thailand’s power development plan (pdp)

Thailand’s Power Development Plan (PDP)

... ... Steps involved to deliver Steps involved to deliver electricity to end-userselectricity to end-users

PowerGeneration

DistributionRetail, MeterReading, Billing &settlement

Fuel procurement

Transmission

Centralized generation

Cogenerationโรงไฟฟ�าสายสงไฟฟ�าแรงส�ง

สถานี�ไฟฟ�าแรงส�ง

หม้�อแปลงจำ�าหนีาย

สายจำ�าหนีาย

แรงดั�นีไฟฟ�าระดั�บส�ง

แรงดั�นีไฟฟ�าระดั�บกลาง

Problem analysisof current unsustainable

energy practices

Problems of “Development”• “Growth” ≠ “Prosperity”• GDP ≠ well-being• Economic vs Environmental & Social goals• Boundless economic expansion with no

heeds to natural limits and violence against fellow human beings

• Lack of democratic political processes• Lack of local access and control of

resources

Need paradigm change, political reform

Problems of Current Power Systems• Decision making process

– Centralized planning – Not participatory (affected communities have no say, no right/access to local resources)– Lack of information, transparency

• Industry structure– Centralized, monopoly (central planners have power and force to appropriate resources nation-wide and beyond to serve the urban, industrial and commercial consumers)– Consumers are captive customers but have no say– Bound to expand (financial criteria such as SFR, ROIC tie profits to boundless expansion)– Lack of proper checks and balances (weak regulatory framework)

• Planning objectives– Narrow objectives (energy security, least-cost), environmental and social goals not considered

– Role of electricity/energy poorly defined (shifting from a public service (serving basic needs) to a commodity) – and this gets worse when utilities are corporatized and privatized

• Over-consumption of electricity and energy– Excessive consumption not addressed and even subsidized through lack of proper pricing structure (generation cost subsidized, marginal costing not used for new gas)

– Out of sight, out of mind (consumers are disconnected and removed from impacts of their own consumption)

• Demand forecast (over projections)– Linking of power demand and GDP growth– Deterministic model (top-down), politically driven– Distorted incentives to over-forecast– Lack of accountability– Annual peak = basis for planning but no sufficient incentives/measures to cut peak

• PDP process– Use of Reserve Margin, not LOLP, as a main planning criteria arbitrary, wasteful– Focusing on large-scale, capital intensive supply options– Hydropower imports politically driven– DSM/EE, RE, discentralized generation not considered as supply options– Alternative PDPs not considered, discussed– Arbitrary methodology with bias towards large-scale, non-renewable options (unrealistically low fuet cost assumptions

Cost structure – Residential, rural customers forced to pay for same costs for high reliability standards set by commercial and industrial consumers– Cost used in planning not reflective of cost of serving new demand (use of avg gas cost instead of marginal costs)– Unlevel playing field for comparing costs of different resource options (only generation cost considered but not T & D)– Externality costs not considered– Favorable treatment of nuclear compared to RE

• Governance– Conflict of interests – Trans-national private capital (e.g. powerful Chinese energy firms) not accountable to local people

Problems of current power systems (1)

• Decision making process– Centralized planning – Not participatory (affected communities have no say, no

right/access to local resources)– Lack of information, transparency

• Industry structure– Centralized, monopoly (central planners have power and force to

appropriate resources nation-wide and beyond to serve the urban, industrial and commercial consumers)

– Consumers are captive customers but have no say– Lack of proper checks and balances (weak regulatory

framework)– Bound to expand (financial criteria such as SFR, ROIC tie profits

to boundless expansion)

Current Electricity Supply IndustryR

E

G

U

L

A

T

O

R

SPPsSPPs

EGAT Power Plants

IPPsIPPs

Power Purchase System Operation Transmission Bulk Power Supply

PEAPEA MEAMEA

DirectDirectCustomersCustomers

DirectDirectCustomersCustomers

End UsersEnd Users

Generation

End UsersEnd Users

Power Purchaser,System Operation,and Transmission

EGATEGAT

Distribution/Retail Supply

EEPPPPOO

Power Grid & Pipelines

are analogous to a monster’s

arms reaching and

grabbing resources to

feed its bottomless appetite.

Cross-border exploitation

is often facilitated by IFIs such as

ADB.


• Decision making process– Centralized planning – Not participatory (affected communities have no say, no

right/access to local resources)– Lack of information, transparency

• Industry structure– Centralized, monopoly (central planners have power and force to

appropriate resources nation-wide and beyond to serve the urban, industrial and commercial consumers)

– Consumers are captive customers but have no say– Lack of proper checks and balances (weak regulatory

framework)

– Bound to expand (financial criteria such as SFR, ROIC tie profits to boundless expansion)

• 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 more expansion, the more

profits

ROIC = Net profit after tax Invested capital EGAT 84. %

MEA PEA

48.%

Result : Demand forecast have systemic bias toward over-

projections Too many expensive power projects get built

Cycle of over-expansion under the centralized monopoly system

Power demand (over-)projections

Deterministic planning basedon demand forecast leads

to over-investmentin capital-intensive

power projects

Tariff structure that allows pass-through of unnecessary investments

Utilities’

Profits

11

22

33


• Planning objectives

– Narrow objectives (energy security, least-cost), environmental

and social goals not considered

– Role of electricity/energy poorly defined (shifting from a public

service (serving basic needs) to a commodity) – and this gets

worse when utilities are corporatized and privatized

• Over-consumption of electricity and energy

– Excessive consumption not addressed and even subsidized

through lack of proper pricing structure (generation cost

subsidized, marginal costing not used for new gas)

– Out of sight, out of mind (consumers are disconnected and

removed from impacts of their own consumption)

The Champagne Glass

UNDP, Human Development Report, 1998

http://www.soho-properties.com/condobangkok-leraffine31/

Unlimited living?

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 Malls Province

Pak

Mun

Impacts of Pak Mun Dam alone

MBK

123

81

75

Siam Paragon

Central World

Nam Theun 2• 1000 MW• Mainly to serve Thailand• 6,200 people in Laos resettled• Dam will dry Nam Theun

River and swell Xe Bung Fai River

• Endangered species, elephant habitat to be flooded


• Demand forecast (over projections)– Linking of power demand and GDP growth– Deterministic model (top-down), politically

driven– Distorted incentives to over-forecast– Lack of accountability– Annual peak = basis for planning but no

sufficient incentives/measures to cut peak

International Comparison of Power Generation per GDP

Electric Power Generation per GDP

-

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

1971 1973 1980 1985 1990 1995 1999

kWh/

US$

, 199

5 P

rice

United States

Canada

United Kingdom

Germany

Taiwan

Singapore

Thailand

Australia

Malaysia

South Korea

Japan

Peru

Gov’t gives subsidy to polluting industries with low value added to economy and low

competitiveness

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

ส�ดัสวนีความ้เข้�ม้ข้�นีข้อง

การใ ช้�พล�งงานี

ส�ดัสวนีม้�ลคาเพ&'ม้ตอผลผล&ต

ดั�ช้ นี�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+กระป4อง แลิะการเก(บร�กษาผ�ก ผลิไ มั" น้ำ �าผลิไ มั" 0.074 0.341 2.26การผลิ�ตผลิ�ตภั�ณฑ์� จุากไ มั"แลิะ ไ มั"ก5อก 0.074 0.358 2.83

การผลิ�ตรองเท" า ย้กเว"น้ำรองเท" าย้าง 0.072 0.388 1.94การผลิ�ตเคร��องเร�อน้ำเคร��องตกแต6งท�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�การถ6าย้ภัาพแลิะสีาย้ตา 0.071 0.428 1.52การท า เน้ำ��อกระป4อง 0.064 0.392 1.02การผลิ�ตผลิ�ตภั�ณฑ์� หน้ำ�งสี�ตว� 0.064 0.445 2.57

การอบ การบ6มัใ บย้าสี7บ 0.061 0.404 1.22 อ+ตสีาหกรรมัเคร��องด้��มัท� ไ มั6มัแอลิกอฮอลิ� 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

อ�ตสาหกรรม้ ถานีห&นี นี�+า ม้�นี ก,าซ ไ ฟฟ�า รวม้อาหารแลิะ เคร��องด้��มั 17 683 76 857 1,633 9.1%สี��งทอ 8 266 4 665 943 5.3%ไ มั"แลิะ เคร��องเร�อน้ำ - 33 - 135 168 0.9%กระด้าษ 424 191 - 187 802 4.5%เคมั 592 465 504 806 2,367 13.2%อโ ลิหะ 5,062 310 1,243 605 7,220 40.4%โลหะข้�+นีม้�ลฐานี 408 324 - 555 1,287 7.2%ผลิ�ตภั�ณฑ์� โ ลิหะ - 137 325 1,095 1,557 8.7%อ��น้ำ 978 869 - 48 1,895 10.6%รวมั 7,489 3,278 2,152 4,953 17,872 100.0%

BOI investment privileges

should take into account energy and

environmental considerations

High energy intensity

Low value added

Low competitiveness

Steel industry

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

55,000

2550 2551 2552 2553 2554 2555 2556 2557 2558 2559 2560 2561 2562 2563 2564

MW

2550 – 25 54 average

increase 1,38 6MW

2555 – 255 9 average

increase 1,877 MW

2560 – 25 64 average

increase 2,315 MW

1,4441,268

1,410

1,361

1,629

1,759

1,832

2,035

2,131

2,178

2,235

2,287

2,399

2,477

Demand increase per year

1,449

27,996 27,996 MWMW

37,382 37,382 MWMW

48,958 48,958 MWMW

Economic Development Plan

(years)

Average GDP growth rate/year

Average demand growth rate/year

10th plan -2550255(

4 )5.0 5.86

11th plan -2555255

9

5.6 5.95

1 2th plan -2560256

4)5.6 5.54

แผนีพ�ฒนีาฯ ฉบ�บท�' 10 แผนีพ�ฒนีาฯ ฉบ�บท�' 11 แผนีพ�ฒนีาฯ ฉบ�บท�' 12

Power demand projection Sep 2007(PDP 2007 revision 1)

ท�มัา กฟผ.

Why assume exponential growth?Linear vs. exponential extrapolation

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

2021

Pea

k d

eman

d (

MW

)

2007 Forecast Historic peak demand trend

24 power plants

Power Demand: Projections vs. Actual 1992 – 2008If no systemic bias, the

chance of over-projecting demand 12 times in a row

should be 1/4096!!

8,000

12,000

16,000

20,000

24,000

28,000

32,000

36,000

40,000

44,000

48,000

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

มั�.ย้.-93

ธ.ค.-94

ต.ค.-95

เมั.ย้.-96

ต.ค.-96

มั�.ย้.-97

ก.ย้.-97

Sep-98(MER)

ก.พ.-01

สี.ค.-02

Jan-04(LEG)

Jan-04(MEG)

Apr-06 (MEG)

มั.ค.-07

ACTUAL

ธ.ค.-08

MW

Cycle of over-expansion under the centralized system with return-based

regulation

Power demand (over-)projections

Deterministic planning basedon demand forecast leads

to over-investmentin capital-intensive

power projects

Tariff structure that allows pass-through of unnecessary investments

Utilities’

Profits

11

22

33

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

Lack of accountability in demand over-projection and over-investment made of possible by guaranteed rate of return for

utilities

ROIC = Net profit after tax Invested capital EGAT 84. %

MEA PEA

48.%

Guaranteed rate of return means central planners are rewarded, not held accountable, for their

repeated errors in demand forecast

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000hours

MW

2001 PEAK = 16,126 MW

A look at load duration curve:Only the absolute peak of the year

is used as the basis for planning

15100

15300

15500

15700

15900

16100

16300

0

12

24

36

48

60

> 1,000 MW in 66 hours


• PDP process– Use of Reserve Margin, not LOLP, as a main planning

criteria arbitrary, wasteful– Focusing on large-scale, capital intensive supply

options– Hydropower imports politically driven– DSM/EE, RE, decentralized generation not

considered as supply options– Alternative PDPs not considered, discussed– Arbitrary methodology with bias towards large-scale,

non-renewable options (unrealistically low fuet cost assumptions

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

Loss of Load Probability (LOLP)

• LOLP is the probability that generation will be insufficient to meet demand at some point over some specific time window.

• It is a method to calculate power system (electrical network) reliability. It combines the probability that certain load could occur with the probability that certain amount of generation could deliver it.

• Thailand: LOLP < 24 hours in a year (0.27%)• India (Andra Pradesh 2002): LOLP < 1.14%• USA (Texas): LOLP < 1 day in 10 yrs (0.03%)

A Few Definitions

• EUE – Expected Unserved Energy – the expected number of megawatt-hours of load that will not be served in a given year

• LOLP – Loss of Load Probability – the probability that there will be a loss of load event in a given year

• LOLE – Loss of Load Events – the number of events in which some system load is not served in a given year. A Loss of Load Event can last for one hour or for several contiguous hours, and can involve the loss of one megawatt of load or several hundred megawatts of load.

• Generally-accepted criteria: a target reserve margin that results in an agreed level/number of LOLP or LOLE

Reserve Margin Simulation Results

Reserve Margin

Average Loss of Load

Events in 10 Years

Average MWhs of ENS in 10

Years

Average Hours of

ENS in 10 Years

Loss of Load

Probability (%)

10.00% 5.1 9,020 9 0.011%

12.00% 1.4 2,570 2.6 0.003%

14.00% 0.5 515 0.9 0.001%

16.00% 0 0 0 0.000%

18.00% 0 0 0 0.000%

20.00% 0 0 0 0.000%

* ENS = Energy not served Data from ERCOT (Texas, USA)

Reserve Margin Simulation Results

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

10 11 12 13 14 15

Reserve Margin (%)

# o

f LO

L Events

in 1

0 Y

ears

Generic Gas Additions Generic Coal AdditionsSeries2

LOL = Loss of Load Data from ERCOT (Texas, USA)



criteria arbitrary, wasteful– Focusing on large-scale, capital intensive supply

options– Hydropower imports politically driven– DSM/EE, RE, decentralized generation not



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 considered as supply options

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

Cogeneration

Many questions for PDP 2007

• Why only 1700 MW of distributed generation allowed?

• Why 4000 MW of nuclear in all options?

• Why DSM/energy efficiency not considered as an option?

L = low case B = base case H = high case1=“lowest cost” 2=“as much coal as acceptable” 3=“LNG +imports”

ก�าล�งการผล&ตใ หม้ท�'ถ�กบรรจำ�ใ นีแผนี PDP2007 (MW)

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

L1 B1 H1 L2 B2 H2 L3 B3 H3

SPP Nuclear Gas Coal Gas Turbine Import

New capacity added to the PDP 2007

Centralized energy is also more costly

Thailand

PDP 2007 requires 2 trillion baht to implement, comprising: million B

• generation 1 ,482000,

• transmission 595000,

Transmission adds 4 0% to generation

costs

Decentralized generation brings down costs

Ireland – retail costs for new capacity to 2021

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

Eu

ro C

en

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

Loss in conversion process 61%

Station use (in power plants) 1%

Loss in transmission 3%

Loss in distribution 5-8%

Useful electricity to end-users <30%

Centralized generation wastes a lot of energy

(~70% of heat value is lost & adds to climate change problem )

Combined cycle13,540 MW47 .5 %

Hydro3,424.2 MW

12.0 %

Thermal9,666.6 MW33 .9 %

Gas turbines, diesel971.4 MW

3.4 %

Hydro import1.2 %

Renewables288.1 MW

1.0 %

Import from Malaysia1.0 %

Total at end of 2007 28,5303.

MW Installed capacity by types of generation in 2007



criteria arbitrary, wasteful– Focusing on centralized, large-scale, capital intensive

supply options– Hydropower imports politically driven– DSM/EE, RE, decentralized generation not



Energy waste in a typical pumping system

Fuel/ technology NumberInstalled capacity

Capacity export to grid

Number Installed capacity


Number Installed capacity


(MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW)

Commercial fuel

coal 6 159.57 41.00 4 130.07 26.00 2 19.00 6.00

natural gas 4 30.05 14.60 3 26.69 12.40 0 - -

sub-total 10 189.62 55.60 7 156.76 38.40 2 19 6

Alternative fuels

1 Solar 355 1,755.55 1,681.62 116 365.26 362.82 45 1.83 1.75

2 Biogas 78 163.36 143.20 60 96.21 79.90 18 20.29 12.52

3 Biomass 175 1,716.93 1,050.10 140 1,369.36 808.85 47 533.29 216.15

4 Waste 24 137.71 121.76 16 96.68 84.86 2 2.04 1.60

5 Hydro 9 6.90 6.86 4 5.160 5.130 2 0.08 0.06

6 Wind 89 796.34 791.13 7 11.23 10.93 1 0.08 0.08

7 Used cooking oil* 1 0.03 0.03 1 0.03 0.03 1 0.03 0.03

sub-total alternative fuels 731 4,576.80 3,794.69 344 1,943.92 1,352.51 116 557.63 232.18

TOTAL 741 4,766.42 3,850.29 351 2,100.68 1,390.91 118 576.63 238.18

Very Small Power Producers (VSPP)

(Status as of December 2008)

Applications submitted Accepted applications Projects already selling electricity

Source: www.eppo.go.th/power.html

Source: The 5th NW Electric Power and ConservationPlan

Supply options in NW USA

Supply curve of Pacific NW

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

245 514 1598 2202 2560 3444 4934 6735 8945

Cumulative Resource Potential (Average Megawatts)

Real Le

veliz

ed C

ost

(C

ents

/kW

h -

2000$) EE

Renewables

Coal

Gas turbines

Combined cycle

Resource potential for generic coal, gas & wind resources shown for typical unit size. Additional potential is available at comparable costs.

Source: Northwest Power and Conservation CouncilNorthwest Power and Conservation Council

Thai civil society created an alternative PDP that meets govt’ objectives, is more economic and

cleaner. But it was not considered by the government

24,755

8,117

3,424

14,804

2,254302

4,000

28,108

4,117

3,424

7,800

4,553

6,410

5,200

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

MW

PDP2007 PDP-Renewables

The Comparison of Installed Capacity in Two PDP Options

DSM

Nuclear

Renewable

Cogen-SPP

Import

Hydro

Oil

Coal

Natural gas

ท�มัา มั7ลิน้ำ�ธ�น้ำโย้บาย้สี+ขภัาวะ 2552

Superior benefits of “PDP Renewable”

over Govt’s PDP 2007

Source : Healthy public policy foundation 2009

Percentage

Percentage

Create more job (x 1000 position)

Decrease foreign import

Income generation

Decrease societal economic cost

Decrease commercial cost

Decrease environmental cost

Decrease mercury emission

Decrease SO2 emission

Decrease CO2 emission

Job creation per $1 million investment

Source: http://www.peri.umass.edu/green_recovery/http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/assets/binaries/green-job-creation-table

http://www.peri.umass.edu/green_recovery/

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/assets/binaries/green-job-creation-table























criteria arbitrary, wasteful– Focusing on centralized, large-scale, capital intensive

supply options– Hydropower imports politically driven– DSM/EE, RE, decentralized generation not



Fuel price forecast (In current term)

year

200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021

200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021

Natural gaspower plant average cost

Natural gas(Kanorm power plant)

Natural gas(Lankabuer power plant)

Natural gas(Nampong power plant)

Excess natural gasFor new power plant

Diesel oilFuel oil(2% of sulphur)

Lignite(Mae Moh power plant)

Nuclear Imported coal(Australia)

$ /million BTU

$ /million BTU

$ /million BTU

$ /million BTU

$ /million BTU

$ /million BTU

$ /million BTU

$ /million BTU

$ /million BTU

$ /million BTU

Baht /million BTU

Baht /million BTU

Baht /million BTU

Baht /million BTU

Baht /million BTU

Baht /million BTU

Baht (liters) Baht (liters) Baht (ton) Baht (ton)% increase

% increase

% increase

% increase

% increase

% increase

% increase

% increase

% increase

% increase

year

Source: EGAT, PDP 2007


• Cost structure – Unlevel playing field for comparing costs of different resource

options (only generation cost considered but not T & D)

– Externality costs not considered

– Residential, rural customers forced to pay for same costs for high reliability standards caused by commercial and industrial consumers

– Favorable treatment of nuclear compared to RE

• Governance– Conflict of interests

– Trans-national private capital (e.g. powerful Chinese energy

firms) not accountable to local people

EGAT’s cost assumptions in PDP

• ไมั6มัท�มัาท�ไปของการค าน้ำวณ

• ต"น้ำท+น้ำน้ำ�วเคลิย้ร�ขาด้ความัน้ำ6าเชั��อถ�อแลิะไมั6สีอด้คลิ"องก�บข"อมั7ลิจุากต6างประเทศ

• ไมั6รวมัต"น้ำท+น้ำอ��น้ำๆ อกมัากมัาย้

Sources Cost (B/kWh)

Nuclear 2.08

Coal 2.12

Gas combined cycle 2.29

Fuel oil (thermal) 4.12

Gas open cycle 7.93

PV 20.20

Wind 5.98

Waste 4.63

Biomass 2.63

EGAT “Power Development Plan” presentation at public hearing at Military club, April 3 2007

Cost of delivery kWh (not including externalities)

ท�มัา AMORY B. LOVINS AND IMRAN SHEIKH “The Nuclear Illusion” 2008

หมัาย้เหต+ 1. ใชั"สีมัมัต�ฐาน้ำว6าต"น้ำท+น้ำร"อย้ลิะ 12.4 ของค6าไฟฟ-ามัาจุากธ+รก�จุสีาย้สี6ง 2. ใชั"สีมัมัต�ฐาน้ำว6าต"น้ำท+น้ำร"อย้ลิะ 14.5 ของค6าไฟฟ-ามัาจุากธ+รก�จุจุ าหน้ำ6าย้ 3. ค6า CO2 ท� 10 ย้7โร/ต�น้ำ

4. ค6า Externality ตามัการศ<กษา Extern E ของสีหภัาพย้+โรป แลิะน้ำ ามัาปร�บลิด้ตามัค6า GDP ต6อห�วของไทย้ 5. การศ<กษาของ World Bank 2005 6. ตามัระเบย้บ SPP 7. ท�มัา : กฟผ. 8. Cost of liability protection, Journal “Regulation” 2002 – 2003

Supply options

Cost estimate (Baht/kWh)

Generation

Transmission1

Distributio

n2

CO2 3 Other

envi impacts

4

Social impact

s

Total

DSM 0.50 – 1.505 - - - - - 0.50 -1.50

SPPcogeneration(PES > 10%)

2 .6 0 6 - 0.44 0.08 0.71 - 3.83

VSPP(Renewable)

Bulk supply tariff

(~ 3) +Adder

(0.3 – 8)

- 0.44 - 0 – 0.63 0 – low 3.3 – 11.0

gas CC 2257 0.37 0.44 0.09 0.79 low –

medium

3.93

Coal 2117 0.37 0.44 0.15 2.76 High 5.82

Nuclear 208. 7 0.37 0.44 - 0.15 + 1.008

High –very high

4.04

Load profile on the day of annual highest consumption

Notice the rise of air-conditioning load

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

พล

�งไฟฟ

�า(เ

ม้กะว

�ตต4)

เวลา(ช้�'วโม้ง)

2532

25332534

25492550

2548

2551

1. 1 Load Profile บ"าน้ำอย้76อาศ�ย้ขน้ำาด้เลิ(กม้&.ย.51

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0:15

1:15

2:15

3:15

4:15

5:15

6:15

7:15

8:15

9:15

10:15

11:15

12:15

13:15

14:15

15:15

16:15

17:15

18:15

19:15

20:15

21:15

22:15

23:15


พล�งไฟฟ�า(MW)

ว�นีท�างานี ว�นีเสาร4 ว�นีอาท&ตย4 ว�นีท�'ม้�การใช้�ไฟส�งส�ดั

1. 2 Load Profile บ"าน้ำอย้76อาศ�ย้ขน้ำาด้ใหญ่6ม้&.ย.51

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

0:15

1:15

2:15

3:15

4:15

5:15

6:15

7:15

8:15

9:15

10:15

11:15

12:15

13:15

14:15

15:15

16:15

17:15

18:15

19:15

20:15

21:15

22:15

23:15




3 Load Profile Medium-sized ม้&.ย.51

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

0:15

1:15

2:15

3:15

4:15

5:15

6:15

7:15

8:15

9:15

10:15

11:15

12:15

13:15

14:15

15:15

16:15

17:15

18:15

19:15

20:15

21:15

22:15

23:15




4 Load Profile Large Customersม้&.ย.51

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

0:15

1:15

2:15

3:15

4:15

5:15

6:15

7:15

8:15

9:15

10:15

11:15

12:15

13:15

14:15

15:15

16:15

17:15

18:15

19:15

20:15

21:15

22:15

23:15




6 Load Profile Government offices, universities, etc.

ม้&.ย.51

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0:15

1:15

2:15

3:15

4:15

5:15

6:15

7:15

8:15

9:15

10:15

11:15

12:15

13:15

14:15

15:15

16:15

17:15

18:15

19:15

20:15

21:15

22:15

23:15




Energy policy and its impacts on share prices of energy companies in the stock

market• The coup-installed government announced its policy

on energy investment opportunities on 3 Oct 2006• Energy policy, PDP approval and IPP bidding resulted

in significant windfall benefits for selected companies

• 1 year later, the share prices of companies benefiting from the PDP jumped 66% (other companies had a 8.7% rise)

Index Market Cap.

(M Baht) Index

Market Cap. (M Baht)

SET index 732.3 5,398,975 894.34 6,902,455 22.1%Energy - total 1,549,720 2,416,915 55.4% Energy - PDP-related 1,189,947 1,975,093 66.0% Energy- PTT-related* 1,178,612 1,946,230 65.1% Energy - PDP/PTT-related 1,379,886 2,259,729 63.8% Energy-non-PDP/PTT 25,212 22,126 -13.2%Non-energy SET index 3,849,255 4,485,540 8.7%

*"PTT-related" = PTT having more than 25% shares (voting rights) in the company

Share value increase in 1

year (%)

3-Nov-06 2-Nov-07

Security BusinessClose Price

Market Cap. 3/11/2006

Close Price

Market Cap. 2/11/2007 Price change

Mkt cap change

3/11/2006 (M Baht) 2/11/2007 (M Baht) % (M Baht)Related to PDP 1,189,947 1,975,093 66.0%

BANPU coal 161 43,751 428 116,308 165.8% 72,557 LANNA coal 11.9 4,165 20.6 7,210 73.1% 3,045 PTT gas 226 633,840 404 1,137,525 78.8% 503,685 PTTEP gas-PTT subsidiary 108 354,833 159 524,070 47.2% 169,237 EGCO power 89.5 47,119 119 62,649 33.0% 15,531 RATCH power 42.75 61,988 52 75,400 21.6% 13,413 GLOW power 30.25 44,252 35.5 51,932 17.4% 7,680 Unrelated to PDP 215,152 306,762 41.7%

RRC oil-refine PTT subsidiary 19.2 55,035 25.75 73,809 34.1% 18,775 BCP oil-refine/retail PTT subsidiary 9.35 10,464 14.3 16,004 52.9% 5,540 TOP oil-refine PTT subsidiary 61 124,442 95.5 194,823 56.6% 70,381 RPC oil-refine/retail 4.46 2,332 3.96 2,084 -11.2% 248- SUSCO oil-retail 0.48 571 0.45 536 -6.2% 36- AI other-insulator 9.5 4,750 7.1 3,550 -25.3% 1,200- BAFS other-plane fuel 11.2 4,760 11.1 5,661 -0.9% 901 AKR other- PV transformer 2.62 2,070 2.16 1,707 -17.6% 363- EASTW other-water 5.6 7,415 5 6,874 -10.7% 541- PICNI LPG-retail 0.38 1,123 0.29 857 -23.7% 266- SOLAR other- PV 7.3 2,190 2.86 858 -60.8% 1,332- UncomparableTPI oil-refine 7.2 140,400 - -IRPC oil-refine PTT subsidiary - - 6.6 128,700MDX power - 298 4.3 2,045STRD other - 180 - 132SCG power-SPP 3.92 3,744 - 4,183

Change in energy companie’s share prices within 1 yr

ช้5' อ ต�าแหนีง กรรม้การบร&ษั�ท ผลตอบแทนี ป7 2549 น้ำาย้พรชั�ย้ ร+จุ�ประภัา ปลิ�ด้กระทรวงพลิ�งงาน้ำ ประธาน้ำกรรมัการ บมัจุ. ปตท .^ 219,863.01 *

ประธาน้ำกรรมัการ กฟผ.^ 37500 (เฉพาะ เบ�ย้ประชั+มั) กรรมัการ ปตท . เคมั�คอลิ 865,560

ประธาน้ำกรรมัการ บมัจุ. โ รงกลิ��น้ำน้ำ �ามั�น้ำระย้อง^ ย้�งไ มั6มัข"อมั7ลิ น้ำาย้ณอค+ณ สี�ทธ�พงศ� รองปลิ�ด้กระทรวงพลิ�งงาน้ำ กรรการ บมัจุ. ไ ทย้ออย้ลิ� 85,000 ***

น้ำาย้ค+ร+จุ�ต น้ำาครทรรพ รองปลิ�ด้กระทรวงพลิ�งงาน้ำ กรรมัการ บมัจุ. ผลิ�ตไ ฟฟ-าราชับ+รโ ฮลิด้��ง^ ย้�งไ มั6มัข"อมั7ลิ (1,600,000

หากครบป?) น้ำาย้ไ กรฤทธ�A น้ำ�ลิค7หา อธ�บด้กรมัเชั�� อเพลิ�งธรรมัชัาต� กรรมัการ บมัจุ. ปตท .สีผ. 2,289,344

น้ำาย้เมัตตา บ�น้ำเท�งสี+ข อธ�บด้กรมัธ+รก�จุพลิ�งงาน้ำ กรรมัการ บมัจุ. ปตท . 2,640,000

น้ำาย้พาน้ำ�ชั พงศ�พ�โ รด้มัอธ�บด้พ�ฒน้ำาพลิ�งงาน้ำทด้แทน้ำแลิะอน้ำ+ร�กษ�พลิ�งงาน้ำ กรรมัการ บมัจุ. ผลิ�ตไ ฟฟ-าราชับ+รโ ฮลิด้��ง

368,000 **** (~2,000,000 หากครบป?)

น้ำาย้วระพลิ จุ�รประด้�ษฐ�ก+ลิผ7"อ าน้ำวย้การสี าน้ำ�กงาน้ำน้ำโ ย้บาย้แลิะแผน้ำพลิ�งงาน้ำ กรรมัการ บมัจุ. ปตท .สีผ.^

ย้�งไ มั6มัข"อมั7ลิ (~2,000,000 หากครบป?)

น้ำาย้สี+ชัาต� จุ�น้ำลิาวงศ�ห�วหน้ำ"าผ7"ตรวจุราชัการกระทรวงพลิ�งงาน้ำ กรรมัการ บมัจุ. อะโ รเมัต�กสี�^

ย้�งไ มั6มัข"อมั7ลิ (~2,000,000 หากครบป?)

น้ำาย้น้ำเรศ สี�ตย้าร�กษ�ผ7"ตรวจุราชัการกระทรวงพลิ�งงาน้ำ กรรมัการ บมัจุ. บางจุาก 360,000

น้ำาย้พระพลิ สีาคร�น้ำทร� กรรมัการ บมัจุ. ผลิ�ตไ ฟฟ-าราชับ+รโ ฮลิด้��ง^ ย้�งไ มั6มัข"อมั7ลิ (1,600,000

หากครบป?) กรรมัการ บจุ. ผลิ�ตไ ฟฟ-าราชับ+ร ไ มั6มัข"อมั7ลิ

ท�มัา: ราย้งาน้ำประจุ าป? 2549 ^ เร��มัด้ ารงต าแหน้ำ6งชั6วง รมัต.พน้ำ. ปCย้สีว�สีด้�A* ด้ ารงต าแหน้ำ6งกรรมัการ 31 ว�น้ำ *** ด้ ารงต าแหน้ำ6งกรรมัการ 10 ว�น้ำ** ด้ ารงต าแหน้ำ6งครบ 12 เด้�อน้ำ **** ด้ ารงต าแหน้ำ6งกรรมัการ 8 เด้�อน้ำ

ผ7"ตรวจุราชัการกระทรวงพลิ�งงาน้ำ

Conflict of interest : policy v business

Permanent secretary of ministry of energy

Board of directors

Chairman of PTTChairman of EGATBoard member of PTT chemicalChairman of Rayong refinery

Dep. permanent secretary Board member of Thai oil

Board member of RATCH

Board member of RATCH

Board member of Aromatics PLC

Board member of PTTEP

Director general,Energy fuel

Board member of PTTEP

Director general of energy business Board member of PTTDirector general of Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency energy

Director of Energy Policy and Planning official

Senior official of ministry of energy



Board member of RATCHBoard member of Ratchaburi generation company

Board member of Bang chak

Dep. permanent secretary

Dep. permanent secretary

Performance of high-level energy officials in serving the government vs.

PTT Plc. (Thai gas/oil utility, the largest list company in Thailand)Attendance of

PTT board meetings*

Attendance of Automatic tariff (Ft) mechanism

mtgs**

Permanent secretary

1313/ 4/6

Director of EPPO

8/9 5/6*จุากราย้งาน้ำประจุ าป?บมัจุ. ปตท. ป? 2546** ต��งแต6มัการปร�บองค�ประกอบคณะอน้ำ+กรรมัการ Ft โด้ย้แต6งต��งให"น้ำาย้เชั�ด้พงษ�เปDน้ำประธาน้ำ แลิะน้ำาย้เมัตตาเปDน้ำรอง

ประธาน้ำ ( ปลิาย้ป? 46)

Government officials serve energy companies better than the Thai public?

100%

90%

67%

83%

Thank youwww.palangthai.org

Questions and discussion

http://www.palangthai.org/

Marginal Generation Costs (cont.)

• Capacity cost* 36 US$/kW/Year (1,290 Baht/kW/Year)

• Energy cost 2.36 US cents/kWh ( 0.85 Baht/kWh)• Total 2.89 US cents/kWh ( 1.04 Baht/kWh)

* Capacity cost is low because of capacity surplus

US$ 1 = Baht 36

Marginal Transmission Costs(PwC, Jan. 2000)

LRAIC results Per kW per year Per kWh in peak hours*

Baht US$ Baht US cents

Generator to exit 500:230kV 939 26.10 0.36 0.99

Exit 500:230kV to exit 230:115/69kV 747 20.75 0.28 0.79

Exit 230:115 kV to end-115kV lines 1,173 32.59 0.45 1.24

End 115kV lines to exit 115: MV 573 15.91 0.22 0.61

*Ratio of kWh sales to kW peak demand Energy sales (GWh) during system peak (0900-2200 Mon-Fri) 34,271 Demand at system peak (GW) 13 Ratio of kW to kWh 0.000380

หากไม้ปร�บแผนี PDP2007 เราจำะม้�ไฟฟ�าส�ารองล�นีเก&นีในีระบบ

ร�อยละข้องก�า ล�งการผล&ตส�า รองหากไ ม้ม้�การปร�บแผนีพ�ฒนีาก�า ล�งการผล&ตไ ฟฟ�า

-

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

45.00

50.00

Yea

r

2549

2550

2551

2552

2553

2554

2555

2556

2557

2558

2559

2560

2561

2562

2563

ป7

ReserveMargin

ภาระการลงท�นีสวนีเก&นี

400,000 ล�านีบาท

ท�มัา มั7ลิน้ำ�ธ�น้ำโย้บาย้สี+ขภัาวะ 2552

Levelized Cost of different options

Plant TypeCapacity Factor

(%)Levelized

Capital Cost Fixed O&MVariable O&M

(including fuel)Total Levelized

Generation Cost

Conventional Coal 85 64.5 3.7 23 91.2

Advanced Coal 85 75.6 5.2 19.3 100.1

Natural Gas-fired

- Conventional Combined Cycle 87 23 1.6 55.7 80.3

- Conventional Combustion Turbine 30 41.3 4.6 83.6 129.5

Advanced Nuclear 90 84.2 11.4 8.7 104.3

Wind 35.1 122.7 10.3 0 133

Solar PV 21.7 376.6 6.2 0 382.8

Solar Thermal 31.2 232.1 21.3 0 253.4

Geothermal 90 86 20.7 0 106.7

Biomass 83 71.7 8.9 23 103.6

Hydro 52 97.2 3.3 6.1 106.6

Source: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2009 (revised), April 2009, SR-OIAF/2009-03, eia.doe.gov

thailand’s power development plan (pdp)

Documents

reflective of cost

new demand use of avg

discentralized generation

t dexternality costs

powerful chinese energy

nonrenewable options

marginal costsunlevel

marginal costing