Power Sector Planning and Development:Lessons from Thailand’s and international

experience

Chuenchom Sangarasri Greacen9 March 2013

WORKSHOP ON “ELECTRIC POWER DEVELOPMENT & CHALLENGES IN MYANMAR: SHARING EXPERIENCES OF THE MEKONG REGION”

Tonga Puri Hotel, Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar

The engine of sustainable economic & social development

Environment

People(peace,

democracy, justice) Improved

living standards &economic opportunity:- Wealth generation- Access to electricity

- Education- Health

Electricity

Power sector planning in a nutshell Mechanism:

• Assess needs,• Source supply• To meet objectives (e.g. reliability, job creation)

• At reasonable price

Approaches to planning:• Centralized (top-down) • Decentralized (bottom-up)

Approaches to electrification• Off-grid/mini-grid• Grid extension

Centralized & decentralized generation

โรงไฟฟ�าสายสงไฟฟ�าแรงส�ง

สถานี�ไฟฟ�าแรงส�ง

หม้�อแปลงจำ�าหนีาย

สายจำ�าหนีาย

แรงดั�นีไฟฟ�าระดั�บส�ง

แรงดั�นีไฟฟ�าระดั�บกลาง

Gasifier/Solar farm/Biogas Plant

Cogeneration BiomassPlant/Large solar farm

HV substation

Distribution transformer

LV distribution

MV distribution

HV Transmission

Power sector planning in a nutshell Mechanism:

• Assess needs,• Source supply• To meet objectives (e.g. reliability, job creation)

• At reasonable price

Approaches to planning:• Centralized (top-down) • Decentralized (bottom-up)

Approaches to electrification• Off-grid/mini-grid• Grid extension

• There may not be a “one-size-fit-all” solution • Diverse context and situation require diverse approaches

What is the best approach for a country?

Large Plants

Customers

Small Power Producer

Mini-Grid

Customers

Parallel approach: extending the grid and encouraging rural mini-grids

NationalGrid

Top-down Bottom-up

Thailand’s approach

• Rural electrification = grid expansion + mini-grid– Community-scale power generation systems (e.g.

microhydro) were forced to abandon their generation and mini-grids when grid electricity arrived

• Centralized, monopoly (single buyer) model with strong emphasis on large-scale generation

• Deterministic forecast, top-down planning process• Little participation in decision-making and sector

development

Planning of capacity additions(Total capacity requirement = peak demand + 15% reserve margin)

Demand forecast

• Demand treated as given• Deterministic model

– Main assumptions: • GDP growth• Energy elasticity (electricity growth/GDP growth)• Population growth• Econometric model with some end-use data (e.g. floor

space for offices or appliance ownership and efficiency for residential sector) if available

Source: Energy for Environment Foundation, Study Project for Load Forecast – Executive Summary.

Total Final Energy Consumption & GDP

4.10

4.20

4.30

4.40

4.50

4.60

4.70

4.80

3.05 3.10 3.15 3.20 3.25 3.30 3.35 3.40 3.45 3.50 3.55

log (GDP)

log

(Ene

rgy)

Energy demand is 1.4 times higher than GDP growth

Energy-GDP Elasticity

Avg.'85-20011998 1999 2000 20011994 1995 1996 19971990 1991 1992 1993

1.401.07Energy Elasticity 0.97

1985

1.47 1.08 1.511.24 1.34 1.64 1.94 -3.50 0.58 0.970.47

Source : EIA,DOE, BP Statistic Review of World Energy, EGAT

Energy Elasticity = ∆t Energy Consumption/ ∆t GDP

Ave. Energy Elasticity

1.4 : 1.0

New Target1 : 1

or lower

Thailand

The government used to assume a constant Energy Elasticity of 1.4 but the assumption did not hold.

Choice of supply options considered in the PDP by EGAT

700 MW Coal-fired power plant

700 MW gas-fired combined cycle plant

230 MW gas-fired open cycle plant

1,000 MW nuclear plant

Hydro imports are politically negotiated outside of PDP processDSM/EE, RE, Distributed generation not integrated in the optimization process

• EGAT (also MEA & PEA) became “Poster-child” of World Bank, other foreign aid institutions– Access to soft loans, technical assistance, etc.– Rapid growth of sector and electrification rates– Rapid economic growth and industrial development

Outcome of Thai top-down, centralized, monopoly model

Thailand’s Fuel Mix for Power Generation

Many successes but there are also lessons learned…

• Over-projection of GDP and demand forecasts leading to cycle of over-investments

• Abandonment and discrimination of community-scale, decentralized energy systems

• High dependency on imports• Impacts and conflicts• Inequality• Inefficiency• Uncompetitive and debt-ridden economy

Comparison of GDP: forecast vs. actual

PDP2007 forecast

Case 2007 2008 2009 2010 20115-yr Avg 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

5-yr Avg

Low 4 4.5 4.7 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.8 5 5 5.3 5.3 5.1

Base 4.8 5 5.2 5 5 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.5 5.8 5.8 5.6

High 5 5.5 5.7 5.5 5.5 5.4 5.8 6 6 6.3 6.3 6.1Actual 5.0 2.5 -2.3 7.8 1.0* 2.8 *Bank of Thailand's estimate, as reported in Matichon newspaper on Feb 4, 2012

• GDP is the main assumption affecting the power demand forecast

• Assumptions of GDP growth used in PDP2007 vs Actual.

Past demand forecasts compared to actual peak demand (MW)

Used in PDP2010

Actual demand

Over-projections of demand leads to…

• Over-expansion• Cycles of over-investments and burden on

ratepayers• No incentive to promote energy efficiency and

renewable energy• Unnecessary social, environmental impacts

– Conflicts, violence and inequality

Pak Mun Dam Story

• A World Bank funded project completed in 1994• Run-of-river 126 MW hydroelectric dam on a main tributary of

Mekong River• Source of on-going conflicts due to impacts on fish migration

and livelihood of people

Photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pak_Mun_dam

Electricity productionand consumption(GWh)

1700 families relocated

Loss of livelihood for >6200 families

Loss of 116 fish species (44%)

Fishery yield down 80%

65MaeHongSong

Sou

rce: M

EA

, EG

AT, S

earin

, Gra

ph

ic: Gre

en

World

Fou

nd

atio

n

Dams Shopping Malls

Pak

Mun

Dam

Impacts of Pak Mun Dam alone

MBK

123

81

75

Siam Paragon

Central World

Changing energy intensity over 20-yr period

Data source: Energy Information Administration 2008

Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board

O F F I C E O F T H E P R I M E M I N I S T E R

Low Quality

EducationLow Quality labour

Insufficient in

R&D Investm

ent

Slow Technology Development

Low

Qua

lity

for R

aw-m

ater

ial,

mac

hine

ry a

nd e

quip

men

t

(Low margin/return)

Low B

asic

infra

struc

ture

and L

ogisti

c

deve

lopm

ent

Enabling factors:MACROECONOMICMANAGEMENT

No

imm

unity

/ H

igh

vola

tility

Fi

nanc

ial S

yste

m Lack of Saving

Lack of regulation on

industrial product’s

quality control

LowValue Creation

High Import

Contents & Sheer

size of export to GDP

High Energy Intensity& Low Efficiency& Unsustainable

structure

Macroeconomic Analysis

Thailand’s power sector: sustainable economic development?

• Evident economic, material development…• …but not sustainable

– Needs to rely on ever-increasing energy imports– Vulnerability to supply disruptions due to high level

of centralization• Unproductive, inefficient consumption only made

possible by borrowing from the past (plundering resources) and the future (debt to be repaid)– Government debt now >40% of GDP – Household debt at 20-23% of income, to rise to 40%

Thailand’s economic, power sector growth

Sustainable or quality economic, social

development

Energy obesity from unhealthy consumption habits that are financed

by debt

≠

Is there a better way?

Yes!

(Full report available for download at

www.palangthai.org)

Not all energy demand/GDP $$$ are equal: some industries have high energy, environmental costs but

low value to economy

กล�ม้อ�ตสาหกรรม้ High Energy, Low VA, Low RCA

ส�ดัสวนีความ้เข้�ม้ข้�นีข้อง

การใช้�พล�งงานี

ส�ดัสวนีม้�ลคาเพ&'ม้ตอผลผล&ต

ดั�ช้นี�ความ้ไ ดั�เปร�ยบ

ทางการแข้งข้�นี(RCA)

อ�ตสาหกรรม้เหล*กและ เหล*กกล�า 0.331 0.151 0.19 การผลิ�ตสีทา น้ำ� ามั�น้ำชั�กเงา 0.183 0.323 0.25

การผลิ�ตผลิ�ตภั�ณฑ์� พลิาสีต�ก 0.18 0.3 0.91 การผลิ�ตผลิ�ตภั�ณฑ์� อโ ลิหะอ��น้ำ ๆ 0.178 0.336 0.5

การฟอก การพ�มัพ� การย้!อมั 0.177 0.27 0การผลิ�ตเคร��องย้น้ำต�แลิะก�งห�น้ำ 0.15 0.24 0.21การผลิ�ตเคร��องเร�อน้ำท�ท�า ด้!วย้โ ลิหะ 0.146 0.253 0.56แบตเตอร�แลิะหมั!อเก'บประจุ*ไ ฟฟ,า 0.142 0.264 0.59การผลิ�ตเคร��องจุ�กรแลิะอ*ปกรณ�ทางเกษตร 0.131 0.33 0.08การผลิ�ตอ*ปกรณ�รถไ ฟ 0.126 0.276 0.01

เคร��องมั�อเคร��องใ ชั!ไ ฟฟ,าอ�� น้ำ ๆ 0.125 0.313 0.95 การผลิ�ตผลิ�ตภั�ณฑ์� ทางเคมัอ��น้ำ ๆ 0.122 0.319 0.41

การผลิ�ตเคร��องจุ�กรแลิะอ*ปกรณ�พ�เศษ 0.116 0.246 0.27การผลิ�ตผลิ�ตภั�ณฑ์� จุากกระด้าษ 0.115 0.172 0.72

การผลิ�ตสี�น้ำค!าอ*ตสีาหกรรมัอ��น้ำ ๆ 0.101 0.346 1.24การผลิ�ตน้ำาฬิ�กา 0.085 0.415 1.74การผลิ�ตเคร��องด้น้ำตรแลิะ เคร��องกฬา 0.078 0.345 1.87

การบรรจุ*กระป3อง แลิะการเก'บร�กษาผ�ก ผลิไ มั! น้ำ� าผลิไ มั! 0.074 0.341 2.26การผลิ�ตผลิ�ตภั�ณฑ์� จุากไ มั!แลิะ ไ มั!ก4อก 0.074 0.358 2.83

การผลิ�ตรองเท! า ย้กเว!น้ำรองเท! าย้าง 0.072 0.388 1.94การผลิ�ตเคร��องเร�อน้ำเคร��องตกแต5งท�ท�า ด้!วย้ไ มั! 0.072 0.507 1.82

การผลิ�ตผลิ�ตภั�ณฑ์� อาหารอ��น้ำ ๆ 0.071 0.478 1.85การผลิ�ตอ*ปกรณ�การถ5าย้ภัาพแลิะสีาย้ตา 0.071 0.428 1.52การท�า เน้ำ� อกระป3อง 0.064 0.392 1.02การผลิ�ตผลิ�ตภั�ณฑ์� หน้ำ�งสี�ตว� 0.064 0.445 2.57

การอบ การบ5มัใ บย้าสี6บ 0.061 0.404 1.22 อ*ตสีาหกรรมัเคร��องด้��มัท� ไ มั5มัแอลิกอฮอลิ� แลิะน้ำ� าอ�ด้ลิมั 0.059 0.426 1.08

อ*ตสีาหกรรมัเก�ย้วก�บผลิ�ตภั�ณฑ์� เชั�อก 0.051 0.418 1.11 โ รงงาน้ำท�า น้ำ� าตาลิ แลิะผลิ�ตภั�ณฑ์� อ��น้ำ ๆ 0.045 0.383 6.07

BOI investment privileges

should take into account

energy, economic

value considerations

High energy intensity

Low value added

Low competitiveness

Iron smelter industry

Demand for electricity is not a given.We can choose wisely what kind of industries or

economic activities are worth supporting (e.g. given investment privileges) based on their energy,

environmental costs and value to economy (local job creation, local content, value creation)

Government Policy Frameworkaccording to Energy Industry Act 2007

4 dimensions of energy security

Energy Industry Act 2007 Indicators

Availability - Resource Adequacy- Min. dependency on imports- Diversification

- Reserve margin ≥15%- % energy imports-Shares of fuels

Affordability - Affordable cost of service- Min. exposure to price volatility

- Electricity cost (B/mo.)- % exposure to oil price

Efficiency - Energy & economic efficiency - Energy intensity (GWh/GDP)

Environment - Min. environmental impacts - GHG emissions- SO2 emissions

Need to make “energy security” and PDP accountable to

government policy frameworkFramework for evaluating PDPs

Insulate roofs to keep cool in

T-5

Prioritize energy efficiency (least-cost supply options)

Prioritize decentralized generation over centralized options:Cogeneration (Combined Heat and Power – CHP)

Comparing PDPs

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

PDP 2010

nuclear

EE/DSM

Others

Oil/gas

RE DEDE

Cogen

Hydro imports

Hydro

Gas

Coal

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

PDP2012

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

PDP2010v2

Dependency on electricity/fuel imports

2010 PDP2010 PDP2010v2

PDP20120

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Uranium (Kazakhstan/Aus-tralia)

Power imports (Laos/Burma/Malay)

Diesel

Fuel Oil

Gas imports (Burma/Middle East)

Coal imports (Indonesia/Australia)

GWH

Cost of service (Baht/month) change in 2030 compared to 2010

2010 PDP2010 PDP2010v2 PDP20120

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500Cost of service (Baht/month)

PDP2010 PDP2010v2 PDP2012

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%3.5%

-13.2%

1.3%

Emissions of air pollutantschange in 2030 compared to 2010

GHG Nox SO2 TSP Hg-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

350%

400%

450%

PDP2010PDP2010v2PDP2012

Comparing PDPs against different elements of energy security change in 2030 compared to 2010

(Negative value = improved elements of energy security)

SO2 em

issions

GHG emiss

ions

Import

dependen

cy

energ

y inten

sity

Cost of s

ervice

Exposu

re to

oil pric

e risk

s

Concentra

tion (plan

t disr

uption)

PDP2010

SO2 em

issions

GHG emiss

ions

Import

dependen

cy

energ

y inten

sity

Cost of s

ervice

Exposu

re to

oil pric

e risk

s

Concentra

tion (plan

t disr

uption)

42%52% 56%

-17% -13% -21%

-97%

PDP2010v2

-15%

4%18%

-17%

1%

-19%

-97%

PDP2012

Best practices from international experience• Case study of Pacific Northwest, USA (incl. Washington

State) & Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) process

Objectives Defined

Data collection, systems analysis

Demand forecast scenarios (by end use) Meeting electricity requirement:

options

END-USE EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS

T&D IMPROVEMENTS

GENERATIONPLANTS

UNIT COSTS OF ALTERNATIVES

($ / kWh)

LEAST COST MIX

ITERATION

GW

h

YEAR

$/kWh

GWh

Strategies

ImplementationPeriodic

Monitoring

CBA

IRP

Flow

char

t

Source: D’Sa, A. (2005). "Integrated resource planning (IRP) and power sector reform in developing countries." Energy Policy 33(10): 1271-1285.

Northwest Power and ConservationCouncil

slide 40

Resource Costs: fair, comprehensive cost comparison

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Conservation New Hydro UltrasupercriticalCoal (ID)

Woody Residue NV CSP > S. ID

Lev

eliz

ed L

ife-c

ycle

Co

st ($

2006

/MW

hr)

Emissions

Transmission & Losses

Integration

Plant Cost

Source Northwest Power and Conservation Council, 6th Plan.

Northwest Power and ConservationCouncil

slide 41

6th Plan Resource Portfolio*

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

2010 2015 2020 2025

Cum

ula

tive

Res

ourc

e (

Ave

rage

Meg

awat

ts)

SCCT

CCCT

Geothermal

New Wind

RPS Wind

EnergyEfficiency

*Expected Value Build Out. Actual build out schedule depends on future conditions

Source Northwest Power and Conservation Council, 6th Plan.

Xayaburi dam vs. RE or EE investment

Economic Multiplier Effect

Source: US Department of Energy, The Jobs Connection: Energy Use and Local Economic Development, http://www.localenergy.org/pdfs/Document%20Library/The%20Jobs%20Connection.pdf Accessed March 8, 2013.

The economic multiplier, also known as the multiplier effect, is a measure of how much economic activity can be generated in a community by different combinations of purchasing and investment.

Lessons for MyanmarThe engine of sustainable economic & social development

Environment

People(peace,

democracy, justice) Improved

living standards &economic opportunity:- Wealth generation- Access to electricity

- Education- Health

Electricity

Large Plants

Customers

Small Power Producer

Mini-Grid

Customers

Parallel approach: extending the grid and encouraging rural mini-grids

NationalGrid

Top-down Bottom-up

Special considerations for Myanmar

• “The last frontier”• How to leverage external

resources while maximizing benefits to the locals and without losing sovereign power

• How to generate income while having sufficient resources to sustainably meet growing domestic needs

Strategy for Myanmar’s power sector planning, policy and development

• Integrated economic and energy policy and planning– Minimize waste, maximize efficiency– Choose economic activities wisely: low energy & resource

intensity, high economic value, high competitiveness– Maximize economic value for each energy investment:

“getting the most bang (jobs, investments, purchasing) for the $$$ invested”

• Prioritize utilization of distributed renewable over non-renewable resources

• Empower participation by citizens, entrepreneurs and communities in power sector planning and development

Thank youQuestions and discussion

Email: chom at palangthai dot orgwww.palangthai.org

Large Plants

Customers

Small Power Producer

Mini-Grid

Customers

Parallel approach: extending the grid and encouraging rural mini-grids

NationalGrid

Power export $ Donor funds $Electrification Fund

Regulatory framework allows for fair treatment of both

Centralized energy is also more costly

Thailand

PDP 2007 requires 2 trillion baht to implement, comprising:

million B• generation 1,482,000• transmission 595,000

Transmission adds 40% to generation

costs

Decentralized generation brings down costs

Ireland – retail costs for new capacity

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

100% Central / 0% DE 75% / 25% 50% / 50% 25% / 75% 0% Central / 100% DE

% DE of Total Generation

Euro

Cen

ts /

KW

h

O&M of New Capacity Fuel

Capital Amorization + Profit On New Capacity T&D Amorization on New T&D

Source: World Alliance for Decentralized Energy, April 2005

ROIC = Net profit after tax Invested capital EGAT 6.4%

MEA PEA

• Financial criteria for utilities link profits to investments– Thailand uses outdated

return-based regulation– WB’s promoted financial

criteria such as self financing ratio (SFR) also have similar effects

• ROIC (Return on Invested Capital means: the more you invest, the more profits

Incentive structure for utilities:the high their investment budget, the more profits

5.8%

Result : EGAT favors capital-intensive investments (centralized

plants) by its organization or subsidiary companies.Allowing more EE or RE generation hurts EGAT’s bottom

line

Coal18%

Natural Gas73%

Renewable2%

Hydro3%

Fuel Oil0.34%

Imported4%

Diesel0.03%

53

Thailand’s Fuel Mix for Power Generation

Total Installed Capacity: 31,517 MW (2010)

Source: Puget Sound Energy

Pacific NW: meeting growing demand through mainly investments in RE and EE

Source: Northwest Power and Conservation Council

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Coal-fired (ICG) (MW)

CCGTurbine (MW)

SCGTurbine (MW)

Wind (MW)

Energy Efficiency (aMW)

Cu

mu

lati

ve C

ap

aci

ty (

MW

)*

Source: Charles, Gillian and Tom Eckman. 2010. Regional Conservation Progress Report – Results from 2010. Regional Technical Forum. http://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/rtf/consreport/2010/Default.asp

Cost of new conservation less than $0.02/kWh

Source: Charles, Gillian and Tom Eckman. 2010. Regional Conservation Progress Report – Results from 2010. Regional Technical Forum. http://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/rtf/consreport/2010/Default.asp

Insulate roofs to keep cool in

T-5

Source: The 5th NW Electric Power and ConservationPlan

Supply options in NW USA

Source: The 5th NW Electric Power and ConservationPlan

Supply options in NW USA

Energy waste in a typical pumping system

Important conceptual framework

• Rural electrification ≠ grid expansion• Rural electrification = off-/mini-grid + grid expansion

• Planning for domestic electricity demand (electrification) = Power Development Plan (PDP) process

• Planning for hydropower export should be treated separately, with consideration of other ways of generating income (e.g. tourism, agriculture, industrial development) as alternatives

Power sector development strategy

• Energy security– Ability to meet demand through sustainable and

efficient utilization of resources at reasonable cost• Alternative energy development• Energy prices and safety• Conservation and efficiency• Environmental protection

Thailand’s experience

• Emphasis of top-down centralized model• Treating demand as given• Emphasis on expansion and unsustainable

centralized technology options• Lack of meaningful participation

Strategy

• Efficient, sustainable utilization of resources– Self-reliance

• Self-reliance

– Efficiency (production and consumption)– Sustainable utilization of natural resources– Value to economy– Leveraging external resources– Role of private sector– Myanmar being “the last frontier”

Total Final Energy Consumption & GDP

4.10

4.20

4.30

4.40

4.50

4.60

4.70

4.80

3.05 3.10 3.15 3.20 3.25 3.30 3.35 3.40 3.45 3.50 3.55

log (GDP)

log

(Ene

rgy)

Energy demand is 1.4 times higher than GDP growth

Energy-GDP Elasticity

Avg.'85-20011998 1999 2000 20011994 1995 1996 19971990 1991 1992 1993

1.401.07Energy Elasticity 0.97

1985

1.47 1.08 1.511.24 1.34 1.64 1.94 -3.50 0.58 0.970.47

Source : EIA,DOE, BP Statistic Review of World Energy, EGAT

Energy Elasticity = ∆t Energy Consumption/ ∆t GDP

Ave. Energy Elasticity1.4 : 1.0

New Target1 : 1

or lower

Thailand

0.89

1.61

2.14

1.801.69

1.81

1.36

0.97

1.351.48

1.85

1.42 1.45 1.47 1.44 1.49

-4.62

0.25 0.30

1.77

2.77

1.46

0.94

1.24 1.15 1.07

0.81 0.73

0.11

1.34

-3.86

2.54

-5.00

-4.00

-3.00

-2.00

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

2012(Q

1-Q

3)

Electricity Elasticity (Yearly)

Source: http://doc-eppo.eppo.go.th/key_indicators/elasticity/EE_EI_ELE.ppt

LN(PG) = 1.6985 LN(GDP) -13.8995R

10.60

10.70

10.80

10.90

11.00

11.10

11.20

11.30

11.40

11.50

11.60

14.40 14.50 14.60 14.70 14.80 14.90 15.00

LN

(PG

)

LN(GDP)

Power Generation Elasticity (1992-2001)

Power Generation Elasticity AVG. = 1.6985

Source: http://doc-eppo.eppo.go.th/key_indicators/elasticity/EE_EI_ELE.ppt

LN(PG) = 1.0661 LN(GDP) -4.3664R 5

11.40

11.50

11.60

11.70

11.80

11.90

12.00

12.10

14.85 14.90 14.95 15.00 15.05 15.10 15.15 15.20 15.25 15.30 15.35 15.40

LN

(PG

)

LN(GDP)

Power Generation Elasticity (2002-2011)

Power Generation Elasticity AVG. = 1.0661

Source: http://doc-eppo.eppo.go.th/key_indicators/elasticity/EE_EI_ELE.ppt

14.4 14.3 14.715.6

16.3 16.817.5 18.1 18.0

18.719.6

20.921.6

22.323.2

24.124.7

26.6

29.028.1

29.130.2

30.9 30.8 31.2 31.4 31.5 31.3 31.031.7

32.5 32.433.6

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

GW

h /

Billion B

aht

Electricity Consumption Intensity

Source: http://doc-eppo.eppo.go.th/key_indicators/elasticity/EE_EI_ELE.ppt

ใน้ำความัเป8น้ำจุร�ง มัความัไมั5แน้ำ5น้ำอน้ำจุาก เหต*การณ� “ ” ท�ไมั5คาด้หมัาย้

• การพย้ากรณ�ไฟฟ,าหร�อเศรษฐก�จุมั�กจุะไมั5ได้!น้ำ�าเหต*การณ� “ท�ไมั5” คาด้หมัาย้ มัาพ�จุารณาเพราะย้ากแก5การคาด้หมัาย้

– ต�วอย้5างเชั5น้ำ ว�กฤตการเง�น้ำใน้ำป; 2540 การพ* 5งสี6งของราคาน้ำ� ามั�น้ำโลิก ความั ร*น้ำแรงทางการเมั�อง แลิะอ*ทกภั�ย้ร!าย้แรงใน้ำรอบ 50 ป;

• ใน้ำอน้ำาคต ความัไมั5แน้ำ5น้ำอน้ำจุากภัาวะเศรษฐก�จุโลิก สีถาน้ำการณ�ด้!าน้ำ การเมั�องใน้ำประเทศ แลิะสีภัาพภั6มั�อากาศท�แปรปรวน้ำ คาด้ว5าจุะย้�งมั

อย้65ต5อไป

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

-15.0

-10.0

-5.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

Actual GDP growth (%)

Comparison of trend lines with historical peak consumption

y = 4E-60e0.0731x

R2 = 0.9433

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

MW

Historic peak demand เอ'กซ์� โพเน้ำน้ำเชัย้ลิ (Historic peak demand)

y = 831.43x - 2E+06

R2 = 0.9894

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

MW

Historic peak demand เชั�งเสี!น้ำ (Historic peak demand)

Exponential Linear

Past demand trajectory was linear but how come the official demand projections have

always assumed exponential trend and over-estimated?

Source: Energy for Environment Foundation, Study Project for Load Forecast – Executive Summary.

Source: Energy for Environment Foundation, Study Project for Load Forecast – Executive Summary.

Source: Energy for Environment Foundation, Study Project for Load Forecast – Executive Summary.

Source: Energy for Environment Foundation, Study Project for Load Forecast – Executive Summary.

Source: Energy for Environment Foundation, Study Project for Load Forecast – Executive Summary.

Source: Energy for Environment Foundation, Study Project for Load Forecast – Executive Summary.

Needed: bottom up forecasts

• Thailand should invest in load forecasts that use a bottom-up approach

• using industry-specific and sector-specific data on:– electricity demand trends– technology transitions trends