Thailand’s Power Development Plan (PDP), prepared periodically by the state‐owned Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT), is the master investment plan for power system development. It determines what kind and what quantity of power plants get built, where and when. The PDP has wide‐reaching implications, shaping not just the future of Thailand's electricity sector and its social and environmental landscape, but also that of Thailand's neighboring countries.
The official PDP document also reflects a planning process in crisis. By selecting excessive amounts of controversial, expensive, risky, and polluting power plants over cheaper, cleaner, and safer alternatives, the PDP is at odds with both Thai energy policy as well as the interests of the vast majority of Thai people. The well‐documented casualties are predominantly the rural poor. Afflictions include acute respiratory disease in thousands of villagers from operations of coal mining and power plants( Sukkumnoed, 2007), a number of violent conflicts associated with power plants (Polkla, 2010), as well as higher prices because of excessive investment (Sirasoontorn, 2008). Investment in hydropower projects in Thailand and neighboring countries has led to human rights violations, impaired livelihoods for hundreds of thousands of riverside communities, flooding of high conservation value areas and destruction of river ecosystems upon which millions depend (IRN, 1999; World Commission on Dams, 2000).
This document is a new PDP. We do not wish to call it an “Alternative PDP” because we believe a document that makes sense should not be relegated to the marginal title “alternative”. We call it simply “PDP 2012”, and as such it is more consistent with Thai policy and the interests of Thai people than the the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand’s (EGAT)’s most recent power development plan, the PDP 2010. Our intention is not for the PDP 2012 to be the “only” PDP, but rather one to be considered in comparison to other plans. We would hope that all candidate plans be presented to the public in a way that emphasize the values and assumptions embedded in different future scenarios, and that ultimately an optimum PDP is selected that reflects excellent science, consistency with government policy objectives, and coherence with the desires of the Thai public.
In previous years, “energy security” has been a trump card used to justify official government PDPs and to discount proposed alternatives without serious discussion. But what exactly is energy security? In this paper we propose a set of quantitative energy security indicators and other indicators to measure consistency of PDPs with Thai policy objectives. We employ these indicators in evaluating the PDP 2012 compared with the PDP 2010.
This study concludes with policy recommendations to improve the planning process, as well as reforms to the industry and regulatory structure so that the development and operation of the power sector will move closer towards the government's stated policy objectives.