Politics and practice in power sector planning and reform: a case study of Thailand
Chuenchom Sangarasri Greacen
Chris Greacen
11 April 2012
Class IPOL 8548A:Interdisciplinary analysis for energy policy
Monterey Institute of International Studies

• Constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system (similar to
England)
• Size: about 4/5 of California
• Population: 66 million (2x that of
CA)
• GDP
(PPP)
: $553 billion (1/3 of CA’s)
• GDP per capita: $8,500 (1/6 of
CA’s)
• Energy consumption: 57 million
BTU (1/4 of CA’s)
• Peak power demand: 23 GW (<half of CA’s)
• 99.8% of villages are electrified
 






ELECTRICITY GENERATING AUTHORITY OF THAILAND
ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEM OF THAILAND
SYSTEM PLANNING DIVISION
TRANSMISSION SYSTEM PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ISSUED DATE : JANUARY 2007
DWG. NO. EPS 2002

• 1960s: decentralized coops in close competition with centralized utilities as the model to electrify
Thailand.
• Centralized model chosen not by technical superiority but rather by Cold War politics
• 1960s-90s: rapid expansion of power system by state-owned utilities
• World Bank and aid agencies had major roles
• 1990s: neoliberal reforms
• Partial divestiture of EGAT’s generation assets (EGCO, RATCH)
• Small and Independent Power Producers (SPPs/IPPs)
• Role of private foreign capital

• 2000s-present:
• Plan to create Power Pool abandoned
• Attempt to partially privatize (equitize) monopoly EGAT in the stock market thwarted by civil society’s lawsuit
• But increasing financialization of electricity in the stock market continued via EGAT’s subsidiaries, other Thai energy companies and their joint ventures with foreign capital
• Increasing roles of Thai listed non-energy companies (e.g. construction) in power project investment
• Mushrooming power projects, domestic & trans-boundary

ISSUES AND TRENDS IN POWER SECTOR
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Planned new investments are so excessive despite exaggerated “needs”
Used to justify NT2
5,800 MW
The year NT2 came online

Over-investment = unnecessary impacts, burden on consumers and economy
Thai power sector suffered from
“over-capacity worth 400 billion
Baht” ( from total assets of 700 billion
Baht and annual turnover of 240 billion Baht)
– PM Thaksin Shinwatra, 2004

changing energy intensity over 20-yr period
Data source: Energy Information Administration 2008

• 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

Structural violence in the name of “energy security”
Electricity production and consumption
(GWh)
Impacts of Pak
Mun Dam alone
Siam Paragon
123
1700 families relocated
MBK
81
Loss of livelihood for >6200 families
Loss of 116 fish species (44%)
Fishery yield down 80%
Central World
75
Hon g
Son
65
Dams Malls Province

Relentless consumption of energy in
Thailand leads to imports and exploitation of energy resources in neighboring countries

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

• Criteria for determining generation requirement:
• Reserve margin
(capacity in excess of peak demand)
≥ 15%
• Yet Thailand’s PDP2010 adds generation:
• 920 MW Nam Theun 2 when reserve margin > 28%
• 597 MW Nam Ngum 2 when reserve margin > 27%
• 660 MW Gheco1 when reserve margin > 27%
• 1600 MW SiamEnergy when reserve margin > 25%
• and many more….

• Electricity as public service  profitable commodity
• Commons like rivers  trans-boundary commodities

Serving public or corporations?
Performance of high-level energy officials in serving the government vs. PTT Plc.
(Thai gas/oil utility, the largest list company in Thailand)
Permanent
Secretary
Attendance of PTT board meetings*
13/13
100%
Attendance of
Automatic Tariff (Ft) mechanism mtgs**
4/6
67%
Director of
EPPO
8/9
90%
5/6
* จากรายงานประจ าปีบมจ . ปตท . ปี 2546
** ตั้งแต่มีการปรับองค ์ประกอบคณะอนุกรรมการ Ft โดยแต่งตั้งให้นายเชิดพงษ์เป็นประธาน และนายเมตตาเป็นรองประธาน
( ปลายปี 46)
83%

Source: www.ratch.co.th

• Power Development Plan (PDP) used to be the master plan for capacity expansion
• Determines how many of which kind of plants get built when
• But now some projects were on “fast track” even before being listed in the PDP, e.g.
• 1,260 MW Xayaburi dam
• 4,000 MW coal-fired plants in Dawei

Energy policy and plans become tools to drive the stock market and churn profits
• 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)
E i
E r o l
E g P e t
E g T r l t
E g P T r l t d
E g o P T
N n y E
o 6 k C .
M h
7 .
3 ,
, , 0
, , 7
, , 2
, , 6
2 2
, , 5
* T -re te " = T a g o th 2 a s (v tin rig
o 7 k C .
M h
S r a n e n e
8 .
6 , 5
, , 5
, , 3
, , 0
, , 9
2 1
, , 0
2
8
%
5 %
6 %
6 %
6 %
3 %
%
th c a y

TIME TO RETHINK
“ENERGY SECURITY” &
POWER SECTOR PLANNING

A. The more, the better
B. Resource adequacy (availability)
C. Resource adequacy & affordability.
D. Resource adequacy & affordability & efficiency
E. Resource adequacy & affordability & efficiency & environmental quality

Source: Brown, Marilyn A., 2011

A. The more, the better
B. Resource adequacy
C. Resource adequacy & affordability.
D. Resource adequacy & affordability & efficiency
E. Resource adequacy & affordability & efficiency & environmental quality

according to Energy Industry Act 2007
Energy Industry Act 2007 Indicators 4 dimensions of energy security
Availability
Affordability
Efficiency
Environment
- Resource Adequacy
- Min. dependency on imports
- Diversification
- Affordable cost of service
- Min. exposure to price volatility
- Energy & economic efficiency
- Min. environmental impacts
- Reserve margin ≥15%
- % energy imports
-Shares of fuels
- Electricity cost (B/mo.)
- % exposure to oil price
- Energy intensity
(GWh/GDP)
- GHG emissions
- SO2 emissions
Need to make “energy security” and PDP accountable to government policy framework
Framework for evaluating PDPs

70 000
60 000
50 000
40 000
30 000 nuclear
EE/DSM
Others
Oil/gas
RE DEDE
Cogen
Hydro imports
Hydro
Gas
Coal
20 000
10 000
0
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030
New generation includes:
11,669 MW of imports
8,400 MW of coal plants
16,670 MW of gas plants
5,000 MW of nuclear

2000
1500
1000
500
0
-500
Past actual averages:
830 MW/yr (25 yrs)
813 MW/yr (15 yrs)
772 MW/yr (10 yrs)
407 MW/yr ( 5 yrs)
Avg forecast increase
1,491 MW/yr in PDP 2010
Actual
Avg forecast increase
830 MW/yr in PDP2012
Forecast

– Revise demand forecast to reflect uncertainties
– Adhere to Government Policy of 15% minimum reserve margin
– Prioritize investment in energy efficiency (EE)/ demandside management (DSM) as a resource option
– Consider life extension (delayed retirement) of power plants as a resource option
• Additional investment might be required but only done in cases that are economic compared to building a new power plant.
– When additional capacity is needed, prioritize (highefficiency) cogeneration over (inefficient) centralized generation
– New generation not already under construction may be removed if not needed to maintain 15% reserve margin

Past demand forecasts compared to actual peak demand (MW)

500
0
-500
2000
Actual average increase in electricity demand
1500
Avg forecast increase
1,491 MW/yr in PDP 2010
1000
Avg forecast increase
830 MW/yr in PDP2012
Forecast

2000
1500
1000
500
0
-500
Avg forecast increase
1,491 MW/yr in PDP 2010
Actual
25 year average:
830 MW/yr
Avg forecast increase
830 MW/yr in PDP2012
Forecast

2000
1500
1000
500
0
-500
Avg forecast increase
1,491 MW/yr in PDP 2010
Actual
15 year average:
813 MW/yr
Avg forecast increase
830 MW/yr in PDP2012
Forecast

2000
1500
1000
500
0
-500
Avg forecast increase
1,491 MW/yr in PDP 2010
Actual
10 year average:
772 MW/yr
Avg forecast increase
830 MW/yr in PDP2012
Forecast

2000
1500
1000
500
0
-500
Avg forecast increase
1,491 MW/yr in PDP 2010
Actual
5 year average:
Avg forecast increase
830
407 MW/yr
Forecast

2000
1500
1000
500
0
-500
Avg forecast increase
1,491 MW/yr in PDP 2010
Actual
Avg forecast increase
830 MW/yr in PDP2012
Forecast

2000
1500
1000
500
0
-500
Past actual averages:
830 MW/yr (25 yrs)
813 MW/yr (15 yrs)
772 MW/yr (10 yrs)
407 MW/yr ( 5 yrs)
Actual
Assumed in
PDP 2010 forecast

2000
1500
1000
500
0
-500
Past actual averages:
830 MW/yr (25 yrs)
813 MW/yr (15 yrs)
772 MW/yr (10 yrs)
407 MW/yr ( 5 yrs)
Avg forecast increase
1,491 MW/yr in PDP 2010
Actual Forecast

2000
1500
1000
500
0
-500
Past actual averages:
830 MW/yr (25 yrs)
813 MW/yr (15 yrs)
772 MW/yr (10 yrs)
407 MW/yr ( 5 yrs)
Avg forecast increase
1,491 MW/yr in PDP 2010
Actual Forecast

Comparison of peak demand forecasts used in PDP 2010 vs. PDP 2012
PDP 2010 PDP 2012
Year
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
Peak demand
Peak Annual increase
MW
24,568
25,913
27,188
28,341
29,463
30,754
32,225
33,688
34,988
36,336
37,856
39,308
40,781
42,236
43,962
45,621
47,344
49,039
Energy
GWh
MW %
1,319 5.67% 160,331
1,345 5.47% 168,049
1,275 4.92% 175,631
1,153 4.24% 183,452
1,122 3.96% 191,224
1,291 4.38% 200,012
1,471 4.78% 209,329
1,463 4.54% 218,820
1,300 3.86% 227,599
1,348 3.85% 236,956
1,520 4.18% 246,730
1,452 3.84% 256,483
1,473 3.75% 266,488
1,455 3.57% 276,805
1,726 4.09% 287,589
1,659 3.77% 298,779
1,723 3.78% 310,387
1,695 3.58% 322,427
Peak
Peak demand
Annual increase
MW
23,900
24,731
25,562
26,393
27,225
28,056
28,887
29,718
30,549
31,380
32,211
33,043
33,874
34,705
35,536
36,367
37,198
38,029
MW %
-110 -0.46%
831 3.48%
831 3.36%
831 3.25%
831 3.15%
831 3.05%
831 2.96%
831 2.88%
831 2.80%
831 2.72%
831 2.65%
831 2.58%
831 2.52%
831 2.45%
831 2.39%
831 2.34%
831 2.29%
831 2.23%
2029 50,959 1,920 3.92% 334,921 38,861 831 2.19%
2030 52,890 1,931 3.79% 347,947
*The figures in pink highlight are actual values, not forecast.
39,692 831 2.14%
Data source (PDP2010): EPPO, 2010, http://www.eppo.go.th/power/pdp/page-7.html
Energy
GWh
155,972
160,385
165,129
170,845
176,696
182,463
187,645
193,033
198,724
204,639
209,941
215,601
221,352
227,448
232,468
238,174
243,872
250,040
255,406
261,120
Load factor
%
74.50%
74.03%
73.74%
73.89%
74.09%
74.24%
74.15%
74.15%
74.26%
74.44%
74.40%
74.49%
74.60%
74.81%
74.68%
74.76%
74.84%
75.06%
75.03%
75.10%

• New PDP based on more realistic demand forecast = “ PDP2012 ”
• Improved PDP based on PDP2010 forecast =
“ PDP2010v2 ”

– Maintain 15% minimum reserve margin
– Prioritize investment in energy efficiency (EE)/ demandside management (DSM) as a resource option
– Consider life extension (delayed retirement) of power plants as a resource option
• Additional investment might be required but only done in cases that are economic compared to building a new power plant.
– When additional capacity is needed, prioritize (highefficiency) cogeneration over (inefficient) centralized generation
– New generation not already under construction may be removed if not needed to maintain 15% reserve margin

DSM saving potential is under utilized in Thailand
35,000
30,000
Pacific Northwest
USA
DSM/EE measures led to savings of over 30,000 GWH/yr
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006
BPA and Utility Programs NEEA Programs State Codes Federal Standards
ที่มา : Tom Eckman, Northwest Power and
Conservation Council, 2009.
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
PDP 2010 (Thailand)
10000
5000
0.3% saving in 20 yrs
0
2553 2555 2557 2559 2561 2563 2565 2567 2569 2571 2573
ที่มา : สไลด์แผ่นที่ 19, สมมติฐานและภาพรวมร่าง
แผน PDP 2010 , 17 กุมภาพันธ์ 2553.
http://www.eppo.go.th/power/pdp/seminar-
17feb2553/assumptions-PDP2010.pdf

DSM/EE are the cheapest options to meet growing demand (but not yet considered an option in Thailand)
12
10
8
6
4
Cost comparison for different supply options in Pacific Northwest, USA.
EE
Renewables
Coal
Gas turbines
Combined cycle
2
0
245 514 1598 2202 2560 3444 4934
Cumulative Resource Potential (Average Megawatts)
6735
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 Council
8945

The government approved the 20-year Energy Efficiency Plan in April 2011 which called for almost 70,000 GWh of annual electricity savings or 20% of total load by
2030.
(Source: (Ministry of Energy 2011) and (Foongthammasan, Tippichai et al. 2011)

Source: The 5 th NW Electric Power and ConservationPlan
Supply options in NW USA

Source: The 5 th NW Electric Power and ConservationPlan
Supply options in NW USA

Insulate roofs to keep cool in
T-5

10500
9000
7500
6000
4500
3000
1500
0
2010
EE/DSM cumulative savings in PDP2012 or PDP2010v2 (MW)
EE savings (PDP2010)
Additional EE savings consistent with the government's 20-yr EE
Plan (PDP2012)
2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 2028

Cogeneration (Combined Heat and Power – CHP)

Application
Existing signed PPAs
Approved but not yet signed PPA
New cooling CHP projects under 10 MW each -- identified in (Menke et al., 2006)
New VSPP in ceramics, paper, pellet and other industries
0.9% per year growth in opportunities over next 18 years
Total
MW
3790
2835
3500
(not counted)
1700
11825
Program
SPP
SPP
VSPP
VSPP
SPP+VSPP
PDP2012 adds 4,800 MW of cogeneration beyond what was already in the plan

EGAT
Power plants to be decommissioned in PDP2010
MW
Plant life at decommissioni ng
Extended life to delay decommissioning and construction of new plants*
Nam Pong CC #1 ้ ้
Nam Pong CC #2 ้
Bang Pakong TH #1-2
Bang Pakong TH #3
Bang Pakong TH #4
Bang Pakong CC # 3
Bang Pakong CC # 4
South Bangkok CC #1
South Bangkok CC #2
Mae Moh TH # 4
Mae Moh TH # 5-6
Mae Moh TH #7
Mae Moh TH # 8
Mae Moh TH #9
Wang Noi TH #1-3
316
562
140
280
140
270
270
1,910
325
325
1,052
576
576
314
314
40
40
40
25
25
25
40
40
30
30
25
25
25
25
30
30
30
30
30
30
* Plant life extension may require additional investments and time to maintain and upgrade equipment. The time and resources required to extend plant life are usually significantly less than building a new one. However, more detailed assessment should be done on a case by case basis to ensure technical and economic feasibility of plant life extension.

Power plants to be decommissioned in PDP2010
MW
Plant life at decommissionin g
Extended life to delay decommissioning and construction of new plants*
IPPs
Khanom TH #1
Khanom TH #2
Khanom CC #1
Eastern Power
Glow IPP
Independent Power (Thailand)
(IPT)
Tri Energy Co., Ltd
Hauay Ho
Theun Hinboun
Rayong CC #1-4
Ratchaburi TH #1-2
Ratchaburi CC #1-2
Ratchabuti CC # 3
70
70
678
350
713
700
700
126
214
1,175
1,440
1,360
681
15
20
20
20
25
25
20
30
25
20
25
25
25
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
* Plant life extension may require additional investments and time to maintain and upgrade equipment. The time and resources required to extend plant life are usually significantly less than building a new one. However, more detailed assessment should be done on a case by case basis to ensure technical and economic feasibility of plant life extension.

$

Thai VSPP feed-in tariff adders
Fuel Adder Additional for diesel offsetting 3 southern areas
Additional for provinces
Biomass
Capacity <= 1 MW
Capacity > 1 MW
Biogas
$ 0.015
$ 0.009
$ 0.030
$ 0.030
$ 0.030
$ 0.030
<= 1 MW
> 1 MW
$ 0.015
$ 0.009
$ 0.030
$ 0.030
$ 0.030
$ 0.030
Waste (community waste, non-hazardous industrial and not organic matter)
Years effective
7
7
7
7
Fermentation
Thermal process
Wind
<= 50 kW
> 50 kW
Micro-hydro
50 kW - <200 kW
<50 kW
Solar
$ 0.074 $ 0.030
$ 0.104 $ 0.030
$ 0.134 $ 0.045
$ 0.104 $ 0.045
$ 0.030
$ 0.030
$ 0.045
$ 0.045
7
7
10
10
$ 0.024 $ 0.030
$ 0.045 $ 0.030
$ 0.238 $ 0.045
$ 0.030
$ 0.030
$ 0.045
7
7
10
Assumes exchange rate 1 Thai baht = 0.029762 U.S. dollars
Tariff = adder(s) + bulk supply tariff + FT charge

•40 kW
•Mae Kam Pong, Chiang Mai,
Thailand

Reduces air and water pollution
Produces fertilizer
Produces electricity
8 x 70 kW generator
Ratchaburi

Biogas from Pig
Farms

• 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

Rice husk-fired power plant
• 9.8 MW
• Roi Et, Thailand

• Signed PPAs for 767 MW of PV (SPP + VSPP)

Lopburi 73 MW PV (over 1,000 rai = 160 hectares)
• Project size: 1 MW
• Uses self-manufactured a-Si
• Signed PPAs for 767 MW of PV (SPP + VSPP)

• 5 MW, 135 MW planned
• 900 Million baht (180 baht/watt = US$6/watt) but costs expected to decrease 20 to 30% to 135 baht/watt
• Commissioned in Kanchanburi on Nov 2011
• Signed PPAs for 1343 MW of solar thermal

Applicati on under considera tion
Permissio n received,
PPA signed awaiting
PPA
Leakage (Project abandoned)
Generating
& selling electricity

2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Application pending
Received permission, awaiting PPA
PPA signed
Generating electricity
Biomass
Solar
Wind
Garbage
Biogas
Coal cogen
Natural gas cogen
Microhydro
18 MW online
Thailand VSPP Status

2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Application pending
Received permission, awaiting PPA
PPA signed
Generating electricity
Biomass
Solar
Wind
Garbage
Biogas
Coal cogen
Natural gas cogen
Microhydro
Thailand VSPP Status

2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Application pending
Received permission, awaiting PPA
PPA signed
Generating electricity
Biomass
Solar
Wind
Garbage
Biogas
Coal cogen
Natural gas cogen
Microhydro
Thailand VSPP Status

2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Application pending
Received permission, awaiting PPA
PPA signed
Generating electricity
Biomass
Solar
Wind
Garbage
Biogas
Coal cogen
Natural gas cogen
Microhydro
Thailand VSPP Status

2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Application pending
Received permission, awaiting PPA
PPA signed
Generating electricity
Biomass
Solar
Wind
Garbage
Biogas
Coal cogen
Natural gas cogen
Microhydro
1056 MW online
(58-fold increase since 2007)
PPAs signed for additional
4318 MW

60
40
20
0
100
80
MW Solar installed in Thailand Feb 2007 – Dec 2011
160
140
120
PPAs for photovoltaic (PV) solar: 677 MW
PPAs for concentrating solar thermal (CST): 1343 MW

Generation by fuel type
Coal
2010
MW %
3,527 11%
PDP 2010
2030
MW %
12,669 19%
PDP 2010 v. 2
2030
MW
6,269
%
13%
PDP 2012
2030
MW
3,087
%
9%
Gas 16,091 51% 21,668 33%
Hydro – EGAT 3,424 11%
Hydro
– imports
1,260 4%
3,936
9,827
6%
15%
Cogeneration
Renewables
Oil/gas
Nuclear
Others (fuel oil, diesel, Malay)
1,878
767
6%
2%
3,784 12%
0
619
0%
2%
7,024
4,804
0
5,000
619
11%
7%
0%
8%
1%
15,972
3,936
3,827
11,824
4,804
0
0
34%
8%
8%
0%
0%
9,572
3,936
1,737
0
0
27%
11%
5%
25% 11,824 33%
10% 4,804 14%
0%
0%
619 1% 619 2%
Total generation 31,350 100% 65,547 100% 47,251 100% 35,579 100%
Additional EE/DSM savings 13,160 9,923
Total Resources 31,350 65,547 60,411 45,502

PDP2012
PDP2010v2
70 000
PDP 2010
70 000
60 000
50 000
40 000
60 000
50 000
40 000
30 000 30 000
20 000
10 000
20 000
10 000
0
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030
0
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 nuclear
EE/DS
M
Others
Oil/gas
RE
DEDE
Cogen
Hydro imports
Hydro
Gas
Coal

GWH
250 000
200 000
150 000
100 000
50 000
Uranium
(Kazakhstan/Australia)
Power imports
(Laos/Burma/Malay)
Diesel
Fuel Oil
Gas imports
(Burma/Middle East)
Coal imports
(Indonesia/Australia)
0
2010 PDP2010 PDP2010v2 PDP2012

change in 2030 compared to 2010
Cost of service (Baht/month)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2010 PDP2010 PDP2010v2 PDP2012
-10%
-12%
-14%
-16%
0%
-2%
-4%
-6%
-8%
6%
4%
2%
3,5%
1,3%
PDP2010 PDP2010v2 PDP2012
-13,2%

change in 2030 compared to 2010
0,00%
-5,00%
-10,00%
-15,00%
-20,00%
-25,00%
-30,00%
-35,00%
PDP2010
-29,65%
PDP2010v2
-20,81%
PDP2012
-18,87%

change in 2030 compared to 2010
10,0%
5,0%
0,0%
-5,0%
-10,0%
-15,0%
-20,0%
Energy intensity (GWh/GDP billion Baht)
4,1%
PDP2010 PDP2012v2
-16,7%
PDP2012
-16,7%

change in 2030 compared to 2010
250%
200%
150%
100%
50%
0%
-50%
450%
400%
350%
300%
GHG Nox SO2 TSP Hg
PDP2010
PDP2010v2
PDP2012

change in 2030 compared to 2010
PDP2010v2
PDP2010
56%
52%
42%
-17%
-13%
-21%
-15%
4%
PDP2012
18%
1%
-17% -19%
-97%
-97%

• Worrying trend of commoditizing electricity
• “Energy security” and PDP process distorted to generate profits for a few at the expense of
– Affected communities - Environment
– Consumers - Economy
• Need framework to hold “energy security” and PDP accountable to Energy Industry Act & the public
• Need to reform PDP process to prioritize cheaper, cleaner options to meeting demand
• Proposed PDP2012 better achieves energy security without the need for new green-field centralized coal/ gas/dam/nuclear.

www.palangthai.org