Rising feed in tariff (FIT) due to more wind-solar power

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last January 24, 2017.

bw

Cheaper electricity and stable energy supply are among the important components to have fast and sustainable economic growth.

On Jan. 17, the Philippine Electricity Market Corp. (PEMC) sent a press release saying that “effective settlement spot prices (ESSPs) in the wholesale electricity spot market (WESM) plunged to P2.28/kWH for the December 2016 billing period which is the lowest since January 2011. ESSPs refer to the average prices paid by wholesale customers for energy purchased from the spot market.” That is good news as various players using fossil fuel sources like coal, natural gas, and oil, are fiercely competing with each other in generating electricity. WESM was created by EPIRA of 2001.

On the same day, the Department of Energy (DoE) posted a “Request for comments on the draft Department Circular entitled ‘Declaring the launch of WESM in Mindanao’ (on Jan. 26, 2016) and providing for transition arrangements.” Another good news because finally, there will be a formal spot market for power producers and electric cooperatives that will guide a competitive and deregulated market, benefitting the consumers.

Last Dec. 23, 2016, the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) posted a request for public comments until Dec. 30 regarding the petition of three wind developers — Trans-Asia Renewable Energy Corporation (TAREC), Alternergy Wind One Corporation (AWOC), and Petrowind Energy, Inc. (PWEI) — that their feed in tariff (FiT) or guaranteed price for 20 years of P7.40/kWh be raised to P7.93/kWh, citing various cost escalations. That was bad news because expensive electricity is never a virtue. I sent a letter to ERC Commissioner Salazar arguing that they say No to the petition.

And last Dec. 6, 2016, the ERC published in a newspaper a National Transmission Corp. (TransCo) petition asking for a FiT allowance (FiT-All) of 22.91 centavos/kWh starting January 2017. That’s also bad news because FiT payments by consumers keep rising fast. From an introductory price of only 4 centavos/kWh in 2015, became 12.40 centavos/kWh in 2016, and almost 23 centavos/kWh this year.

Now two factors will raise the FiT-All for 2017 beyond 23 centavos. (1) ERC will not be able to act on this by January or not even February 2017, that means there will be price underrecoveries that must be added to the original requested price. And (2) with low WESM prices the past few months — P3.19/kWh last September, P2.91/kWh last October, P2.54/kWh last November (data from Meralco), and the P2.28/kWh ESSP last December — this means that FiT-All will go up. This allowance is the difference between FiT rates (highest prices are solar of P10+/kWh this year due to price escalation, followed by wind, then biomass, cheapest is run of river hydro) and average WESM prices. Or FiT-ALL = FiT rates — WESM prices

Expensive electricity is the hallmark of renewable energy favoritism anywhere in the world.

Understand that in my previous columns, it was shown that the main beneficiaries of expensive electricity from renewables in the Philippines are not ordinary firms but huge companies: the Lopez group (EDC Burgos wind) and Ayala group (Northern Luzon UPC Caparispisan wind, and Northwind Bangui) who got P8.53/kWh FiT and combined revenues of about P4.3 billion in 2015 alone.

Let us check Germany’s renewables output. The chart below is for the last three months, Oct. 23, 2016 to Jan. 22, 2017.

Last Jan. 8, its total electricity consumption was 57.4 GW and here are the renewables output that day: solar 0.23 GW, onshore wind 1.53 GW, and offshore wind 0.39, or a total output of only 2.15 GW from these three renewables (see chart).

o4big_012417

A total of only 2.1 GW was generated by solar-wind sources or only 3.7% of 57.4 GW power demand. If Germany relied solely on wind-solar, that would have meant massive, large-scale, and catastrophic blackouts. Germany of course was saved by the power plants that it wants to banish someday — fossil fuel sources like coal and natural gas plus nuke power, within Germany and from energy imports from its European neighbors — and which it kept running. So we did not hear or read such massive blackouts in Europe’s biggest economy.

Aside from expensive direct cost of wind and solar in Germany due to FiT, there is additional indirect cost of higher transmission cost. From a news report, “The Energiewende is running up against its limits” last Oct. 21, 2016 (http://energypost.eu/energiewende-running-limits/)

“German transmission system operator Tennet recently announced an 80% increase in its transmission fees because of the high construction costs of new power lines to accommodate renewable energy. A study of the Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics found that by 2025 costs of the Energiewende could exceed €25,000 for an average four-person household.”

The Joint Congressional Power Commission should consider introducing a law in the future that will abolish the RE Act of 2008 (RA 9513). Penalizing the energy consumers to further enrich the favored and crony firms in renewable energy is wrong.

On having mandatory RES for contestable electricity consumers

I found this news report a twist — the PCCI, Ateneo, San Beda, RDC question the retail competition and open access (RCOA) provision of EPIRA. I thought people hate monopolies, like Meralco and the roughly 120 other electric cooperatives nationwide. RCOA gives people and large consumers the choice to opt out of those area franchise monopolies.

“The RCOA makes it mandatory for big power consumers to source their electricity supply from licensed RES. Resolution No. 10 adopts the revised rules on what is a “contestable customer” or those who are required to source power from a RES.”

So big, contestable consumers can no longer stay with their DUs, they must find a retail electricity supplier (RES)? This is reverse coercion.

“Meralco asked for a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction against ERC Resolution 5, which was issued on March 8, 2016, as well as Resolutions 10 and 11…”
http://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?section=Economy

“ERC has given consumers with an average monthly peak demand of 1 megawatt (MW) more time, or until Feb. 27, 2017, to secure a supply contract with a retail electricity supplier (RES).”http://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?section=Economy

Sabagay, why a deadline? If a big or medium-size consumer cannot find an RES yet, DOE and ERC will penalize it? Can they do that to non-energy players like a hotel, a mall or hospital?

Meanwhile, this is another dictatorial pronouncement by a President. ERC was created by law, by EPIRA of 2001. A President can abolish an agency created by law, not by a Presidential EO? http://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?section=Economy

erc

If an employee is (allegedly) pressured by a boss, there are many remedies and options other than suicide. State of mental health is questionable. Then the President sides with the dead employee, no investigation and just make a “resign all” order. Similar to drugs war, no investigation, just shoot and kill a suspect. http://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?section=Nation

Top 10 myths for oil tax hike

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last January 17, 2017.

bw

An excise tax is defined by the Department of Finance (DoF) as “a tax on products that have a negative effect on health or the environment… on nonessentials and luxury items.” With this definition, the DoF therefore, should abolish the tax on oil products, not increase it.

Here also are the 10 myths and alibi why the DoF and other sectors tend to demonize oil and are proposing oil tax to be as high as possible.

MYTH 1
OIL IS BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT.

Truth: Transportation of people and goods via cars, jeepneys, buses, and trucks that use oil is good for the environment because there will be no need for millions of cows, carabaos, or horses that produce tons of animal manure on the roads daily. Sure, there are particulates and other polluting gases but they are minor compared to tons of animal manure everywhere, more dirt, flies and worms in the environment. Also, cheaper LPG will encourage poor households to stop using firewood and charcoal for cooking which will result in more trees being saved.

MYTH 2
OIL IS BAD FOR PEOPLE’S HEALTH.

Truth: Cars, vans, jeepneys, and buses that use oil spare the oldies, sick, babies, pregnant women, etc. of hard labor and more diseases due to exposure to heat, rains, dust, and exhaustion if they were to ride bicycles or skateboards or animals that do not use oil. Also, transport of agricultural products from Ilocos, Cordillera, Cagayan Valley, or Bicol to Manila via animals not trucks will only lead to food spoilage. People will have little or no access to fresh vegetables and fruits, resulting in poor health.

MYTH 3
OIL IS NOT A PUBLIC GOOD.

Truth: Oil is a public good. As shown above, no petroleum, no modern and comfortable life, no mass production of food and transportation of people and goods. Public goods like public education, public health care, roads, bridges, etc. are either provided to the people for free or highly subsidized prices. Oil as a public good only needs zero tax, or at least low tax.

MYTH 4
MORE CO2 EMISSION FROM OIL MEANS MORE POLLUTION, MORE “MAN-MADE” CLIMATE CHANGE.

Truth: CO2 is not a pollutant gas; it is a useful gas. It is the gas that humans exhale, the gas that our pets and farm animals exhale, the gas that plants use to produce their own food via photosynthesis. Climate change is natural and cyclical. Planet Earth is 4.6B years old, there was climate change ever since marked by warming and cooling cycles.

MYTH 5
INCREASING THE OIL TAX IS NECESSARY TO FINANCE MORE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE.

Truth: Government has trillions of pesos already from income taxes (corporate and individual), VAT; excise tax from alcohol, tobacco, mining, new vehicles; from documentary stamp tax, franchise tax, from annual vehicle registration tax, withholding tax, capital gains tax, travel tax. And from various regulatory fees (passport fees, driver’s licenses, terminal fees, etc.)

Government simply has too many personnel, officials, employees, consultants and pensioners; too many offices, travels, trainings, and meetings. Perhaps these items alone constitute about 70%-80% of the annual budget. So little is left for public infra, school buildings, government hospitals, etc.

MYTH 6
THE OIL TAX INCREASE WILL HAVE MINIMAL IMPACT ON THE POOR.

Truth: Oil is used by the poor not only in jeepneys but also in tricycles, farm tractors and harvesters, irrigation pumps, fishing boats, interisland boats, generator sets in off-grid islands. While the DoF plans to introduce “Pantawid Pasada” for jeepneys, nothing has been allotted for farm tractors and other equipment used by poorer farmers, fisherfolks, hunters, etc.

As shown below, fishing boats that use gasoline, tractors and irrigation pumps that use diesel, tricycles that also use gasoline, will be slapped with 12%-19% price hike simply because of the proposed tax hike (see table).

20170116402c7

MYTH 7
THE OIL TAX INCREASE WILL HIT THE RICH MORE THAN THE POOR.

Truth: Oil use is a small portion of the overall consumption of the rich. The rich buy more expensive but more fuel-efficient cars and SUVs, they spend more on expensive restaurants, hotels, schools and universities, condos and subdivisions, etc.

MYTH 8
FOOD PRICES WILL NOT GO UP SIGNIFICANTLY WITH OIL TAX HIKE.

As mentioned above, oil is used not only by trucks, jeeps, and boats that transport agriculture, meat and fishery products. Oil is also used by farm tractors and harvesters, fishing boats. A 3.6% food inflation in 2016 (despite around 50% hike in diesel prices) is not small for the poor.

MYTH 9
NO OR LOW EXCISE TAX MEANS SUBSIDIZING THE OIL CONSUMPTION OF THE MIDDLE CLASS AND RICH.

Truth: There is no subsidy, zero, unlike subsidies for public education and health care or rice price subsidies using tax money. When you walk down the street and encounter a mugger who didn’t demand your money, you do not owe that mugger anything.

MYTH 10
GOVERNMENT IS LOSING SOME P145 BILLION/YEAR POTENTIAL OIL TAX REVENUES.

Truth: Government has no entitlement to more income and savings of the people other than income taxes that are already high, and other existing taxes. Government is losing more from wasteful spending or stolen money via corruption. Government can save more money for infrastructure by reducing too many personnel and consultants and by abolishing and defunding old welfare programs that do not work before it creates new welfare programs.

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is the head of Minimal Government Thinkers and a Fellow of SEANET. Both are members of Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia.

Climate alarmism and global energy central planning

Socialists and trying-hard anti-capitalism ideologues in facebook, youtube, etc. who also severely enjoy facebook capitalism, youtube capitalism, keep harping about “man-made” warming/climate change (CC) and thus, demand more government and UN ecological + energy central planning.

They like posting sketches, alarmist articles which very often:

  1. Have no charts of temperature anomaly, only sketches and drawings.
  2. Claim “Earth’s warming at unprecented levels”, no chart or table to show; unprecedented, no precedent? Scam statement.

I always ask them these two questions:

(1) Planet Earth is 4.6 B years old, when, what period that there was no CC?
(2) What was it before this “man-made” CC — less rain, no rain, more rains? less flood, no flood, more flood? less snow, no snow, more snow? Less dogs, no dog, more dogs?

Always they have no answer. Some paleo-climate data showing warming-cooling cycle in the past. The climate alarmists close their eyes if the data do not support their “man-made” CC religion. 140k years ago.

vostok-140kc
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/…/KkU…/s1600-h/Vostok-140Kc.jpg

 

1 million years data.  These guys have faith, strong faith in the words of Al Gore and the UN.
milankovich_cycles

http://serc.carleton.edu/…/proxies/milankovich_cycles.png

 
700 million years data.

cc2http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

Finally, here’s the 4.6 B years timescale. Warming-cooling, endless natural cycle.

geological_timescalehttp://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg

What the data and charts above show is that even if 100% of all power plants in the world are from fossil fuels like coal and natural gas, global cooling will still happen. And even if 100% of all energy in the planet is from hydro, wind, other renewables, global warming will still happen. But then religionists and climate evangelists will always have zero appreciation for data. Only faith, strong faith in the words of Al Gore and UN bible.

Why? Money, money, money. Hypocrisy-robbery.

5http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2015/01/climate-tricks-37-climate-money-and.html

Huge extortion racket, via governments, the UN and other multilaterals.

cc3

Trump’s science advisor, realism in energy policies

Mr. Trump has a foul mouth but in terms of climate and energy policies, he is a realist, not alarmist. Now the world should begin to realize that climate change is mainly nature-made, not man-made, and that no matter what governments do to “fight climate change” via renewables cronyism, global cooling-warming cycle will still happen.

Below are some fb updates from world famous climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer of UAH last January 15, 2017:

“good news, looks like my friend Will Happer is one step closer to being Trump’s Science Advisor.”

“I’ve helped Will come up to speed on climate issues over the years…

Will is familiar with government service and the press, he will play by the rules. Definitely not a loose cannon.”

“It now looks like my co-conspirator (and boss) John Christy is being floated to head NOAA. I can’t see any other reason for his name to be mentioned in this new article by James Delingpole (James will probably neither confirm nor deny his intention– wink wink nudge nudge). John has said it’s the only position he’d consider taking, and I recommended him for it to two Trump transition team members. The downside is we really need him here in Huntsville…but he’d do a great job as NOAA Administrator.”http://www.spectator.co.uk/…/stop-worrying-about-trump…/

“… John “knows” NOAA, their mission, and is an expert on thermometer measurements. He’s a good scientist AND manager. I’d like to see him get to the bottom of the thermometer adjustment mess…it won’t be easy. He’s been working with Anthony Watts and others on what I believe to be the best analysis of U.S. temperature data. I’d LOVE to see that work get legs….

again, we are just reading between the lines here. He has not yet been offered the position. John alerted me to the new article, and I believe it’s the second “trial balloon” that has been floated with his name.”

tr

There were 2 other GOP candidates who were skeptic of “man-made” CC, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. But I doubt if pushed to the wall, they will challenge the climate establishment heads on. Seems that only Trump has the ball to take the huge climate alarmism establishment.

Two comments from two American friends:

Roy W. Spencer I agree. No one else would dare challenge the orthodoxy. Too many powerful people invested in green schemes.

Todd Foster “John Christy is being floated to head NOAA…” Will I ever get tired of such win. And that’s Trump’s biggest asset. His complete inability to be cowed by a media that fewer and fewer even trust. Yes, he’ll take a beating from the howling monkeys of the press but he’ll just keep pushing on, to higher approval ratings.

Wow, Dr. Spencer commented on my wall, haha, was so happy. I have heard him first in 2009 in NYC, 2nd ICCC by the Heartland Institute. Since I was not so familiar with the highly technical aspects of climate science that time, was struggling with a very steep learning curve right there at the conference, I did not fully comprehend his talk and discussion about positive vs. negative cloud feedbacks to more CO2 added to the atmosphere, related topics. That conference was a start for me to read more about the technical aspects of climate science. I was visiting his blog, WUWT, others more regularly.

royWhen I attended the 4th ICCC in Chicago, still sponsored by Heartland, I was more familiar with the basic concepts. Solar irradiance, GCRs, PDO, AMO, cloud feedback, UHI, datasets from UAH, RSS, and so on. When I saw Dr. Spencer during a coffee break, I asked for a selfie with him, he gladly obliged. I was awed, so happy to stand beside this huge, giant mind in climate science 🙂

“In my opinion, we are an over-regulated society. Over-regulation not only destroys prosperity and jobs, it ends up killing people. And political pressures in government to perform scientific research that favors biased policy outcomes is part of the problem.

Science is being misused, prostituted if you wish.

Yes, we need regulations to help keep our air, water, and food reasonably clean. But government agencies must be required to take into account the costs and risks their regulations impose upon society.” — Roy W. Spencer http://www.drroyspencer.com/…/science-under-president…/

Top 10 energy news of 2016

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last January 6, 2017.

bw

Here is my list of 5 international and 5 national or Philippine important energy issues last year.

INTERNATIONAL

  1. Donald Trump and his energy policies.

US president-elect Donald Trump’s energy policies are summarized in his major campaign platform, “Seven actions to protect American workers” and these include:

“FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars’ worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal… SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to UN climate change programs and use the money to fix America’s water and environmental infrastructure.”

So far some of Mr. Trump’s Cabinet Secretaries are his fellow skeptics of the anthropogenic or “man-made” climate change claim (climate change is largely cyclical and natural or “nature-made”), or simply pro-oil. These include: (a) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head is Scott Pruitt, former attorney general of Oklahoma; (b) DoE Secretary is former Texas Governor Rick Perry who is pro-drilling; and (c) Secretary of State is Rex Tillerson, CEO of the oil giant Exxon Mobil Corp.

  1. OPEC cut on oil production.

For eight years, OPEC never cut its oil production despite declining oil prices to protect its global market share under intense pressure from huge shale oil supply from the US. In November 2016, OPEC finally blinked and decided to cut their collective oil output by 1.2 million barrels per day (mbpd) hoping for an increase in oil prices. Non-OPEC countries like Russia and Mexico made an agreement with OPEC to cut output by another 0.56 mbpd, for a total projected output cutback of about 1.8 mbpd. So far, price impact was marginal as oil prices before this OPEC decision was already touching $50 a barrel. But once US shale oil output ramps up, this marginal price increase can easily be reversed.

  1. More wind-solar means more expensive electricity in selected countries in Europe.

The numbers below show that countries with expensive electricity (1-5) have zero or little nuclear power, have high wind power (except Belgium and Italy), and high solar capacity (except Spain). And cheaper electricity countries (6-10) have high nuclear power (except UK and Netherlands) and low wind (except Sweden), low solar capacity (see Table 1).

o4a_010617

  1. By 2040, 46% of global energy demand will come from Asia Pacific.

Based on a recent report by Exxon Mobil which grabbed global energy headlines, it said that it expects China, India, and the rest of Asia Pacific (including Japan, ASEAN, and Australia) will increase its global share of total energy demand from 234 quadrillion British thermal units (BTUS) in 2015 to 322 quadrillion BTUs by 2040. The percentage share of the region will rise from 41% of global demand in 2015 to 46% by 2040. In contrast, the share of EU and the US combined will shrink from 28% in 2015 to only 22% by 2040 (see Table 2).

o4b_010617

  1. By 2040, wind, solar, biomass, other renewables will contribute only 11% of total global power generation.

Coal will remain the dominant source in power generation worldwide by 2040 but its share will decline from 44% in 2015 to 34% by 2040. The share of natural gas and nuclear power combined will increase from 38% in 2015 to 45% by 2040. The share of wind, solar, geothermal and other renewables will marginally increase from 6% in 2015 to 11% by 2040, despite all the political noise worldwide that these renewables will get “cheaper than coal” and attain “grid parity” with conventional sources like coal and natural gas.

PHILIPPINES

  1. Search for an Independent Market Operator (IMO) of WESM.

In the last Congress, then Sen. Serge Osmeña, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy conducted a series of meetings until January 2016 about the absence of an IMO that is supposed to manage the Wholesale Electricity Spot Market (WESM). The Philippine Electricity Market Corporation (PEMC) as market operator of WESM remains weird because (a) PEMC Board is chaired by the DoE Secretary, many board members are government officials; (b) Even the supposed four independent directors plus consumer representative (5 total) are all appointed by the DoE Secretary; and (c) PEMC is regulated by the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC), which is under the administrative control of the DoE Secretary, who chairs the PEMC that is regulated by ERC.

  1. WESM Mindanao, IMEM.

Aside from issues on the new Market Management System (MMS) for WESM rules and the transition to a real IMO, the move to create a WESM in Mindanao via the Interim Mindanao Electricity Market (IMEM) is gaining ground. The Mindanao dispatch protocol will have to be spelled out in detail too.

  1. Imposition of Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS).

In June 2016, the DoE issued a draft Department Circular (DC) on RPS, a provision in the RE Act of 2008 (RA 9513) that “requires electricity suppliers to source an agreed portion of their energy supply from eligible RE resources.” This RPS will result in more expensive electricity because wind, solar, biomass, and small hydro that are not given feed in tariff (FiT) privilege of guaranteed price for 20 years can demand higher price for their energy output because distribution utilities will have zero choice but buy from them otherwise the DoE will penalize them.

The draft DC wanted an initial “2.15% to be applied to the total supply portfolio of the Mandated Participant in each grid.” When asked what will be the projected price implication of such policy, DoE and National Renewable Energy Board (NREB) officials answered that no study on price implications has been made yet. A weird proposal where proponents have no clear idea on the cost of implementation to energy consumers, the DC was shelved.

  1. Shift in energy mix from energy source to system capability.

During the administration of DoE Secretaries Petilla and Monsada, the DoE wanted an energy mix based on energy source or technology, 30-30-30-10 for coal-natural gas-RE-oil, respectively. This is highly distortionary because many REs are either seasonal (hydro can be baseload only during the rainy season, biomass can be baseload only if feedstock is available) or intermittent like wind and solar. New DoE Secretary Cusi changed the energy mix based on system capability: 70-20-10 for base load-mid merit-peaking plants, respectively. This is a more rational mixture.

  1. Endless demand for expanded, higher feed in tariff (FiT).

As more solar farms and wind farms are constructed nationwide, their developers and owners are lobbying hard for an expanded FiT 2 with guaranteed price for 20 years. Even geothermal developers also lobbied that their new plants should also be given FiT. Currently, three wind developers — Trans-Asia Renewable Energy Corporation (TAREC), Alternergy Wind One Corporation (AWOC), and Petrowind Energy, Inc. (PWEI) are petitioning the ERC that their FiT rate be raised from P7.40/kWh to P7.93/kWh. Three wind farms were lucky or favored to get P8.53/kWh under the original FiT — EDC Burgos (Lopez group), Northern Luzon UPC Caparispisan (Ayala group) and Northwind Power Bangui (partly Ayala).

DOE not concurring with PH’s Paris agreement, good

Some PH Senators declared that the Senate will ratify the Paris Agreement of more expensive, unstable electricity “to save the planet” even if the DOE did not concur with it. Portion of the report said, “32 of the 33 agencies having already submitted their certificates of concurrence to Malacañang.”
(Phl to ratify Paris climate pact in July, Philippine Star, January 10, 2017)

The agency or department that did not concur with the PH (actually CCC) commitment to the Paris Agreement is the DOE, thanks Sec. Cusi.

“In the Cabinet, officially I have the only department that has not concurred in the ratification of the climate [pact].”

“I cannot concur on the ratification of the climate change [pact] because that can be used against DoE in approving the kind of power plants that we are going to have,” he said.

Mr. Cusi said the country’s pledge to cut carbon emissions by 70% means reaching a level that has already been met — in 2015.

“What does it mean? Wala na tayong gagawin [We can’t do anything],” he said, referring to curtailing the country’s development.”
(Energy department calls for foreign funding of global warming measures, BWorld, Dec. 12, 2016)

Many big countries like the US, Germany, UK, have not ratified their Paris commitment. Those who ratified are mostly small countries. $100 B a year of climate money transfer from developed to developing countries has become a huge extortion project that will produce huge disappointment from beggar countries. Almost ALL developed countries are already heavily indebted, they have huge public debts, don’t have enough money for their own citizens. And they will give away huge money to developing countries, many of whom are led by despots and corrupt leaders, will not happen.

The degree of climate extortion varies. While the “consensus” is $100 B a year starting 2020, some UN officials and planet saviours want $500 B a year. Less flood or no flood or more floods; less snow, no snow or more snow, that money should be given to them.

cc

As for energy prices, Meralco generation charges for Sept-Oct-Nov 2016 below. All these power plants are using coal and nat gas, except TMO, a peaking plant that uses oil. WESM prices are cheap, down to only P2.54/kWh last Nov. Which means FIT Allowance will be high so that pampered solar and wind plants at P8 to P10+ per kWh will remain “viable” through expensive electricity imposed on all energy consumers nationwide.

wesm
Sec. Cusi’s energy realism should be supported against energy alarmism by other agencies and groups.