Energy workshop for
groups working on
Burma: Thai and
Burmese energy
sector
Chris & Chom Greacen
chom@palangthai.org
chris@palangthai.org
www.palangthai.org
topics
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Burmese energy sector (compiled by MEE NET)
Structure of Thai power sector
Centralized structure and its problems
Governance issues
Consumption patterns
PDP, load forecast, over-investment
Decentralized generation
Renewable energy (target, VSPP regulations)
Burma Power Sector
Infographic about Burma’s Power sector
Links
Decision Making Structure
Actors
Generation mix
Decision Making Structure
The electricity system is centralized and under the control and management of the
government and state enterprises.
Ministry of Electricity Power 2
Ministry of Electricity Power 1
Gas-fired Thermal power plant
Hydropower & Coal Fired power plants
Transmission & Distribution System
Link to See Structure
Link to See Structure
Dpt. of Hydropower
Planning
Dpt. of Hydropower
Implementation
Hydropower
Generation Enterprise
Dpt. Of Electric Power
Myanmar Electricity Power Enterprise
Generation,Transmission & Distribution
System
Electric Supply Enterprise
Yangon City Electricity Supply Board (YESB)
Ministry of Electricity Power established in 1997 and in 2006 was restructured and separated into 2 ministries:
Ministry of Electricity power 1 (MOEP-1) takes responsibilities for:
- Planning and Development of new hydropower plants and also operation and maintenance of hydropower stations and coal
fired power plants.
- Selling electricity to Ministry of Electricity power 2
Decision Making Structure
(Con’t)
•
Ministry of Electricity power 2 (MOEP-2) in charge of transmission and distribution of electricity
generated by Ministry of Electricity power 1
•
Myanmar Electric Power Enterprise (MEPE) is a State own enterprise established in 1997. It is an
implementing agency responsible for power generation, transmission and distribution throughout the
country.
- Thermal power plants: Operation and maintenance of Gas Turbine Power Stations and Combined Cycle
Power Plants
- Construction of Transmission, Distribution and substation
•
•
Yangon City Electricity Supply Board (YESB) was formed in 2005 and is tasked with approving businesses
to supply electricity in areas that cannot be fully supplied.
Other ministries and authorities involved with the energy is as follows:
• Ministry of Energy and Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise (MOGE) in charge of Oil and Gas management
• Ministry of Mines in charge of Coal business
• Ministry of Forestry is responsible for Biomass and Fuel Wood
• Ministry of Science and Technology is responsible for Renewable Energy
Actors in the Power Sector
Generation
Transmission
Distribution
Export to
India, China
MOPE-1
MEPE
Hydropower, Coal
Gas Turbine, CCPP
IPPs
Small
privates
MEPE & MOEP-2
MEPE
Small Privates
Domestic Customer
Transmission system is under the control of the MEPE and MOEP-2. They will finance, construct and
operate the transmission system. MEPE distributes electricity through the national grid to 5 states and
6 divisions. IPPs cannot own transmission lines. However, about private participation, private sector
has been allowed to cooperate with MOEP-1, MOEP-2 and MEPE in generation, distribution, sale and
service. IPPs can jointly invest with the ministries. Small generator enterprises can supply power to
consumers.
Generation Mix
Hydropower is the main fuel source in the
country. In 2008, electricity generated from
hydroelectricity was 60.83% of total generation.
Gas and steam power are the second ranked
fuel used.
Currently, there are the following power
projects:
-14 Hydropower stations
-10 gas turbine and thermal power plants
-1 Coal fired power station
Statistics from 2000-2008
Installed Capacity, Generation
Electricity Installed Capacity and Peak Demand
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
976
1008.5
1038.5
1038.5
1546.9
1546.9
1546.9
1571.9
1719.9
Peak Demand
721.1
692.5
701.2
708.3
864
966.4
995.7
1005
1061.2
Per capita electricity consumption
75.43
68.68
78.06
85.53
86.35
81.00
92.19
94.00
92.80
Installed Capacity
Source : Myanmar Ministry of Electricity
World Bank, World Development Indicators
From the figures, it is clear
that there is a gap between
installed capacity and highest
demand for electricity. This
can be due to a number of
factors including the low
efficiency of power plants in
generating power. Another
possible reason is that power
generated is also exported to
neighboring countries (peak
demand in the graph is only
an indicator for domestic
demand).
Installed Capacity
Electricity
Peak Generation
1800
Per capita electricity consumption
200.00
1600
180.00
1400
160.00
1200
140.00
1000
120.00
800
100.00
600
80.00
400
60.00
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Trans-Burma dual pipelines
construction begin soon
Dynamics of Electricity Sector
After Burma attained independence in 1948, the government established the Electricity Supply Board in 1951
and thus began the government’s monopoly on utilities (before that, some local business were able to generate
electricity).
In 1972, Electricity Supply Board was reorganized to become the ‘Electricity Power Corporation (EPC). The
Ministry of Energy was also formed in 1985 as was responsible for the oil and gas sectors as well as for
electricity generation and distribution.
Ultimately, on the 15th of November 1997, under the State Law and Order Restoration Council, the Ministry of
Electricity Power was established. The Myanmar Electric Power Enterprise (MEPE) was also formed at this time.
MEPE continues to serve as the State utility company while the the Ministry restructured into to two ministries,
the Ministry of Electricity Power (1) and (2). See Burma Power Sector
Steps towards Privatization
In late November 2005, to meet increasing demands from new satellite towns and industrial zones, the
government started to allow private agencies to supply electricity. Under the Yangon City Electricity Supply
Board Law, small businesses in Yangon can generate and sell power to consumers. However, once implemented
the government encountered protests from consumers who faced high costs from small generators fueled by an
expensive commodity, oil. In addition, generators and other suppliers also faced higher costs once they had to
conform to standards set by the government.
Though the government has allowed for private investments, the main generation plants and the entire
transmission system are still under the control of Burma’s government.
Burma Power Policy
Burma’s economic development strategies, especially in its energy sector are driven by centralized government
decision-making. The Burmese domestic energy market is influenced both by regional and international
investment flows from major regional states looking for energy resources.
Burma’s natural resource rich country including an abundance of gas and oil reserves and high hydropower
potential are being exploited. Investors from the region including Thailand, China, South Asian Countries, South
Korean, and the GMS countries are all involved in extractive industries within the country. In addition to reaping
high profits from these trade opportunities, the government is also using the investment ventures as useful tools
in its battle with minority ethnic groups who currently occupy large swathes of resource rich lands. In the name of
development, the government has been expelling the groups from construction sites and economic development
zones.
Though the Burmese government claims that energy sector development is vital for meeting the population’s
basic needs and overall development strategy, Burma’s electrification rate is very low, even after years of resource
exploitation. In 2008, 42.8 Million of Burma’s 58.82 million population lived without electricity. Or, according to
UN statistics, only 5% of all Burmese citizens have access to electricity even though the government’s stated goal
is to increase electrification rates to 60% by 2020.
During 2010-2020, Burma’s energy sector plans to continue oil and gas pipeline construction, oil and gas
extraction plans, hydroelectric power development, and transmission line construction both for domestic use and
for regional interconnection plans.
Links
Power Planning Subpage
Dynamics of Electricity Sector Subpage
Burma Power Planning
•
In order to achieve its economic and social development plans of 12% annual GDP Growth, Burma’s Fourth Short-Term Five-Year Plan
(2006/2007-2010/2011) was formulated to meet this stated target. One of power-related objectives in the five year plan is ‘To develop electric
power and energy sector to be in conformity with developing trend industries’.
In addition, specific Long-term Policy for the Energy Sector is as follows:
•
Sustainable use of natural resources to support the economic growth in a sustainable manner;
•
Efficient utilization of available energy resources;
•
Smooth and reliable energy supplies for building a modem agro industrial based nation;
•
A well balanced use of energy resources by the creation of an equal distribution of the share of various primary energy sources for conservation;
•
Promoting the development and utilization of all available renewable energy resources;
•
Creating an attractive base for further investment in energy and energy related ventures.
Regional policy and cooperation in infrastructure development in order to support investment and trade in the region results in the
Government’s plans for near term cross-country cooperation activities as follows:
•
Linked infrastructure including hydropower power plants, power lines, pipelines and supporting road networks
•
Shared infrastructure including road s, channels for navigations, bridges and etc.
•
Shared link or independent infrastructure for import and export of oil, gas petrochemicals and other related products
Myanmar Electric Power Enterprise (MEPE), a state-owned enterprise, has been distributing electricity generated by major hydropower and gas
turbine stations. The national grid supplies 94 % of the nation’s power needs while another 6% comes from off-grid isolated energy sources.
MEPE’s objectives for the country’s development is as follows:
•
Developing Hydropower for base load and gas turbine for peak load
•
In order to optimize the use of natural gas by gas turbine, combined cycle power plants are implemented
•
To expand the national grid
•
To revive the study of alternative production of electricity by using waste products including rice husks, etc. Using electricity by firing boilers to
generate electricity meeting local requirements instead of utilizing the main grid’s power is encouraged
•
To reduce loss of electricity incurred from transmission and distribution
•
In remote areas where electricity from hydropower through the national grid cannot be utilized, the generation and distribution of electricity
will be performed by diesel generating sets, wind and solar facilitates
Burma Power Planning (Con’t)
Power Development Plans and Transmission Interconnection Projects
According to its power demand forecast,
in 2030, Burma will have a peak demand of
7,334.82 MW (peak demand in 2008 was
1,061.2 MW).
During 2010-2020, several projects will be
Developed. At present, 19 hydroelectric power
projects are under construction. Furthermore,
18 cross border hydropower power projects
are currently being planned through investments by companies and/or state
owned enterprises from China, Thailand and India. If these projects are completed, their total installed
capacity will rise to 19,413 MW. Meanwhile, in 2009 Burma current installed capacity is only 2,255.9 MW.
Transmission system
To facilitate power transmission, during 2010-2020, the government plans to
construct 62 transmission lines throughout Burma in the near future (at present,
129 transmission lines are in operation )
Thailand Power Sector
Infographic about Thailand’s Power sector
Links
Decision Making Structure
Actors
Generation mix
Decision Making Structure
Thailand has Centralized Electricity Structure. Policy determination and planning
including system
operation are in hands of the government and the state owned enterprise; the Ministry of
Energy and the Electricity Generation Authority of Thailand (EGAT).
• EPPO and EGAT are responsible for electricity supply planning.
• DEDE is mainly responsible for alternative energy development
• ERC was established in 2009, as an independent authority, to regulate and ensure
efficiency and transparency of electricity management, review final draft PDP, license
Cabinet
to power producers
National Energy Policy Committee (NEPC)
Energy Regulatory Commission
(ERC)
Ministry of Energy
EGAT
PTT Public Co., Ltd. (State Enterprise)
Energy Policy and Planning Office (EPPO)
Dpt. of Alternative Energy Development
and Efficiency (DEDE)
Bangchak Petroleum Pub Co., Ltd.
(State Enterprise)
Energy Fund Administration
Institute (EFAI) (Public Organization)
Dpt. of Energy Business
Dpt. of Mineral Fuels
Actors in Power Sector
SPPs
Power Purchaser,
System Operation,
and Transmission
IPPs
EGAT Power Plants
R
E
EGAT
Power Purchase
System Operation
Transmission
Bulk Power Supply
G
U
L
A
Distribution/
Retail Supply
PEA
MEA
T
O
End Users
End Users
VSPP
R
Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC)
Generation
Direct
Customers
Under Thailand ‘Enhanced Single Buyer Structure’, all producers have to sell electricity to EGAT that holds a
monopoly over the transmission system. EGAT then sells power to MEA and PEA for distribution to
consumers. Only a small amount of consumers directly purchase electricity rom EGAT/ IPPs/ SPPs, most of
them are industries. In addition, ERC serves as a regulator in the system.
Generation Mix
Thailand uses natural gas as its major fuel to generate electricity, 72.5% in 2009. Lignite and
coal are used 11% and 8.4% respectively.
Power Generation as of Fuel
Dec 2009
Hydropower,
4.70%
Heavy Fuel Oil ,
0.30%
Import
Laos, 1.6%
Litnite, 11.00%
Import Malaysia,
0.10%
Diesel, 0.02%
Coal, 8.40%
Renewable
Energy, 1.40%
Natural Gas,
72.50%
Installed generating capacity from April until August in 2010 reached 30,160.01 MW. In 2009, the installed
capacity was 29,212.01 MW.
Share of Power Generation by Fuel Type January to October 2010
The accumulated power generation from January to October is 134,978.22 GWh.
At the end of 2008, the generation reached 148,231.16. Meanwhile, in 2009, the total generation was
145,214.62 GWh which represents a decrease between 2008 and 2009 of 2.04%.
Peak Demand of 2010 happened in May, at 24,009.9 MW whereas in 2008 and 2009 peak demands were
22,045 MW and 22,568.9 MW respectively.
Thailand Power Policy
Overview
Thailand’s power policy is driven by two key factors: continued economic growth driven by the industrial
sector and energy sector financiers as well as ambitious plans to be the energy leader in the region.
Thailand’s stated goal of being the “Hub of the ASEAN Grid” is at the core of its energy investments.
Thailand’s centralized power planning structure emphasizes increasing energy supplies to meet expected
demands. These needs can only be met through continued investments in large scale power projects both
domestically as well as in neighboring countries. Power planning also includes expectations that the
regional transmission network will be realized allowing for both exports and imports of electricity with
neighboring countries.
International concern about climate change is also playing a role in Thailand’s power development plans.
By pledging to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the energy sector by 30% by 2020, Thailand is
planning on increased investments in nuclear power projects, hydropower projects and the promotion of
Clean Development Mechanism projects.
Meanwhile, renewable energy development, Energy Efficiency and Demand-side management (DSM) are
not adequately being promoted by the government.
Links
Power Planning
History of Electricity Reform
Power Planning Sub page
The centralized government planning process and the National Economic and Social Development Plan in addition to regional
development and power development plans are crucial in Thailand’s power sector planning.
The National Economic and Social Development Plan such as Southern and Eastern Seaboard Development Projects, which
are focused on heavy industries utilize large amounts of energy consumption and require infrastructure development that
includes huge power plants. been
Moreover, current ‘Framework of Thailand’s Power Strategies’ have also been devised by the government, Ministry of Energy
and
state-owned enterprise Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) to include the following:
•
Maintaining energy stability and security: supplying sufficient energy to meet demand, promoting public participation
especially in national power planning process, preparing readiness for gas supplied emergency
•
Regulating energy businesses
•
Strengthening energy utilities and authorities
•
Promoting generation and supply of alternative energy
•
Reducing energy use and lower greenhouse gas emission
Power Development Plan (PDP)
Diesel
PDP 2010 : GDP (Base Case)
Renewable Energy
Heavy Fuel Oil
Thus far, Thailand electricity sector propelled by
Import
PDP 2010 (2010-2030) ลิง้ ค์ไปที่ PDP 2010,
Natural Gas
the latest 20 year PDP approved in early
Imported Coal
2010. It has been formulated according to
Lignite
Nuclear
the Ministry of Energy’s framework with specific
Hydro
investment and projects as illustrated
In the figure on Installed Capacity classified by
Fuel Type for 2010-2030. Combined-cycle gas
power plants are main source, followed by
power purchase from Laos and coal fired power plants.
Importantly, the Ministry of Energy is adamant to
construct nuclear power plants
Even while opposition exists from local people living
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
around the proposed sites. Renewable energy will
be account for 7-8% of the generation during the ext 20 years. throughout 20 years.
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 203 0
Power Planning Sub page
(Con’t)
Arguments made during PDP 2010:
•
Thailand’s civil society criticized the 2010 PDP approval process due to lack of transparency and genuine public
participation. The national plan was approved by National Energy Policy Council during the chaotic political
situation that occurred in April in Thailand.
•
It is the first PDP covering a 20 year period (Previous plans last 5 years and 15 years). Therefore, long-term
demand forecast and investment planning will be less accurate and err from the reality.
•
Notably, even though Thailand’s PDP noted an aspiration to harmonize its renewable energy component with its
Link to 15-year Alternative Energy Development Plan (AEDP), for 2008-2022, developed by Department of
Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency under Ministry of Energy, this is not reflected in the official PDP.
According to the AEDP, generation capacity from AEDP is to reach 5,608 MW, however the official PDP only
includes plans to increase generation capacity from renewable energy sources to 4,049.5 MW
•
Unenthusiastic promotion on renewable energy such as decreasing adders (money support per unit) for solar
power and excuse that limitations on the transmission system to support electricity from any renewable energy
sources for the national grid
•
EGAT has tried to preserve major shares in the generation market by determining that EGAT’s proportion in new
power plants must be at least 50%
Process of PDP development and approval:
•
EGAT draft and propose to Ministry of Energy and Energy Regulatory Commission to review
•
Approval process by National Energy Policy Committee (NEPC) comprised of Ministers, representatives from the
National Economic and Social Development Board while the Prime Minister serves as Chairman.
•
PDP will be proposed to the Cabinet as a final step
In addition to PDP and AEDP, the government had just conducted a preliminary study of a 20 year energysaving plan, which aims to review potential of all sectors in reducing energy demand by 25 % by 2030.
LINKS
Articles
History of Electricity Reform
Subpage
Thailand’s initial centralized economic and social planning saw electricity projects as basic investments
providing Thai citizen’s with basic infrastructure to improve their livelihoods and to to drive economic
growth. Mega projects including generation stations, hydropower, coal fired power projects and
transmission system were constructed gradually.
State Control
The government decided that the most efficient model for managing the power sector was to establish its
own state owned enterprise. This led in 1968, to the consolidation of regional state owned generating
companies into a central national electricity termed the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
(EGAT). The distribution networks, Metropolitan Electricity Authority (MEA) and Provincial Electricity
Authority (PEA) were respectively set up in 1958 and 1960. MEA became responsible for power
distribution in Bangkok and neighboring provinces while PEA was responsible for power distribution in
the remaining provinces. By the end of the 1960s, the power system was centralized under EGAT
and the two distribution companies.
Privates allowed to generation
In 1992, Independent Private Power Producers (IPPs) were allowed into the system through long term
concessions operative power plants in accordance with Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) with
EGAT. EGAT continued to hold sole control over the transmission system operation. At the same
time, the Thai government also launched a Small Power Producers (SPPs) program to promote the
use of clean efficient energy or the use of renewable energy sources for domestic use. However, the
plan was also criticized for the overwhelming preference for large industrial producers (who received
SPP licenses) over smaller power producers including rural cooperatives, municipalities, hospitals.
The first step of privatization was completed with the relaxation of power tariffs. At that time the National
Energy Policy Office (under the Ministry of Energy today) believed that marketizing the power tariff
would lead to lower tariffs over time. However, the marketization of power tariffs led to a rapid
increase due to rising oil and gas prices at the same time.
History of Electricity Reform
Subpage (Con’t)
‘Privatization without Extensive Liberalization’
In 2000, the second step of privatization involving the introduction of the power pool model along
with the unbundling of the generation, transmission and distribution systems was introduced.
These were in preparation for complete market competition in the power market by 2003.
However, with such attempt, it was However, the attempt at privatization was not a success. Many
arguments were raised by parties including academics and consumers that it was too risky to allow for a
market mechanism to control prices, regulatory body, etc. Two other options were proposed introduced,
EGAT proposed a Third Party Access Model which allows consumers to independently choose suppliers
while Academics proposed Single Buyer Model which allows for public ownership of distribution and
even transmission.
Later, EGAT proposed a different model moving from ‘private sector participation competition to achieve
efficiency’ to one that allows for ‘national efficiency and competitiveness and secure regional leadership”
and ‘To build strong national champions in the energy sector’. Within this model, EGAT would need
remain a large major player in order to compete against multinational energy companies in the region.
‘National Champion’ and Enhanced Single Buyer (ESB) in the present model
Under this proposed model EGAT can be the National Champion and maintain its monopoly position. This
model
is different from a single buyer in which private entities have to compete with EGAT in generation but EGAT
retains a
monopoly on the transmission system and a majority of generation.
EGAT had plans to reform itself into a private company, listing itself on the stock market to raise capital and
expand in
the region. However, this plan finally failed in 2006.
LINKS
Structure and Overview of
Thai Power Sector
... Steps involved to deliver
electricity to end-users
Fuel
procurement
Power
Transmission Distribution
Generation
Retail, Meter
Reading,
Billing &
settlement
Structure of Thai power sector
Generation
(% share)
SPPs
(7%)
(50%)
IPPs
(41%)
Import
(2%)
VSPPs
(<<1%)
Govt.
EGAT (100%)
SO
Transmission
Distribution
EGAT
PEA
(67%)
MEA
(31%)
Users
Users
Direct Customers
(2%)
Remarks: - Figure of % Share in 2008
- ERC = Energy Regulatory Commission
ทีม
่ า: EPPO Aug 2009
ERC
Power generation (May 2009)
Generation by fuel type
Generation by sources
IPP 12,151 MW
(43%)
Coal &
Lignite,
21%
EGAT,
13,615 MW
(48%)
Hydro, Import &
Oil,
Others,
6%
0.1%
3%
SPP 2,073 MW
(7%)
Import & Exchange
640 MW (2%)
Total: 28,482 MW
ทีม
่ า: EPPO Aug 2009
Natural Gas,
70%
Power Supply Management
 Review the Power Development Plan (PDP) every 6 months
to be in line with the changing demand situation
 Maintain the reserve margin to be no less than 15%
 Diversify fuel types in power generation:
 Give importance to SPPs and VSPPs
using renewable energy as fuel
 Study the feasibility of nuclear power generation.
 Promote Clean Coal Technology for coal-fired power
generation
 International cooperation in power development projects:
 Power purchase from LPDR, Myanmar, China,
Cambodia and Malaysia
ทีม
่ า: EPPO Aug 2009
Overview of Electricity Generating Capacity
PDP 2007 (Revision 2: @ Mar09)
• Installed capacity as at Dec 2008
29,140
MW
• Total increased capacity (2009-2021)
30,155
MW
• Decommissioned plants
-7,502
MW
• Total generating capacity up to 2021
51,792
MW
 2009 - 2015
12,605 MW
 2016 - 2021
17,550 MW
Comparison of New Generating Capacity by Source of Supply (in MW)
PDP 2007
Revision 1
Year
PDP 2007
Revision 2
EGAT
IPP
SPP
Purchase
from
Abroad
2009 - 2015
4,615
4,400
1,193
5,473
3,769
4,400
1,985
264
2,187
-
2016 - 2021
8,900
1,400
575
8,690
8,000
1,600
-
300
2,850
4,800
13,515
5,800
1,768
14,163
11,769
6,000
1,985
564
5,037
4,800
Total Increased
Capacity
35,246
Difference of New Capacity
when compared with PDP 2007 (Revision 1)
EGAT
IPP
SPP
Purchase
VSPP
from
Abroad
New
Projects
30,155
- 5,091
ทีม
่ า: EPPO Aug 2009
IPPs: 1st IPP Solicitation in 1994
7 Selected IPPs with PPA Signed
IPP Plant
Location
Fuel
Gen.
Capacity
(MW)
IPT
Aow Pay,
Chonburi
Natural Gas
700
15 Aug 2000
TECO
Ratchaburi
Natural Gas
700
1 Jul 2000
Ratchburi
Power
Ratchaburi
Natural Gas
1,400
Unit 1: 1 Mar 2008
Unit 2: 1 Jun 2008
COD
Unit 1: 1 Mar 2007
Gulf
Power
Khaeng Koi,
Saraburi
Natural Gas
BLCP
Pluakdaeng,
Rayong
Coal
1,346.5
Unit 1: 13 Aug 2006
Unit 2: 14 Nov 2006
Bowin, Chonburi
Natural Gas
713
31 Jan 2003
Klong Mai,
Samut Prakarn
Natural Gas
350
25 Mar 2003
Glow IPP
EPEC
Total
1,468
6,677.5
Unit 2: 1 Mar 2008
ทีม
่ า: EPPO Aug 2009
IPPs: 2nd IPP Solicitation in 2007
4 Selected IPPs with PPA Signed
IPP Plant
Project’s Shareholder
Fuel
Type
Capacity
(MW)
Location
SCOD
GHECOOne
GLOW IPP2: 65%
Hemaraj: 35%
Coal
660
Rayong
Nov 2011
National
Power
Supply
(NPS)
NPS: 99.99%
6 Thai Individuals: 0.01%
Coal
540
Chachoeng
sao
Nov 2012/
Mar 2013
Siam
Energy
Gulf JP: 99.94%
6 Thai Individuals: 0.06%
Gas
1,600
Chachoeng
sao
Mar 2012/
Sep 2012
Power
Generation
Supply
Gulf JP: 99.94%
Individual Investors:
0.06%
Gas
1,600
Saraburi
Jun 2014/
Dec 2014
Total
4,400
Remarks:
7 Dec 07: NEPC approved the next IPP Solicitation for power procurement during 2016-2018.
ทีม
่ า: EPPO Aug 2009
Promotion of SPP/VSPP Power Generation
Small Power Producer (SPP)/ Very Small Power Producer (VSPP):


A generator of a private entity, state agency, state-owned enterprise, using
cogeneration system or renewable energy, agricultural waste or residues,
residues from agricultural or industrial production processes to produce
electricity.
SPP  Sale of electricity to the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
(EGAT), is >10 MW up to 90 MW.
 Firm contract: 20-25 years
 Non-firm contract: 5 years and renewed automatically

VSPP  Sale of electricity to the Distribution Utility, i.e.
Metropolitan Electricity Authority (MEA) and
Provincial Electricity Authority (PEA), is no more than 10 MW.
ทีม
่ า: EPPO Aug 2009
Fuel Diversification in Power Generation
Share of Power Generation
by Fuel Type (@ May 2009)
Coal &
Lignite,
21%
Oil,
0.1%
Hydro, Import &
Others,
6%
3%
- Currently, Thailand’s power generation
depends heavily on natural gas as fuel.
- Efforts are being made to boost greater
use of renewable energy as fuel.
Natural Gas,
70%
Status of Power Generation from Renewable Energy and Potential & Target in 2011
Biomass
Existing 1,610 MW
Target
2,800 MW
Potential 4,400 MW
Wind
- Sugarcane industry, etc.
- Biomass power plants
- Community power plants
Existing
46 MW
Target
60 MW
Potential 190 MW
Biogas
Biogas from livestock farms
and agro, palm industry
(Data as at Jan2009)
Existing
1 MW
Target
115 MW
Potential 1,600 MW
Hydro
- Mini Hydro and Micro
Hydro
- Wind farm in southern
Thailand
Solar PV
Existing
32 MW
Target
55 MW
Potential 50,000 MW
- Urban areas
- Solar homes
- His Majesty’s projects
- 0.1% of installation areas
Existing
56 MW
Target
165 MW
Potential 700 MW
MSW
Existing
5 MW
Target
78 MW
Potential 400 MW
- Bangkok 9,000 tons/day
- Municipality 6,300 tons/day
- Industry 1,000 tons/day
ทีม
่ า: EPPO Aug 2009
Power Purchase from Neighboring Countries
• Thailand has cooperated in hydropower development
with neighboring countries, on a bilateral basis.
• MOUs on power purchase have been signed with
Laos, China and Myanmar, with a total power
purchase of 11,500 MW.
MOUs on Power Purchase Signed
Country
Signing Date
Purchase Cap.
(MW)
Within
Year
LPDR
22 Dec 2007
7,000
2015
Myanmar
14 Jul 1997
1,500
2010
PR China
12 Nov 1998
3,000
2017
• Imported power being supplied to Thailand’s Grid:
 LPDR 313 MW
 Malaysia 300 MW [High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC)]
ทีม
่ า: EPPO Aug 2009
Power Purchase from LPDR
Project
Sale to Thailand (MW)
COD
187
126
313
31 Mar 1998
3 Sep 1999
1) Currently supplying power to Thailand
1.1 Nam Theun-Hinboun
1.2 Houay Hoa
Sub-total
2) PPA signed but not yet supplied power to Thailand
2.1 Nam Theun 2
920
Dec 2009
2.2 Nam Ngum 2
2.3 Theun-Hinboun Expansion
615
220
Mar 2011
Mar 2012
Sub-total
1,755
3) Tariff MOU signed
1,473
3.1 Hongsa Lignite
Status as at Jun09.
ทีม
่ า: EPPO Aug 2009
Sub-total
1,473
GRAND TOTAL
3,541
2013
Power Purchase from Myanmar
• 14 Jul 1997: MOU on Power Purchase
from Myanmar (~1,500 MW by 2010).
• 30 Nov 2005: MOU on Cooperation in
the Development of Power Projects on
Thanlwin and Tanintharyi Rivers.
Tasang
7,000 MW
• Initially, Myanmar has proposed
2 power projects on Thanlwin River:
(Other potential projects:
Upper/Lower Thanlwin ,
4,000 +500 MW)
(1) Hutgyi hydropower project,
1,200 MW
Hutgyi
1,200 MW
(2) Tasang hydropower project,
7,000 MW
Also, Tariff MOU signed for Mai Khot
coal-fired power project (369MW)
ทีม
่ า: EPPO Aug 2009
(Tanintharyi
600 MW)
Power Purchase from Cambodia
Feasibility study is being conducted on 2 potential projects:
 Strung Nam Hydropower Project
 Koh Kong Coal-fired Power Project
120 MW
3,660 MW
Power Purchase from Malaysia
Thailand (EGAT) and Malaysia (TNB) have had power trade
between each other since 1980, starting with 80 MW.
 Current trade: 300 MW via HVDC (High Voltage Direct
Current) system.
ทีม
่ า: EPPO Aug 2009
(17 November 2007)
NPIEP Milestones for Nuclear Power Program Implementation
NPI:
Nuclear Power Infrastructure
NPIEP: NPI Establishment Plan
NPPDO: Nuclear Power Program
Development Office
NPP:
Nuclear Power Plant
NRB:
Nuclear Regulatory Body
1st Milestone
2nd Milestone
3rd Milestone

MS 2 : Call for Bids

MS 3: Start Operation
MS 0.1
MS 0.2

MS 1: Policy Decision





Nuclear power
option included
in PDP2007
To prepare for
policy decision
Knowledgeable
Commitment
Financial
Commitments
Commissioning 1st
NPP

Phase 0.1:
Preliminary
Phase
- NPIPC & 7 Subcommittees
appointed
- Issues &
Milestones
considered
- NPIEP prepared
Phase 1:
Pre-project
Activity Phase
Phase 2: Program
Implementation
Phase
- approve NPIEP
- set up NPPDO
- infrastructure work
started
- survey of potential
sites
- feasibility study
completed
- public information &
participation
- implement NPIEP
with Milestones
- full NRB established
- legislation &
international protocols
enacted
- suitable sites for bid
selected
- technology/qualified
suppliers selected
- prepare to call bids
3 years
1 year
2007
GO NUCLEAR
2008
Phase 3:
Construction Phase
Phase 4:
Operation Phase
- NPIEP fully implemented
- bidding process
completed
- design & engineering
- manufacturing
- construction & installation
- test runs & inspection
- NPP commissioning
license
-
3 years
2011


commercial operation
O&M
planning for expansion
industrial and
technology
development plan
6 years
2014
2020
ทีม
่ า: EPPO Aug 2009
Centralized structure
Centralized structure of electricity
• Conflicts are a result of centralized structure of
control
– Loss of livelihood/health/forests for local people for
the benefits of others, mainly urban commercial and
industrial interests
• Centralized grid: in many cases, makes
economic and technical sense, however…
• Control of a central grid need not be
monopolized by one group
– Structure of control determined by Cold War politics,
not technical superiority
Problems with centralized control (1)
• Separation of consumption and production leads
to inefficient consumption
– “Out of sight, out of mind”
– Ratio of Power demand growth to GDP growth = 1.4
• Perverse incentives to exclude customer-owned
generation
– The more to invest, the more to profit.
– Small-scale, renewable generators lack access
– Energy conservation measures are viewed as a threat
to EGAT’s profits.
Centralized & decentralized generation
Cogeneration
Gasifier
Centralized & decentralized generation
Cogeneration
Gasifier
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 process
DSM/EE, RE, Distributed generation not considered as supply options
Centralized energy is also more costly
Decentralized generation brings down costs
Thailand
Ireland – retail costs for new capacity
to 2021
8 .0 0
7 .0 0
6 .0 0
E u r o C e n ts / K W h
PDP 2007 requires 2
trillion baht to
implement,
comprising:
million B
• generation 1,482,000
• transmission
595,000
5 .0 0
4 .0 0
3 .0 0
2 .0 0
1 .0 0
0 .0 0
Transmission adds
40% to generation
costs
1 0 0 % C e n t ra l / 0 % D E
75%
/ 25%
50% / 50%
25% / 75%
0 % C e n t ra l / 1 0 0 % D E
% D E o f T o t a l G e n e r a t io n
O & M o f N e w C a p a c it y
Fuel
C a p it a l A m o r iz a t io n + P r o f it O n N e w C a p a c it y
T & D A m o r iz a t io n o n N e w T & D
Source: World Alliance for Decentralized Energy, April 2005
Centralized generation wastes a lot of energy
(~70% of heat value is lost & adds to climate change problem)
Total at end of 2007
Hydro
28,530.3 MW
import
Combined cycle
13,540 MW
47.5 %
Hydro
3,424.2 MW
12.0 %
Thermal
9,666.6 MW
33.9 %
1.2 %
Import from
Malaysia
1.0 %
Gas turbines, diesel
971.4 MW
3.4 %
Installed capacity
by types of
generation in
2007
Renewables
288.1 MW
1.0 %
Loss in conversion process
61%
Station use (in power plants)
1%
Loss in transmission
3%
Loss in distribution
Useful electricity to end-users
5-8%
<30%
Problems with centralized control (2)
• Lack of accountability, transparency,
participation in centralized planning processes
– Political decisions masked in technical language
– “Big is beautiful”, fossil fuels dominate
– Social and environmental concerns are ignored
• “Cost plus” incentive structure
– passes risks to consumers
– “Overcapacity worth 400 billion Baht” (from total assets
of 700 billion Baht and annual turnover of 240 billion Baht)
– Prime Minister Thaksin Shinwatra
Governance issues
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)
3-No v -06
In d e x
S E T in d ex
E n erg y - to tal
E n erg y - P D P -related
E n erg y- P T T -related *
E n erg y - P D P /P T T -related
E n erg y-n o n -P D P /P T T
N o n -en erg y S E T in d ex
732.3
Ma rke t C a p .
(M B a h t)
2-No v -07
In d e x
S h are valu e
Ma rke t C a p .
in crease in 1
(M B a h t)
year (% )
6,902,455
22.1%
1,549,720
1,189,947
1,178,612
1,379,886
25,212
2,416,915
1,975,093
1,946,230
2,259,729
22,126
55.4 %
66.0 %
65.1 %
63.8 %
-13.2 %
3,849,255
4,485,540
8.7%
5,398,975
894.34
* "PT T -related" = PT T having m o re than 2 5 % shares (vo ting rights) in the co m pany
Change in energy companie’s share prices within 1 yr
S e c u rity
B u s in e s s
C lo s e
M arket C ap .
C lo s e
M arket C ap .
P ric e
3 /11/2006
3/11/2006
P ric e
2 /11/2007
2/11/2007
R elated to P D P
BANPU
LA N N A
PTT
PTTEP
EGCO
RATCH
G LO W
U n related
coal
coal
gas
gas-P T T subsidiary
pow er
pow er
pow er
to P D P
RRC
oil-refine P T T subsidiary
BCP
oil-refine/retail P T T subsidiary
TOP
oil-refine P T T subsidiary
RPC
oil-refine/retail
SUSCO
oil-retail
AI
other-insulator
BAFS
other-plane fuel
AKR
other- P V transform er
EASTW
other-w ater
P IC N I
LP G -retail
S O LA R
other- P V
U n co m p arab le
TPI
IR P C
MDX
STRD
SCG
oil-refine
oil-refine P T T subsidiary
pow er
other
pow er-S P P
161
11 .9
226
108
89 .5
42 .75
30 .25
(M B a h t)
1,189,947
43 ,751
4 ,165
633 ,840
354 ,833
47 ,119
61 ,988
44 ,252
(M B a h t)
1,975,093
428
20.6
404
159
119
52
35.5
215,152
19 .2
9 .35
61
4 .46
0 .48
9 .5
11 .2
2 .62
5 .6
0 .38
7 .3
55 ,035
10 ,464
124 ,442
2 ,332
571
4 ,750
4 ,760
2 ,070
7 ,415
1 ,123
2 ,190
7 .2
140 ,400
3 .92
298
180
3 ,744
116 ,308
7 ,210
1,137,525
524 ,070
62 ,649
75 ,400
51 ,932
306,762
25.75
14.3
95.5
3 .96
0 .45
7.1
11.1
2 .16
5
0 .29
2 .86
6.6
4.3
-
73 ,809
16 ,004
194 ,823
2 ,084
536
3 ,550
5 ,661
1 ,707
6 ,874
857
858
128 ,700
2,045
132
4,183
Mkt c a p
P ric e c h a n g e
c hange
%
(M B a h t)
66.0 %
165.8%
73.1%
78.8%
47.2%
33.0%
21.6%
17.4%
41.7 %
72,557
3,045
503,685
169,237
15,531
13,413
7,680
34.1%
52.9%
56.6%
-11.2%
-6.2%
-25.3%
-0.9%
-17.6%
-10.7%
-23.7%
-60.8%
18,775
5,540
70,381
248
36
1,200
901
363
541
266
1,332
-
Conflict of interest : policy v business
ช ื่ อ
น าย พ รชั ย รุ จ ิ ป ระภ า
ตำ แ ห น่ ง
ป ลั ด ก ระท รวง พ ลั ง ง าน
Permanent secretary
of ministry of energy
Board of directors
ก ร ร ม ก ำร บ ริษ ั ท
ปChairman
ระธ าน ก รรม
าร บ ม จ . ป ต ท .^
ofกPTT
ปDirector
ระธ าน กgeneral,Energy
รรม
าร ก ฟ ผ .^fuel
Chairman
ofกEGAT
Board
member
ก รรม ก าร ป ต ท . of
เค PTT
มิ ค อ chemical
ล
Chairman
of
Rayong
refinery
ป ระธ าน ก รรม ก าร บ ม จ . โ รง ก ลั่ น น้ า มั น ระย อ ง ^
oil
กBoard
รรก าร member
บ ม จ . ไทofยThai
อ อ ย ล์
ผ ล ต อ บ แ ท น ปี 2549
219,863.01 *
37500 (เฉ พ าะเบี้ ย ป ระชุ ม )
865,560
ยั ง ไม่ ม ี ข อ
้ มู ล
85,000 ***
น าย ณ อ คุ ณ ส ิ ท ธิ พ ง ศ ์
รอDep.
ง ป ลัpermanent
ด ก ระท รวง secretary
พ ลั ง ง าน
น าย คุ รุ จ ิ ต น าค รท รรพ
น าย ไก รฤ ท ธิ์ นิ ล คู ห า
น าย เม ต ต า บั น เทิ ง สุ ข
member
ofลิRATCH
secretary
รอDep.
ง ป ลั permanent
ด ก ระท รวง พ
ลั ง ง าน
กBoard
รรม ก าร
บมจ. ผ
ต ไฟ ฟ้ าราช บุ ร ี โ ฮ ล ดิ้ ง ^
member
ofตPTTEP
อ ธิDep.
บ ดี กpermanent
รม เช ื้ อ เพ ลิsecretary
ง ธ รรม ช าติ กBoard
รรม ก าร
บมจ. ป
ท .ส ผ .
อ ธิ บ ดี ก general
รม ธุ ร กิ จofพenergy
ลั ง ง านbusiness ก Board
รรม ก ารmember
บ ม จ . ปofตPTT
ท.
Director
น าย พ านิ ช พ ง ศ ์ พ ิ โ รด ม
of
อDirector
ธิ บ ดี พgeneral
ั ฒ น าพofลัDepartment
ง ง าน
Alternative Energy Development and Board member of RATCH
ท
ด แ ท น แenergy
ล ะอ นุ รั ก ษ์ พ ลั ง ง าน ก รรม ก าร บ ม จ . ผ ลิ ต ไฟ ฟ้ าราช บุ ร ี โ ฮ ล ดิ้ ง
Efficiency
368,000 **** (~ 2,000,000
ห าก ค รบ ปี )
น าย วี ร ะพ ล จิ ร ป ระดิ ษ ฐ์ กุ ล
ผูDirector
อ
้ า น วยofก Energy
ารสา นั Policy
ก ง าน
and
Planning
official
น โ ย บ าย แ ล ะแ ผ น พ ลั ง ง าน
ก Board
รรม ก ารmember
บ ม จ . ปofตPTTEP
ท .ส ผ .^
ยั ง ไม่ ม ี ข อ
้ มู ล (~ 2 ,000,000
ห าก ค รบ ปี )
member
ofะโ
Aromatics
กBoard
รรม ก าร
บมจ. อ
รเม ติ ก ส ์ ^PLC
ยั ง ไม่ ม ี ข อ
้ มู ล (~ 2 ,000,000
ห าก ค รบ ปี )
น าย สุ ช าติ จั น ล าวง ศ ์
น าย น เรศ สั ต ย ารั ก ษ์
น าย พี ระพ ล ส าค ริ น ท ร์
of กministry
หัSenior
วห น ้า ผูofficial
ต
้ รวจ ราช
าร
of
energy
ก ระท รวง พ ลั ง ง าน
official
ministry
ผูSenior
ต
้ รวจ ราช
ก ารกof
ระท
รวง
of
energy
พ ลั ง ง าน
Senior
official
of ministry
ผู ต
้ รวจ
ราช ก ารก
ระท รวง
of energyพ ลั ง ง าน
ที่ ม า : ราย ง าน ป ระจา ปี 2549
* ดา รง ตา แ ห น่ ง ก รรม ก าร 31 วั น
** ดา รง ตา แ ห น่ ง ค รบ 12 เดื อ น
member
chak
กBoard
รรม ก าร
บ ม จ .ofบ Bang
าง จ าก
Board member of RATCH
member
Ratchaburi
generation
กBoard
รรม ก าร
บ ม จ . of
ผ ลิ
ต ไฟ ฟ้ าราช
บุ ร ี โ ฮ ล ดิ้ ง ^
company
ก รรม ก าร บ จ . ผ ลิ ต ไฟ ฟ้ าราช บุ ร ี
^ เริ่ ม ดา รง ตา แ ห น่ ง ช ่ ว ง รม ต .พ น . ปิ ยส วั ส ดิ์
*** ดา รง ตา แ ห น่ ง ก รรม ก าร 10 วั น
**** ดา รง ตา แ ห น่ ง ก รรม ก าร 8 เดื อ น
ยั ง ไม่ ม ี ข อ
้ มู ล (1 ,600,000
ห าก ค รบ ปี )
2,289,344
2,640,000
360,000
ยั ง ไม่ ม ี ข อ
้ มู ล (1 ,600,000
ห าก ค รบ ปี )
ไม่ ม ี ข อ
้ มู ล
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*
Permanent
secretary
Director of
EPPO
Attendance of
Automatic tariff (Ft)
mechanism mtgs**
13/13 100%
4/6
67%
8/9
90%
5/6
83%
*จากรายงานประจาปี บมจ. ปตท. ปี 2546
**ตั้งแต่มีการปรับองค์ประกอบคณะอนุกรรมการ Ft โดยแต่งตั้งให้นายเชิดพงษ์เป็ นประธาน และนายเมตตาเป็ นรองประธาน (ปลายปี 46)
Government officials serve energy companies
better than the Thai public?
Structure reform of power sector
proposed by Thai civil society
รัฐ/เอกชน
กฟผ. (โรงไฟฟ้ำพล ังควำมร้อน)
~ 15,000 MW
องค์
กร
กำ
ก ับ
ดู
แล
อิสระ
่
ระบบสง
ศูนย์ควบคุมระบบ
เขือ
่ น
กำรไฟฟ้ำฝ่ำยจำหน่ำย (กฟน./กฟภ.)
ระบบจำหน่ำย
ควำมต้องกำรที่
้ (บ้ำน/
เพิม
่ ขึน
รำยเล็ก/อืน
่ ๆ)
โรงไฟฟ้ำใหม่
ไฟฟ้ำพล ังงำน
หมุนเวียน /
ชุมชนท้องถิน
่ /
รำยย่อย/
cogen
่
กำรไฟฟ้ำฝ่ำยระบบสง
รัฐ
รัฐ
ั
ื้ ขำยไฟฟ้ำ
สญญำซ
อ
(IPP/Egco/Ratch/SPP)
~ 10,000 MW
จ ัดหำ/ค้ำปลีกไฟฟ้ำ *
ควำมต้องกำรใชไ้ ฟฟ้ำในปัจจุบ ัน
~ 19,000 MW
ควำมต้องกำรที่
้ (รำย
เพิม
่ ขึน
ใหญ่)
ิ ธิในการจัดการและจัดหาไฟฟ้ าได ้เอง
* ในกรณีชม
ุ ชน/องค์กรท ้องถิน
่ มีความพร ้อมและความสนใจ ให ้สามารถใชส้ ท
ิ ธิในการจัดหา
โดย กฟน./กฟภ. ทาหน ้าทีเ่ ป็ นเพียงผู ้ให ้บริการระบบสายจาหน่าย แต่ไม่ผก
ู ขาดสท
Consumption patterns
Electrical consumption by sector in
2007 Others
5%
Industrial
49%
Residential
21%
Commercial
25%
้ ล ังงำนไฟฟ้ำแยกตำมประเภทผูใ้ ช ้
กำรใชพ
ที่มา กฟผ.
133,132
GWh
้
การกระจายตัวของการใชไฟฟ้
าแยกตามพืน
้ ที่
Distribution of electricity consumption by region
South
North
เหนือ
8.11%
ใต้
7.84%
Northeast อืสาน
8.92%
Central
ภาคกลาง
75.14%
Source: Figure 19, Statistical Report Fiscal Year 2003 Power Forecast and Statistics Analysis Department System Control
and Operation Division. Report No. SOD-FSSR-0404-05
Comparison of electricity consumption of three big
malls vs. 16 provinces
Siam Paragon
GWh
123
MBK
81
278
GWh
Central World
75
ทีม
่ า: การไฟฟ้ านครหลวง 2549
แ ม่ ฮ่ อ ง ส อ น
อา น าจ เจ ริ ญ
มุ ก ด าห าร
ห น อ ง บั วลา ภู
น่ าน
ยโส ธร
อุ ทั ย ธ านี
พ ะเย า
มุ ก ด าห าร
ส ตู ล
ส มุ ท รส ง ค ราม
เล ย
แ พ ร่
พั ท ลุ ง
น ราธิ ว าส
ระน อ ง
65
110
128
148
175
188
193
211
219
230
237
246
254
258
278
278
้
ทีม
่ า: พพ. รายงานการใชไฟฟ้
า ปี 2549
Siam Paragon
Electricity production
and consumption
(GWh)
123
1700 families
relocated
MBK
81
Loss of 116
fish species (44%)
Fishery yield
down 80%
Pak Mun
Loss of livelihood
for >6200 families
Dams
Central World
Mae
75
Hong
Song
Malls
65
Province
Source: MEA, EGAT, Searin, Graphic: Green World Foundation
Impacts of Pak
Mun Dam alone
้
้
การกระจายของจานวนผู ้ใชไฟและปริ
มาณการใชไฟฟ้
า
Distribution of number of power users & energy consumed
100%
Agricultural pumping
1%
0%
0%
4%
3%
7%
90%
80%
ปมน้าเพื่อการเกษตร
Government
หน่วยงานราชการ
19%
40%
70%
Specific businesses
ธุรกิจเฉพาะอย่าง
Large industrial/commercial)
60%
ธุรกิจ/อุต ขนาดใหญ่
50%
Small industrial/commercial
22%
40%
73%
ธุรกิจ/อุต ขนาดกลาง
Small industrial/commercial
ธุรกิจขนาดเล็ก
30%
10%
Large houses (>150 kWh/mo)
บ้านอยู่อาศัย (>150 หน่วย/เดือน)
20%
13%
Small houses (<150 kWh/mo)
10%
8%
0%
จำนวนผู้ใช้ไฟ
Number of customers
ปริมำ
กำรใช้ไฟฟำ
Electricity consumption
ที่มา : รายงานการปรับโครงสร้างอัตราค่าไฟฟ้ า (มติ ค.ร.ม. วันที่ 3 ตุลาคม 2543)
บ้านอยู่อาศัย (<150 หน่วย/เดือน)
"Nature has enough for our need,
but not enough for our greed."
- Gandhi
Hourly Power Demand (2002)
MW
> 1,000 MW in
66 hours
16300
16100
16000
15900
14000
15700
12000
15500
15300
10000
2 0 0 1 P E A K = 1 6 ,1 2 6 M W
60
48
36
24
0
8000
12
15100
6000
4000
2000
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
h o u rs
Source: EPPO, 2007.
Load profile on the day of annual
highest consumption
พลังไฟฟ้า (เมกะวัตต์ )
Notice
the rise of air-conditioning load
25000
2551
2550
2549
2548
20000
15000
10000
2534
2533
2532
5000
เวลา (ชั่วโมง)
0
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
PDP, demand forecast
over-investment
Power demand projection Sep 2007
(PDP 2007 revision 1)
MW
55,000
50,000
45,000
Economic Development
Plan (years)
Average GDP growth
rate/year
Average demand
growth rate/year
10th plan (2550-2554)
5.0
5.86
11th plan (2555-2559)
5.6
5.95
12th plan (2560-2564)
5.6
5.54
37,382 MW
40,000
2,178
48,958 MW
2,477
2,399
2,23
5
2,28
7
2,131
35,000
27,996 MW
1,832
2,03
5
1,759
30,000
1,629
1,361
1,410
25,000
1,444
20,000
15,000
10,000
ที่มา กฟผ.
1,26
8
1,449
2550 – 2554
average increase
1,386 MW
แผนพ ัฒนำฯ ฉบ ับที่ 10
2555 – 2559
average increase
1,877 MW
2560 – 2564
average increase
2,315 MW
แผนพ ัฒนำฯ ฉบ ับที่ 11
แผนพ ัฒนำฯ ฉบ ับที่ 12
2550 2551 2552 2553 2554 2555 2556 2557 2558 2559 2560 2561 2562 2563 2564
Planning of capacity additions
(Total capacity requirement = peak demand + 15% reserve margin)
Power Demand: Projections vs. Actual 1992 – 2008
If no systemic bias, the chance of over-projecting
demand 12 times in a row should be 1/4096!!
MW
4 8 ,0 0 0
มิ . ย .-9 3
4 4 ,0 0 0
ธ .ค .-9 4
ต .ค .-9 5
4 0 ,0 0 0
เม .ย .-9 6
ต .ค .-9 6
มิ . ย .-9 7
3 6 ,0 0 0
ก .ย .-9 7
S e p -9 8 (M E R )
3 2 ,0 0 0
ก .พ .-0 1
ส .ค .-0 2
Ja n -0 4 (L E G )
2 8 ,0 0 0
Ja n -0 4 (M E G )
A p r-0 6 (M E G )
2 4 ,0 0 0
มี . ค .-0 7
ACTUAL
ธ .ค .-0 8
2 0 ,0 0 0
1 6 ,0 0 0
1 2 ,0 0 0
8 ,0 0 0
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
Incentive structure for utilities:
the more expansion, the more profits
• Financial criteria for utilities link
profits to investments
– Thailand uses outdated returnbased 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
ROIC = Net profit after tax
Invested capital
EGAT 8.4%
MEA
4.8%
PEA
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
Deterministic planning based
on demand forecast leads
to over-investment
in capital-intensive
power projects
2
1
Power demand
(over-)projections
Utilities’
Profits
3
Tariff structure that allows pass-through
of unnecessary investments
Comparison of trend lines with
historical peak consumption
Exponential
MW
Linear
MW
30,000
30,000
y = 8 3 1 .4 3 x - 2 E +0 6
2
R = 0 .9 4 3 3
2
His tor ic peak demand
เ อ็ ก ซ์ โพเ น น เ ชี ย ล ( His tor ic peak demand )
His tor ic peak demand
09
20
07
20
05
20
03
20
01
99
19
97
19
95
19
93
19
91
19
89
19
19
85
19
07
09
20
20
03
01
99
05
20
20
20
97
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
95
0
93
0
91
10,000
89
10,000
87
20,000
85
20,000
87
R = 0 .9 8 9 4
20
y = 4 E -6 0 e
0.0731 x
้ ( His tor ic peak demand )
เ ชิ ง เ ส น
Past demand trajectory was linear but how come
the official demand projections have always
assumed exponential trend and over-estimated?
The government forecast was based on
the assumption of exponential growth
50,000
45,000
21 power plants
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
Dec - 2008 For ec as t
His tor ic peak demand
2021
2019
2017
2015
2013
2011
2009
2007
2005
2003
2001
1999
1997
1995
1993
1991
1989
1987
0
1985
P eak d em an d (M W )
40,000
กา ลั ง ผ ลิ ต ไฟ ฟ้ า แ ย ก ต า ม ช นิ ด โ รง ไฟ ฟ้ า
ต า ม แ ผ น P D P 2007 (ป รั บ ป รุ ง ค รั ้ง ที่ 2)
MW
6 0 ,0 0 0
นิ ว เค ลี ย ร์
ถ่ า น หิน
5 0 ,0 0 0
ก๊ า ซ
พ ลั ง น้ า นา เข า้
4 0 ,0 0 0
โ ค เจ น
พ ลั ง ง า น หมุ น เวี ย น
3 0 ,0 0 0
น้ า มั น /ก๊ า ซ
2 0 ,0 0 0
พ ลั ง น้ า กฟ ผ .
อื่ น ๆ
1 0 ,0 0 0
64
25
63
25
62
25
61
25
60
25
59
25
58
25
57
25
56
25
55
25
54
25
53
25
25
52
0
ทีม
่ า:แผนพัฒนาพลังงานทดแทน 15 ปี พ.ศ.2551 -2565
ห าก ป รั บ ค่ า พ ยาก ร ณ์ + ส ่ ง เส ริ ม ก าร ป ร ะห ยั ด พ ลั งงาน
+ ส นั บ ส นุ น R E ต าม แ ผ น พ ลั งงาน ท ด แ ท น
MW
6 0 ,0 0 0
โ ค รง กา รที่ ไม่ จา เป็ น
ถ่ า น หิ น
5 0 ,0 0 0
ก๊ า ซ
พ ลั ง น้ า นา เข า้
โ ค เจ น
4 0 ,0 0 0
พ ลั ง ง า น ห มุ น เวี ย น
กา รป ระห ยั ด พ ลั ง ง า น
3 0 ,0 0 0
น้ า มั น /ก๊ า ซ
พ ลั ง น้ า กฟ ผ .
อื่ น ๆ
2 0 ,0 0 0
กา ลั ง ผ ลิ ต ขั ้ น ตา่
1 0 ,0 0 0
64
25
63
25
62
25
61
25
60
25
59
25
58
25
57
25
56
25
55
25
54
25
53
25
25
52
0
Supply
options
Cost estimate (Baht/kWh)
Generation
Trans
missio
n1
Distrib
ution2
CO2 3
Other
envi
impacts
Social
impacts
Total
4
DSM
0.50 – 1.505
-
-
-
-
-
0.50 1.50
SPP
cogeneration
(PES > 10%)
2.60 6
-
0.44
0.08
0.71
-
3.83
VSPP
(Renewable)
Bulk supply
tariff
(~ 2.62) +
Adder
(0.3 – 8)
-
0.44
-
0 – 0.63
0 – low
2.92 –
10.62
gas CC
2.25 7
0.37
0.44
0.09
0.79
low –
medium
3.93
Coal
2.11 7
0.37
0.44
0.15
2.76
High
5.82
Nuclear
2.087–7.308
0.37
0.44
-
0.15 +
1.009
High –
very high
4.049.26
หมายเหตุ
1. ใช ้สมมติฐานว่าต ้นทุนร ้อยละ 12.4 ของค่าไฟฟ้ ามาจากธุรกิจสายส่ง
2. ใช ้สมมติฐานว่าต ้นทุนร ้อยละ 14.5 ของค่าไฟฟ้ ามาจากธุรกิจจาหน่าย
3. ค่า CO2 ที่ 10 ยูโร/ตัน
4. ค่า Externality ตามการศึกษา Extern E ของสหภาพยุโรป และนามาปรับลดตามค่า GDP ต่อหัวของไทย
5. 5. The World Bank, Impact of Energy Conservation, DSM and Renewable Energy Generation on EGAT’s PDP, 2005.
6. ตามระเบียบ SPP
7. ทีม
่ า : กฟผ.
8. California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), 2050 Multi-Sector CO2 Emissions Abatement Analysis Calculator, 2009
9. Cost of liability protection, Journal “Regulation” 2002 – 2003.
Time to review gov’t subsidy to polluting industries with low
value added to economy and low competitiveness?
ด ัช นี ค วำม
ั ส่ ว น ค วำม
สด
ก ลุ่ ม อุ ต ส ำห ก ร ร ม H ig h E n erg y , L o w V A , L o w R C A
ั ส่ ว น
สด
เข้ ม ข้ น ข อ ง
มู ล ค่ ำเพิ่ ม
ก ำร ใช ้ พ ล ง
ั ง ำน ต่ อ ผ ล ผ ลิ ต
อุ ต ส ำ ห ก รรม เห ล็ ก แ ล ะ เห ล็ ก ก ล้ ำ
ก ารผ ลิ ต สี ท า น้ า มั น ชั ก เง า
ก ารผ ลิ ต ผ ลิ ต ภั ณ ฑ์ พ ล าส ติ ก
ก ารผ ลิ ต ผ ลิ ต ภั ณ ฑ์ อ โ ล ห ะอื่ น ๆ
ก ารฟ อ ก ก ารพิ ม พ์ ก ารย อ
้ ม
ก ารผ ลิ ต เค รื่ อ ง ย น ต์ แ ล ะกั ง หั น
ก ารผ ลิ ต เค รื่ อ ง เรื อ น ที่ ทา ด ว้ ย โ ล ห ะ
แ บ ต เต อ รี่ แ ล ะห ม อ
้ เก็ บ ป ระจุ ไ ฟ ฟ้ า
ก ารผ ลิ ต เค รื่ อ ง จั ก รแ ล ะอุ ป ก รณ์ ท าง เก ษ ต ร
ก ารผ ลิ ต อุ ป ก รณ์ รถ ไฟ
เค รื่ อ ง มื อ เค รื่ อ ง ใช ไ้ ฟ ฟ้ าอื่ น ๆ
ก ารผ ลิ ต ผ ลิ ต ภั ณ ฑ์ ท าง เค มี อ ื่ น ๆ
อุ ต ส ำห ก รรม
ก ารผ ลิ ต เค รื่ อ ง จั ก รแ ล ะอุ ป ก รณ์ พิ เศ ษ
ก ารผ ลิ ต ผ ลิ ต ภั ณ ฑ์ จ าก ก ระด าษ
อ าห ารแ ล ะเค รื่ อ ง ดื่ ม
ก ารผ ลิ ต สิ น ค า้ อุ ต ส าห ก รรม อื่ น ๆ
ส ิ่ ง ท อ
ก ารผ ลิ ต น าฬ ิ ก า
ก ารผ ลิ ต เค รื่ อ ง ด น ต รี แ ล ะเค รื่ อ ง กี ฬ าไม แ
้ ล ะเค รื่ อ ง เรื อ น
ก ารบ รรจุ ก ระป๋ อ ง แ ล ะก ารเก็ บ รั ก ษ าผั ก ผ ล ไม ้ น้ า ผ ล ไม ้
ก ระด าษ
ก ารผ ลิ ต ผ ลิ ต ภั ณ ฑ์ จ าก ไม แ
้ ล ะไม ก
้ ๊อก
ก ารผ ลิ ต รอ ง เท า้ ย ก เว น
้ รอ ง เท า้ ย าง เค มี
ก ารผ ลิ ต เค รื่ อ ง เรื อ น เค รื่ อ ง ต ก แ ต่ ง ที่ ท
อาโดลว้ ยหไมะ ้
ก ารผ ลิ ต ผ ลิ ต ภั ณ ฑ์ อ าห ารอื่ น ๆ
โล
ก ารผ ลิ ต อุ ป ก รณ์ ก ารถ่ าย ภ าพ แ ล ะส าย
ต าห ะข ั้น มู ล ฐ ำน
ก ารทา เนื้ อ ก ระป๋ อ ง
ผ ลิ ต ภั ณ ฑ์ โ ล ห ะ
ก ารผ ลิ ต ผ ลิ ต ภั ณ ฑ์ ห นั ง สั ต ว์
อื่ น
ก ารอ บ ก ารบ่ ม ใบ ย าสู บ
อุ ต ส าห ก รรม เค รื่ อ ง ดื่ ม ที่ ไ ม่ ม ี แ อ ล ก อรวม
ฮ อ ล์ แ ล ะน้ า อั ด ล ม
อุ ต ส าห ก รรม เกี่ ย วกั บ ผ ลิ ต ภั ณ ฑ์ เชื อ ก
โ รง ง าน ทา น้ า ต าล แ ล ะผ ลิ ต ภั ณ ฑ์ อื่ น ๆ
High energy intensity
Low value added
0 .3 3 1
0 .1 5 1
0.183
0.18
0.178
0.177
0.15
0.146
0.142
0.131
0.126
0.125
0.122
ถ่ ำน หิ น
0.116
0.115
17
0.101
8
0.085
0.078
0.074
424
0.074
0.072
592
0.072
5,062
40.071
08
0.071
0.064
0.064
978
0.061
0.059
7,489
0.051
0.323
0.3
0.336
0.27
0.24
0.253
0.264
0.33
0.276
0.313
0.319
นำ้ ม น
ั
0.246
0.172
683
0.346
266
0.415
0.345
33
0.341
191
0.358
0.388
465
0.507
310
30.478
24
0.428
0.392
137
0.445
869
0.404
0.426
3,278
0.418
Low competitiveness
ไ ด้ เ ป รีย บ
ท ำง ก ำร แ ข่ ง ข น
ั
(R C A )
0 .1 9
ก๊ ำซ
76
4
504
1,243
325
2,152
BOI investment
privileges should
take into
account energy
and
environmental
considerations
0.25
0.91
0.5
0
0.21
0.56
0.59
0.08
0.01
0.95
0.41
ไฟ ฟ้ ำ
0.27
0.72
857
1.24
1.74665
1.87135
2.26
2.83187
1.94806
1.82
605
1.85
555
1.52
1.02
1,095
2.57
1.22 48
1.08
4,953
1.11
รวม
1,633
943
168
802
2,367
7,220
9.1%
5.3%
0.9%
4.5%
13.2%
40.4%
1 ,2 8 7
7 .2 %
1,557
1,895
17,872
8.7%
10.6%
100.0%
Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board
OFFIC E
OF THE
PRIME
MINISTER
Macroeconomic Analysis
(Low margin/return)
Low
Value Creation
High
Import Contents
& Sheer size of
export to GDP
High
Energy Intensity
& Low Efficiency
& Unsustainable
structure
Slow Technology
Development
Lack of Saving
No immunity/
High volatility
Financial System
Enabling factors:
MACROECONOMIC
MANAGEMENT
Decentralized generation
• Decentralized generation: generation of
electricity near where it is used
Old way
Power plant
New way
Power plant
Biomass
Wind power
Biomass
Customers
Energy efficient end-use
Solar
Energy waste in a typical pumping
system
Sankey Energy Flow Diagram
Cogeneration
Combined Heat and Power (CHP)
Very Small Power Producer
(VSPP)
$
$
Technical regulations:
• Allowable voltage,
frequency, THD
variations
• Protective relays
– 1-line diagrams for all
cases:
•
•
•
•
•
Induction
Synchronous
Inverters
Single/multiple
Connecting at different
voltage levels (LV or MV)
• Communication
channels
Commercial
regulations:
• Definitions of
renewable energy,
and efficient
cogeneration
• Cost allocation
• Principle of
standardized tariff
determination
• Invoicing and
payment
arrangements
• Arbitration
Evolution of Thai VSPP
regulations
• 2002
– VSPP regulations drafted, approved by Cabinet
– Up to 1 MW export, renewables only
– Tariffs set at avoided cost (bulk supply tariff + FT)
• 2006
– Up to 10 MW export, renewables + cogeneration
– Feed-in tariff “adder”
– If > 1 MW then utility only pays for 98% of energy
• 2009
– Tariff adder increase, more for projects that offset
diesel
http://www.eppo.go.th/power/vspp-eng/ for English version of regulations, and model PPA
Thai VSPP feed-in tariffs
Fuel
Adder
Additional for Additional for Years effective
diesel offsetting 3 southern
areas
provinces
Biomass
Capacity <= 1 MW
$ 0.015
$
0.030
$
0.030
Capacity > 1 MW
$ 0.009
$
0.030
$
0.030
Biogas
<= 1 MW
$ 0.015
$
0.030
$
0.030
> 1 MW
$ 0.009
$
0.030
$
0.030
Waste (community waste, non-hazardous industrial and not organic matter)
Fermentation
Thermal process
Wind
<= 50 kW
> 50 kW
Micro-hydro
50 kW - <200 kW
<50 kW
Solar
7
7
7
7
$ 0.074
$ 0.104
$
$
0.030
0.030
$
$
0.030
0.030
7
7
$ 0.134
$ 0.104
$
$
0.045
0.045
$
$
0.045
0.045
10
10
$ 0.024
$ 0.045
$ 0.238
$
$
$
0.030
0.030
0.045
$
$
$
0.030
0.030
0.045
7
7
10
Assumes exchange rate 1 Thai baht = 0.029762 U.S. dollars
Tariff
=
Biomass tariff =
adder(s) + bulk supply tariff + FT charge
$0.009 + $0.049
+ $0.027
= $0.085/kWh
Korat Waste to Energy – biogas
… an early Thai VSPP project
• Uses waste water from
cassava to make methane
• Produces gas for all factory
heat (30 MW thermal) + 3 MW
of electricity
• 3 x 1 MW gas generators
Reduces air and water pollution
Biogas from
Pig Farms
Produces fertilizer
Produces electricity
8 x 70 kW generator
Ratchaburi
Biogas from Pig
Farms
Micro hydropower
•40 kW
•Mae Kam Pong, Chiang Mai,
Thailand
Rice husk-fired power plant
• 9.8 MW
• Roi Et, Thailand
Bangkok Solar 1 MW PV
• Project size: 1 MW
• Uses self-manufactured a-Si
Thai VSPP MW applied, received permission, PPA
signed, and selling – as of September 2009
3500
3000
Capacity (MW)
2500
2000
1500
Biomass
Solar
1000
Wind
Garbage
Biogas
500
Coal cogen
Natural gas cogen
0
Applied
Received
permission
Microhydro
PPA signed
Connected and
generating
electricity