Thailand will soon launch its national Power Development Plan (PDP) 2019-2027, which was put up for debate in public hearings in four regions and Bangkok this month.
The final hearing on the PDP draft took place in Bangkok on Monday, following others in Chiang Mai, Khon Kaen, Surat Thani and Chon Buri, which represented each region.
According to a well-informed source, the new PDP will set targets along the same lines as the energy reform plan which was finalised in October. The goal is to let private firms -- or independent power producers (IPPs) -- compete with Egat in power generation. Quite a few energy ideas are welcome, albeit with caution.
To begin with, the plan heralds a reduction in dependence on coal as an energy source, especially in the southern region. It proposes that the two controversial coal-fired power plants in Krabi and Songkhla be replaced with those of natural gas. Yet, the final say on this shift rests with a panel looking at the environmental impact from energy development strategies in the South, which is conducting a feasibility study. It still offers a chance for coal to make a comeback in 2034.
The plan also seeks to increase the proportion of renewables, in particular solar power, in power development.
There are some concerns about a major compromise in the energy conservation target for the PDP that merits a wide debate. Under the proposed PDP, the country's conservation plan which dwells on energy efficiency will be cut by more than half of the 2015 goal, or 4,000 megawatts. That is equivalent to 7.4% of the 2037 peak load. The 2015 PDP set the conservation goal at 9,645MW, or 16.3% of the peak load predicted for 2036.
According to Suphakit Nanthavorakarn, who is a sustainable energy advocate, the proposed cuts have been reduced to a point that they will compromise the target set in the government's Energy Efficiency Plan (EEP) goal for 2015-2036. If the PDP goes ahead, the initial target for 2027 that was set at a very low level means there will be no conservation programmes in the state plan during 2019-2027. The proposed abandonment of energy efficiency is not acceptable.
As Mr Suphakit pointed out, investment in energy conservation through an energy efficiency (EE) edict can ensure the lowest energy production costs, as it can help decrease the need for new power plants, in addition to improving the country's environment.
In accordance with the 2015 PDP, Thai authorities are obliged to intensify energy every year, in order to meet the conservation target, which means the country can scrap 12 new power plants with accumulated capacity of 10,000MW.
With regard to the cut in the conservation target, the PDP draft mentioned vaguely that it will consider only "conservation measures with quality and price-competitiveness", which means prices will not exceed grid parity or electricity costs from production lines. What the statement means in practice is still in queston.
Whatever it is, a compromise in energy efficiency is not the right way to go. Demand-side management in power development is a crucial ethos that policy makers cannot afford to ignore as it saves not only costs but the environment.
Mr Suphakit is right in pointing out such a huge reduction in the conservation plan raises questions about what to do with the energy conservation fund, established in 1992, that involves several billion baht each year.
He also raised concerns over hearing proceedings that appeared to unjustifiably compromise the public participation principle. He wondered if there was a ploy to make it difficult for stakeholders to gain access to PDP information. Moreover, he alleged that those involved in public relations campaigns for the hearings were not active enough in promoting such a crucial public forum that will set the energy direction for almost a decade.
With such flaws, the hearings were not very impressive. Policy makers should recognise the flaws and make them right by incorporating stakeholders' ideas into the plan with the main goal being energy sustainability.