
Last Thursday, Feb. 22, I attended
the Energy Policy Development Program (EPDP) lecture at the UP School of
Economics (UPSE), my alma mater. The speaker was Mr. Leandro Leviste, president
of Solar Philippines and his presentation was “Cheap Electricity for a First
World Philippines: The 24/7 Solar-Storage Revolution.”
Mr. Leviste boldly declared in his
presentation that “Solar is now the least cost for all peaking, mid-merit and
baseload requirements, and will thus comprise the vast majority of additional
power generation capacity from hereon in the Philippines.”
This is simply not true. If solar is
indeed “least cost,” solar developers should have stopped asking for rising
feed-in-tariff (FiT) or guaranteed high price for 20 years under the Renewable
Energy (RE) law of 2008.
FIT rates for solar batch 1 (2015
entrants) were P9.68/kWh in 2015, P9.91 in 2016 and P10.26 in 2017. For solar
batch 2 (2016 entrants), P8.69/kWh in 2016 and P8.89 in 2017. Solar and wind
developers are feasting on billions of pesos of additional, expensive
electricity slam-dunked on hapless consumers on top of the 11-12 different
charges in their monthly electricity bill.
During the open forum, I asked Mr.
Leviste two questions:
(1) Will you support the abolition
of RE law of 2008 since your presentation shows plenty of improvements and cost
reduction for solar, meaning they can survive without FiT, RPS, other subsidies
and mandates?
(2) You advocate large-scale solar
development in the Philippines, therefore you advocate large-scale
deforestation of the country? You showed a big picture of your solar farm in
Batangas, zero tree there, anti-green. Solar hates shades – from clouds and
trees.
His response to #1 was Yes, we can
abolish the RE law but we should also abolish the EPIRA law of 2001, the
pass-through cost provisions. To question #2, he said that there are trees outside
the solar farm and there are moves to plant crops under the solar panels.
Meaning his answer to #1 is No. On
#2, precisely that trees are allowed only outside the solar farm because solar
hates shades from trees. While many environmentalists including Sen. Loren
Legarda repeatedly say “Plant trees to save the planet,” solar developers like
Leandro Leviste are implicitly saying “remove and kill all trees (in solar
farms) to save the planet.” The irony of green environmentalism.
The call for “green,
environmentally-sustainable energy” is repeatedly echoed in the Philippines and
other countries. And many of these advocates are unaware that in the annual
report, “World Energy Trilemma Index” by the World Energy Council (WEC), the
Philippines is #1 out of 125 countries for several years now in environmental
sustainability.
WEC is a UN-accredited global energy
body composed of 3,000+ organizations from 90+ countries (governments, private
and state corporations, academe, etc) NGOs, other energy stakeholders). The
Trilemma index is composed of three factors, briefly defined as:
Energy security: effective energy
supply from domestic and external sources, reliability of infrastructure and
ability of energy providers to meet current and future demand.
Energy equity: accessibility and
affordability of energy supply across the population.
Environmental stability: achievement
of energy efficiencies and development of energy supply from renewable and
other low-carbon sources.
(The indicators represent economies
as follows, from left to right: Singapore, Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea,
Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, China, Vietnam, and India)
The Philippines is #1 out of 125
countries covered in Environmental Sustainability. There is high reliance on
conventional renewables like big hydro and geothermal, plus newly added
variable renewables. There is no need to aspire for rank #0.5 worldwide
Ranking 95th, we are low
in energy equity because of our expensive electricity, which is 3rd
highest in Asia, next to Japan and Hong Kong.
We place 63rd in energy
security — in the middle — and we still need to add big conventional plants
like coal to give us 24/7 stable, dispatchable energy to meet demand.
To conclude, these words from Ric
Barcelona resonate:
“When subsidies are set as the costs
differences, the ‘correct’ level is indeterminate. As power prices increase,
renewables need lesser subsidies but nevertheless continue to collect. When
this happens, consumers would coax regulators to claw back the subsidies
because renewables are raking it in at consumers’ expense.”
No comments:
Post a Comment