Ric Barcelona on energy investment and subsidies

I am reposting an article by a friend, Ricardo “Ric” Barcelona, published in the Inquirer last November 27, 2017. I attended the book launching of Ric’s book, “Energy Investment: An Adaptive Approach to Profiting from Uncertainties” last November 22, 2017 at Shangrila Hotel Makati. Good work and congrats again, Ric.
ric b

Why do subsidies often fail?

In writing my new book, I came face to face with three energy investment paradoxes. All trace their roots to generous subsidies.

Counter-intuitively, generous subsidies did not result in wide scale deployment of renewables, more so with solar as subsidies’ poster kid.

Innovation is the second paradox. Advocates argue that as increasing renewables capacity is installed, their costs would fall.

Ironically, when subsidies are too generous, the costs decline more slowly than in markets without subsidies.

The third paradox blasted the notion that growth and profitability go hand in hand.

With solar installation’s “frenzied” growth, albeit from a low base, I struggled to find beneficiaries of this boom that profited financially, much less achieving value-creating returns.

Perhaps, not surprisingly, we come across contradictory reports on renewables’ progress from the business press.

One sunny morning in 2013, leading journalists herald the dawn of renewables’ new era. Solar is sold at a price lower than coal, so the headline says. As analysts scramble to validate their financial models, most could only scratch their heads and were at a loss for answers. The next batch of headlines came to their rescue. Investors and advocates of “competitive” solar power were up in arms. The cause? Governments in Europe cut renewables’ subsidies drastically. Within weeks, “high growth” solar companies filed for bankruptcies, with wind struggling to make ends meet while barely remaining afloat albeit financially moribund.

In The Atlantic’s November 2015 issue, which I quoted William Gates, Microsoft’s founder, provided an answer as to where the problem lies.

By succinctly arguing how costs comparisons become a disservice to the environmental cause, Gates observed: “Photovoltaic solar is not economical. Its intermittency is a major problem. When environmental enthusiasts point to photovoltaic solar as having a similar cost to hydrocarbons, what they mean is that at noon in Arizona that may be the case. However, solar does not come at night. So the fact that at one moment you reach parity, so what? Distinguishing a real solution from a false one is actually very complicated”.

Economics of subsidies

The economic cost of energy equates to their life cycle cost of energy. This is a simple addition of the recovery of its normalized fixed assets costs, variable operating expenses, and fuel costs. Embedded within the fixed costs are its implied return on assets and a depreciation expense, while variable and fuel costs are inflation adjusted, with fuel prices accounting for most of the volatilities. Renewables tend to have stable costs.

Philippine coal-fired power’s economic costs would be about P7.29/kWh, while PV Solar would be about P9.09/kWh. Financial costs based on acquisition prices would be about P3.00/kWh to P4.50/kWh. This compares with PV Solar’s feed-in tariff (FiT) of P8.50/kWh. With PV Solar equipment costs having fallen sharply, its economic cost is below the feed-in tariffs. While the learning curves effects favor PV Solar’s improved costs competitiveness, fuel and power prices from coal-fired and gas-fired power fell from peak of P8.00/kWh to its present levels of P2.00 to P3.00/kWh. The FiT subsidies actually widened to P5.50 to P6.50/kWh, or up to two thirds of revenues.

The lessons are stark. 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.

Paradox One: Generous subsidies do not result in wide scale renewables deployment. Highly dependent on subsidies, changing government priorities that cut subsidies turn secure revenues, into the very source of uncertainty that bankrupt the venture.

Innovation paradox

Learning curves suggest that with each doubling of renewables’ capacity, its costs would decline by about 20 percent. Enthusiasts present this as evidence that success is a fait accompli.

PV Solar exceeded what the theory prescribes. The learning curves, however, could stall or even reverse its decline. For example, US wind turbines costs declined from about $4,500/kW in 1997 to $1,200/kW in 2001. When subsidies were made more generous in 2004, the rush to build wind farms clogged the production lines that saw wind turbine prices spiked to $2,400/kW in 2010 before settling at $1,500/kW in 2015.

Rapid declines in renewables’ costs impact producers’ revenues, where exponential volume expansion is subdued by accelerated price declines. In effect, innovations that lead to rapid costs decline may be curtailed when subsidies buffer the need for aggressive costs competition.

Project proponents act as mechanisms to channel subsidies from the state to producers. A quick mental calculation would convince proponents that the cost of postponing investments has its value.

If it becomes certain that tomorrow’s equipment costs would be substantially lower, and the technological cycle is shortened significantly, the cost of waiting in terms of foregone revenues could be lower than the equipment costs savings.

This is where PV Solar’s fate is sealed. Unlike hydro or geothermal power’s utilization rate of up to 95 percent, PV Solar at best is 22 percent. The foregone revenues are a fifth of those lost from alternative technologies. Worse, after five years of operation, PV Solar’s utilization rates could fall to 12 percent to 15 percent. This comparison makes developers more inclined to wait rather than to rush in to invest—unless of course the subsidies are generous.

What happened to the early movers—an advantage that strategy would suggest they reap the benefits for being decisive? Ironically, as future equipment costs fall farther, the early movers are stuck with obsolescing assets that are stranded as they lose competitiveness. Worse, their valor and decisiveness to be the first to invest leaves them to do the heavy lifting to lower costs that ultimately benefit the latecomers to profit from their labor.

Paradox Two: Subsidies blunt the need to accelerate costs reduction. Waiting to invest could prove lucrative where the latecomers profit from “early movers” follies.

High growth, expanding losses

Simple arithmetic tells us that for as long as revenues falls lag the rate of costs reductions, firms could expand cash operating margins. Solar equipment and panel producers are trapped in vicious cycles.

To remain competitive, they continually innovate that costs money while reducing costs (and prices). Competitors push the technology frontier that renders obsolete any incumbents’ offerings. As competition intensifies, rising costs and falling revenues or market shares could only lead to bankruptcies.

Within the PV Solar waiting game, in bypassing one generation of technology, and wait the more cost effective innovation, the shorter waiting period could prove lucrative for developers. However, for PV Solar producers, the waiting game could only exacerbate the pressure on operating margins.

Paradox Three: Accelerated volume expansion and rapidly declining prices erode cash operating margins, where the firm loses more the more it grows.

In my academic sojourn, what was presented as simple and readily understood formulation for calculating the “correct” subsidies turns out to be nuanced and complex. Under dynamic markets, where energy prices vary daily, fixing the subsidies becomes an indeterminate exercise. There are many possible answers for a given time that does not hold true once the prices change.

When PV Solar rely on up to 67 percent 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.

Contrary to popular belief, subsidies are far from a source of secure income. As governments renege, subsidies (or its loss) become a major credit risk.

My short prescription: Treat renewables, coal and gas as one supply portfolio. Their different costs structures provide physical hedges against rising energy prices, potentially increasing portfolio returns.

We may take William “Bill” Gates’ advice to heart: “Distinguishing a real solution from a false one is actually very complicated.” Understanding how business work, and applying the same rigor to renewables and our energy supply portfolios may just lead us to offering a real solution to meeting our future energy needs.

Advertisements

US energy trading and implications for Asia and Philippines

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last November 16, 2017.

bw ener

Among the global leaders who attended the ASEAN Summit 2017 this week in Manila were the leaders of the US, China, Russia, Australia, and India. These five countries are also the top five in having the world’s biggest coal reserves and top five biggest coal producers.

US President Trump in particular emphasized his desire for “reciprocal trade” with Asian countries. Energy trading is a growing sector in the US as it is now the world’s biggest oil and natural gas producer (overtaking Saudi Arabia and Russia in oil and gas output, respectively, since 2014) but not yet the world’s biggest exporter of these two commodities.

The subject of Trump’s energy policies was well-discussed by many scholars, researchers, and some players during the “America First Energy Conference” in JW Marriott Houston, Texas last Nov. 9, organized by the Heartland Institute and co-sponsored by many other US-based independent think tanks and research institutes.

I attended that meeting and it seems I was the only Asian in the big conference hall. I went there from a different perspective compared to American participants — to further understand how the evolving US climate and energy policies would impact Asia in the short to long-term, the Philippines in particular.

In his breakfast plenary lecture, Joe Leimkuhler, VP for drilling of LLOG, a deepwater exploration company, discussed whether the US can dominate energy as articulated by President Trump.

“Energy dominance” is defined as being able to meet all US domestic demand and export to markets around the world at a level where they can “influence the market.”

He showed lots of very interesting tables and charts including the usual Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) analysis of current US energy environment. Among his conclusions are the following:

  1. Oil, natural gas — The US can have energy dominance in the short-term but to make it long-term, the shale revolution should be sustained and supported, and if more gas reserves are discovered.
  1. Coal — Supplies can meet domestic demand but may be unable to provide for short-term exports. There are no coal exporting facilities on the West Coast to cater to the biggest coal customers in the world, Asia. The states of Washington, Oregon, and California have passed laws preventing the construction of such facilities or delaying the permits. US coal is cheaper to produce and its quality is higher than other suppliers can give.

Many sessions in the conference provided extra information about the current weaknesses of the US coal industry despite its huge reserves.

In the session on “Peace Dividend: Benefits of Ending the War on Fossil Fuels,” Dr. Paul Driessen, Senior Fellow at the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), showed these data on electricity prices, 2017, in US cents/kWh: (a) Germany: residential 35, business and industry 18; (b) California: residential 19, business/commercial 18, industry 14.5; (c) Indiana-Kentucky-Virginia average: residential 11.7, commercial 9.5, industry 6.5. Germany, Denmark, South Australia and California have the highest concentration of wind-solar farms and they have the most expensive electricity prices in the planet.

The US has the largest coal reserves in the world estimated at 381-year supply, shown in the Reserves/Production (R/P) ratio. Russia has the highest R/P ratio because its production and consumption is smaller compared to the US. China has the second biggest reserves but its R/P ratio is small because of its huge production and consumption in million tons oil equivalent (MTOE). In 2016, half of global coal consumption was made in China alone (see table).

Coaltable_111617

Once the US can build those coal export facilities in the West Coast and various anti-coal policies in the Clean Power Plan (CPP) and CO2 Endangerment Findings are finally reversed, Asia will have more options of cheaper and higher-quality coal, aside from what they currently get from Australia, Russia, Indonesia, South Africa, and others.

The Philippines is a small player in the global coal market — very small reserves, negligible production (mostly from Semirara), and meager consumption. Yet many environmentalists seek to further restrict, if not actually prohibit Philippine coal power plants and force us to depend on undependable, unstable, unreliable, erratic, intermittent, and expensive wind-solar energy.

Governments should not pick winners and losers via legislation and multiple regulations, taxation, and selected subsidies. They should allow consumers to realize higher consumer surplus via competition and more choices in energy sources that are cheaper, stable, predictable, and dispatchable.

The German Jamaica coalition before the collapse over energy and other issues

Until middle of this month, there was still hope of a possible “Jamaica coalition” in Germany – Black flag by CDU-CSU, Yellow by FDP and Green by the Greens. I posted these thoughts and news liniks from November 18-20, 2017 in my fb wall, reposting them here.
—————

Before, Merkel and CDU/CSU were chummy-chummy with Obama in the anti-coal, “save the planet” drama. Then pro-coal, climate realist parties AfD and FDP surged high in the Bundestag elections last Sept, CDU and SDP suffered big time. Now Merkel perhaps realizes that Trump is correct in allowing more coal power for highly-industrialized economies like Germany so Merkel won’t give in to the Greens’ blackmail of closing all coal plants just to have a coalition govt with them. The danger — a collapse in negotiation would mean new elections.

“The Greens reject a yearly 200,000 cap on asylum seekers, which is one of the CSU’s main demands….

Merkel has proposed to reduce the capacity of coal stations, by 7 gigawatts (GW) by 2020, instead of 5 GW as proposed earlier by the CDU/CSU and FDP, but the Greens insist on a 10 GW reduction.

The FDP and the Greens are also at opposing ends over the so-called solidarity tax, a 5.5 percent tax on incomes, capitals and companies. The end of the tax is a core FDP demand, which the Greens reject.”

— from the EU observer article, Nov. 17, 2017.

Meanwhile, this is fake news from The Guardian “German Greens drop car and coal policies in coalition talks with Merkel”, Nov. 8, 2017.

“It is clear to me that we will not be able to enforce a ban on internal combustion engines by 2030,” the Greens’ co-leader Cem Özdemir told Stuttgarter Zeitung.

The Greens are also prepared to modify their demand that the 20 most polluting coal-fired power plants in Germany should be shut by 2020.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/07/greens-scale-back-policy-demands-german-coalition-talks

The Greens are outright watermelons, green outside, red inside.

Many watermelons and frequent climate junketeers and jetsetters are angry that Trump is not giving them more money for the expensive, thousands participants annual UN FCCC meeting, this year held in Bonn, Germany. Now the watermelons are extra angry that Merkel won’t give in to their demands that Germany should close down many of its coal power plants.

“Germany’s Merkel dodges coal deadline at climate talks”, Nov. 15, 2017.

“Germany generates about 40 percent of its electricity from coal, including the light brown variety called lignite that’s considered to be among the most heavily polluting fossil fuels.

“Coal, especially lignite, must contribute a significant part to achieving these goals,” Merkel said. “But what exactly that will be is something we will discuss very precisely in the coming days.”

http://www.kansascity.com/…/article184694013.html

The watermelons are a big bunch of hypocrites. They lambast coal yet super-enjoy Germany’s industrialization and its 24/7 electricity, 40% of which is from coal power. They also lambast other fossil fuel like oil yet they jetset by the thousands from many countries and cities, their airplanes and cars using oil, not water or solar.

Macron is less hypocrite when he lambasts coal because France is largely dependent on nuke power that produces about 75% of its total electricity supply. Next to Germany in having big coal power supply is Poland, which will host the UN FCCC 2018 meeting.

“Poland ready for SHOWDOWN with EU over climate change as Trump sends 74,000 tonnes of coal”, Nov. 16, 2017.

“Prime Minister Beata Szydło has warned MEPs she will “throw it back at them” if they criticise her nation’s carbon consumption at next month’s EU summit.

And that could set the scene for more stand-offs next year, when Poland hosts the next round of UN climate talks….

The ruling Law and Justice party are unapologetically pro-mining, a belief shared by US President Donald Trump, who visited the country in the summer and said: “Whenever you need energy, just give us a call.”

https://www.express.co.uk/…/poland-donald-trump-coal

“Mrs. Merkel’s failure comes despite astronomical costs. By one estimate, businesses and households paid an extra €125 billion in increased electricity bills between 2000 and 2015 to subsidize renewables, on top of billions more in other handouts. Germans join Danes in paying the highest household electricity rates in Europe, and German companies pay near the top among industrial users. This is a big reason Mrs. Merkel underperformed in September’s election.

Berlin has heavily subsidized renewable energy since 2000, primarily via feed-in tariffs requiring utilities to buy electricity from renewable generators at above-market rates. Mrs. Merkel put that effort into overdrive in 2010 when she introduced the Energiewende, or energy revolution.” (Nov. 17, 2017) https://www.wsj.com/articles/germanys-green-energy-revoltgermanys-green-energy-revolt-1510848988

“It has already announced some 6,000 job cuts in its wind power unit, due to falling prices in major markets such as India and the US.” (Nov. 16, 2017) http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42008269

‘German Conventional Turbine Producer Siemens To Slash 6900 Workers Worldwide Due To “Energiewende”’ (Nov. 18, 2017) http://notrickszone.com/…/german-conventional…/

ger1

“At the 17-minute mark, Bernd Benser of GridLab-Berlin tells viewers that while grid operator Tennet had to intervene only 3 times in 2002 to avert grid instability, last year he says the number was “over 1000” times — or “three times daily”.

These intervention actions, known as redispatching, cost the consumer about a billion euros last year alone, says Benser. The SAT 1 voice-over warns that more power transmission lines are urgently needed if the Energiewende is to avoid “becoming a sinking ship“. (Nov. 11, 2017) http://notrickszone.com/…/german-media-report-power…/

“Chief financial officer Markus Krebber said such a unilateral move by Germany, which had just contributed to making a pan-European CO2 trading mechanisms much stricter, would harm the economy and undermine the security of supply.

“Focusing on climate protection goals alone is not enough and will lead to fatal misallocations,” (Nov. 14, 2017), https://www.reuters.com/…/quick-german-coal-exit-would

ger2

US energy policies and implications in Asia and Philippines

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last October 31, 2017.

bw2

Energy means development. It is not possible to have fast growth in all sectors — agriculture, manufacturing and services — and sustain it without ample supply of affordable and stable energy and electricity.

The US remains the world’s biggest economy in terms of nominal or current values of gross domestic product (GDP). But in purchasing power parity (PPP) valuation of GDP, China has tied the US economic size in 2013, both with $16.7 trillion, and in 2014, China ($18.2T) overtook the US ($17.4T).

US ENERGY POLICIES UNDER EX-PRESIDENT OBAMA

The energy policies of the previous administration can be summarized as follows: (1) drastic reduction of coal use, (2) steady use and consumption of nuclear and hydroelectricity, (3) relative encouragement of natural gas and oil, and (4) massive support and subsidies for variable renewable energies (VREs) especially wind-solar.

In contrast, other giant economies in the world have the following energy policies:

Germany: (1) mild reduction in coal, oil and nuclear, (2) relative encouragement of natural gas, and (3) massive support and subsidies for VREs.

Japan: (1) increased use of coal and natural gas, (2) decreased use of oil and nuclear, and (3) big support for solar.

China and India: uniform increase in coal, oil, natural gas and VRE. Which is the right thing to do, to improve energy capacity as big and as stable as possible to hasten their economic development (see table).

EnergyConsumption_103117

The US energy transition from coal to VREs like wind-solar has affected its long-term energy stability and competitiveness and punch some holes on the budget and ordinary consumers’ pockets.

US ENERGY POLICIES UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP

Recognizing the long-term threat of this trend, President Donald Trump issued a series of policies reversing the Obama policy. Among them are the following:

(1) Appointed an Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) skeptic, Scott Pruitt as head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA in the previous administration has issued lots of regulations that explicitly or implicitly restrict new coal power plants while putting existing coal plants.

(2) Issued America Energy Independence policy in March 2017, targeting to reverse among others, the Clean Power Plan (CPP) projected to cost the US economy up to $39 billion a year and increase electricity prices in 41 States by at least 10%. A follow up Executive Order (EO) “Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy” was issued in April 2017.

(3) Exit from the Paris Agreement and the multi-trillion dollars possible liabilities in legal and environmental challenges.

These policies will reverberate to Asia and the rest of the world in terms of higher US production of coal, oil and gas. Higher supply means lower or stable prices for these energy sources.

On a related note, an America First Energy Conference (http://americafirstenergy.org/) will be held in Houston, Texas this coming Nov. 9, to be sponsored by the Heartland Institute. Being organized by an NGO, speakers and moderators (41 so far) are all from nongovernment entities except one, from the US Department of Interior.

HUGE COAL POWER IN SOUTHEAST ASIA (SEA)

Last week, the International Energy Agency (IEA) reported that about 100 GW of new coal-fired power generation capacity is expected to come online in SEA alone by 2040, increasing the region’s installed capacity to about 160 GW and more than doubling the region’s current coal power capacity. Global coal-fired generation capacity to grow by nearly 50% over today’s levels.

Coal as fuel is preferred because it is cheaper than natural gas and coal plants are in many cases less costly than the capex needs of gas plants, the IEA admits.

The Philippines will be among the big SEA nations that is investing big amount of resources in expanding its coal capacity. And rightly so. In 2016, coal constituted 34% of PH total installed power capacity but contributed 48% of actual electricity production.

Cheap, stable, and dispatchable electricity upon demand, that is the kind of power sources that people the developing world need. Governments must step back from climate and renewables alarmism and cronyism and go for least-cost, reliable energy.

Alex Magno on REs and the anti-coal activists

I just saw this article by Alex Magno, published last July, reposting here.

alex magno

There is a hidden agenda here, to be sure. The known pawns of oligarchic interests are all in play.

It is an agenda pursued even if our energy security is compromised. It is an agenda thinly veiled under the cloak of environmental protection, seeking to protect unjust cross-subsidies through the feed-in tariffs (FIT) that guarantee the profits of a few companies while penalizing all consumers.

If there is any real anomaly in the fact that Filipino consumers still pay among the highest electricity rates in Asia, it has to be the cross-subsidies consumers are forced to cough up to eliminate the business risks of those who invest in so-called “renewable energy” (RE) that does not provide baseload power and is sometimes not even dispatched to the distribution utilities.

No one disagrees with the use of RE – except that, at its technological infancy, it is neither cheap nor reliable. With the exception of hydroelectric plants, RE is an expensive adornment hung around the neck of consumers. It makes rich environmentalists happy and consumers miserable.

No one disagrees with increasing the proportion of RE in our energy profile – as long as it is not subsidized to the extent of making investments risk-free. This is like robbing the consumers in broad daylight.

We will also have to agree that we need coal plants. By the sheer volume of our rising power demand, we need cheap and reliable sources of power to provide us a stable baseload generating capacity. That will insulate us from shortages and prevent speculators from playing the wholesale electricity spot market every time reserves become thin.

Coal is not the cleanest way to generate electricity. That is sure, although new technologies have immensely improved adverse impact on the environment. Some even describe these new technologies “clean coal.”

But there is no need to demonize coal. If we do not use available coal-fired plants using cleaner technologies, our power costs will spike sky-high. If we close the coal-fired plants today, we will not only be paying an arm and a leg for the electricity we need. We will have to deal with power shortages that will cripple our economy and bring misery to the poorest of the poor.

Remember that time during the late eighties when then President Cory Aquino mothballed the nuclear power plant and abolished the Ministry of Energy. The whole country was thrown into darkness. Our already shrinking economy shrunk even more. Misery multiplied.

In the name of fighting climate change, oligarchic interests have mounted a campaign to demonize coal, block the construction of critically needed generating capacity and bring down power costs. We need to examine the hidden agenda in this campaign with a sharper analytical eye.

Obsession

A number of leftist groups have made demonizing coal plants a cottage industry of sorts even if that crusade can only harm the national economy.

A few days ago, Bayan Muna Rep. Carlos Zarate hastily convened a press conference where he angrily condemned the ERC’s decision to allow a power generator to construct a P1.7 billion transmission line to deliver its power production. His obedient militants stormed the ERC offices in Ortigas, protesting what they allege is “self-dealing” between Meralco and its power generating subsidiary. They described the investment in a new transmission line as an additional burden on the pockets of consumers.

But how did they expect the power produced to be delivered to the market? Electricity can only be delivered through power lines.

If they decry transmission lines as a “burden” to consumers, how do they intend to bring the electricity to the end-users? Investment in transmission capacity is an investment in infrastructure. They might as well argue against any new investment in generating capacity because this will “burden” consumers.

They might as well, for that matter, argue against investing in modern mass transport because consumers will end up paying for them. This is exactly the argument of Bayan Muna’s ideological cousins opposing phasing out the jeepneys.

This sort of argument is jaundiced. It does not take into account the benefits greater efficiency (or greater power generation capacity) brings to the national economy.

Bayan Muna’s ideological fellow traveler Sanlakas for its part staged a protest action at the Supreme Court to support a petition for continuing Mandamus with Temporary Environmental Protection Order against the construction of coal plants. They criticize the Duterte administration for allowing the construction of coal plants to meet rising energy demand.

Their own public statements, however, reveal the real agenda behind their supposedly environmental clamor. In decrying power supply agreements they call “midnight deals” and in denouncing the approval of coal-fired baseload plants, they say that government should only allow renewable energy plants.

In an ideal universe, it would of course be preferential to have only clean energy. But ours is not an ideal universe. If we shift to exclusively renewable energy sources, we will basically triple the costs of power. If we do that, our industries will not be competitive. We will wallow in an economic depression, cutting down our forests to cook food and slaughtering mammals to make candles.

They want us to burn down our homes to produce firewood – and call that “environmentalism.” The positions taken by these leftist groups have no roots in either science or economics.  They do not even have roots in common sense.

Nothing, however, reveals the puppeteer behind this anti-coal campaign more than the fact that the protestors are attacking only the seven power supply agreements they associate with Meralco and not the 80 others awaiting ERC approval.

Energy 101, Disinformation and fake stories by the watermelon movement

Fake stories and disinformation can be rampant in the energy sector because of the climate alarmism drama and renewables cronyism agenda. A recent example is one published in BWorld last Thursday, The Philippines’ Ill-Advised P1 Trillion New Coal Gamble, October 20, 2017 By Sara Jane Ahmed.

The lady seems to be ignorant of many data before writing their anti-coal drama. Some things she wrote:

  1. “High electricity prices are driven by imported fuel and subsidies; electricity surcharges…”

à Wrong. Check Meralco website for customer charges, http://www.meralco.com.ph/consumer-information/rates-archive. Here, October 2017 charges, if one consumes up to 300 kWh, he would pay a total of P2,880, one-half of which is for generation charges and the other half for 11 other charges including taxes and FIT subsidy for mostly wind-solar.

meralco bill

From the generation charge, about half of which are from Malampaya natgas-using plants in Batangas; there are hydr0, geothermal, coal could be about 40% of Meralco energy mix.

  1. “Diesel dependence, much like our growing national coal dependence, is a result of subsidies…”

à Wrong, diesel has no subsidy, or maybe she refers to the current zero excise tax for diesel but under Duterte TRAIN, it will soon be slapped with P6/liter excise tax.

  1. “Coal subsidies assure the private sector guaranteed returns…”

à Wrong. Currently coal excise tax is P10/ton but under TRAIN, to rise to P20/ton. Now Dr. Ciel Habito proposes a P600/ton excise and carbon tax for coal. I criticized his proposal here, http://bworldonline.com/carbon-tax-wrong/

  1. “Meralco is currently underwriting a solar power supply deal for 85 megawatts (MW) at P2.99 per kWh.”

à True, and that’s the exception, from Solar Philippines of Leandro Leviste, son of Sen. Loren Legarda. Many solar farms here are given the cronyist FIT or guaranteed price for 20 years of P8.69 to P10+/kWh.

  1. “Philippine’s financial sector as massively exposed now to the eventual stranding proposed new coal fleet to the tune of more than 10,000 MW in overcapacity and P1.05 trillion in financial risk”.

-> See this: “Countries that have coal consumption of at least 2.1x expansion over the past two decades are also those that experienced fast GDP growth of at least 3x expansion. Prominent examples are China, India, South Korea, Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia, Philippines, and even Pakistan.” http://bworldonline.com/high-carbon-tax-irrational/

Finally, the lady is highly disoriented, talking about diesel and coal subsidies when there is none. Yet silent on renewables subsidies, haha. P10B in 2015, P18.5B in 2016, P24.4B this 2017, and P26B next year. The main recipients of this renewables cronyism are the wind farms of the Lopezes/EDC, Ayalas’ Caparispisan and Bangui, Phinma, Alternergy/Vince Perez, etc. http://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?section=Opinion&title=why-the-fit-all-is-a-burden-to-consumers&id=145326
The “planet saviours”, the renewable cronyism lobbyists, they want more government intervention — in arm-twisting the consumers to pay higher electricity to subsidize renewables; in coercing the grid to prioritize the intermittent, unstable, unreliable, non-dispatchable energy sources; in choking and even killing stable, reliable, dispatchable 24/7 sources like coal, gas and nuke. Watermelons — green outside, red inside.

Alex Magno on FIT and renewables

Reposting an article today by Alex Magno in Philippine Star.

alex
A businessman-friend sent me a message the other day, railing about how the P18 billion raised through Feed-in Tariffs (FIT) charged electricity consumers could have been used to build a chain of recharging stations in the metropolitan area. Instead, as intended by our corrupt policies, FIT collections went to political cronies who claim they are saving the environment by investing in renewable energy.

With a chain of recharging stations in place, we could leapfrog the jeepney modernization program to use electric, not just Euro-4 compliant, vehicles. The technology is there. The recharging stations are not.

The environmental impact of clearing out the dirty diesel engines and putting in electric vehicles will be dramatic. The death toll from polluted air should drop remarkably.

FIT collects billions from consumers, keeping our power price regime high therefore depleting our manufacturing. In 2015, total FIT collections amounted to P10.22 billion. In 2016, with adjustments in the FIT rate, total collections ballooned to P18.54 billion. Estimated FIT collections for 2017 is placed at P24.44 billion.

Not a single peso from FIT collections goes to improvement of infrastructure. All the billions shelled out by poor electricity consumers via FIT go to offsetting business risks and ensuring profits for those who set up renewable energy facilities. The cronies who benefit from this have pulled off a massive scam by wrapping their enterprise with the cloak of political correctness.

It is not too late to scuttle this scam. We have much to learn from the experience of Australia on this matter.

As demand nears supply, Australians now realize that renewable energy is not a dependable source. It cannot provide the baseload capacity an economy needs to achieve energy security. Subsidizing renewable energy merely raises electricity prices, undercutting an economy’s ability to compete.

Renewable energy is well and good if consumers are not forced to subside them. In our case, the subsidies are better used to modernize mass transport systems.

Our backward and inefficient public transport system is, after all, the biggest contributor to the degradation of air quality in the urban centers where most of our people now live.

The cult of political correctness has misled many environmental activists otherwise acting in good faith. They ended up justifying FIT subsidies and, at the behest of cronies, demonizing coal power generation. They gloss over the fact that new technologies for coal power generation have made the iconic black smokestacks a thing of the past.

Those who make profits without assuming business risks by using FIT had the gall to demand even higher rates of subsidies from consumers. Fortunately, Energy Secretary Al Cusi has a clearer grasp of things. He rejected demands to further raise FIT rates.