Energy efficiency and demand‐side management
Saving electricity is almost always cheaper than building new power plants and fueling them for decades. EGAT's own analysis has shown that its demand side management (DSM)[5] programs deliver saved electricity at less than half the cost of building new power plants (Foran, Pont et al. 2009). Kilowatt‐hour (kWh) savings acquired through investment in energy efficiency are not only the cheapest way to meet growing demand compared to other generation options; they also help save transmission, distribution and conversion losses and wastes along the supply chain of electricity from fuel to generation to delivery to customers. They also save or defer investments in power transmission and distribution infrastructure – investments which eat up budgets, adding over 40% on top of the investment cost of electricity generation.[6]
The PDP 2010 did take into account savings from energy efficiency but the only program incorporated was the T5 light replacement program which is estimated to yield a savings of 0.3% of total load by 2030. This amount is extremely small compared to the real potential and to what has been done elsewhere in the world. Figure 4 shows a comparison in the level of investment in energy efficiency in the Pacific Northwest, USA. versus Thailand. The potential to invest more in EE in Thailand is immense, given that it is the cheapest and cleanest option to meet demand.
Figure 4: Role of EE/DSM in power sector planning: the Pacific Northwest, USA and Thailand, with energy savings measured in GWh/year. Note, the y‐axis in both graphs is identical. In the Pacific Northwest, new EE/DSM measures are still considered to be the cheapest and cleanest choice of power supply options even after 30 years of successful implementation of past energy efficiency measures. In the most recent Sixth Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan (Northwest Power Planning Council 2010) about 85% of increase in electricity demand is met through investments in EE/DSM. Thailand on the other hand included only 0.3% of accumulated energy savings in the approved PDP2010. Much more potential has yet to be tapped.
Foran, Du Pont et al. (2009) carefully document how an additional 14,000 GWh/yr of annual energy savings in Thailand could be secured by the year 2026 through residential energy efficiency measures aimed at five key household appliances.
For these appliances, savings equal to 28% of baseline consumption after 20 years could be obtained through simple measures such as tightening standards of appliance efficiencies of air‐conditioners, refrigerators, fans, rice cookers and compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs).
Energy efficiency savings opportunities in industry and commercial buildings are much higher than in the residential sector. These savings opportunities are captured in the Thai Government's 20‐year Energy Efficiency Development Plan (Table 6), which targets an annual energy savings of nearly 70,000 GWh by the year 2030. Of this 70,000 GWh, the residential figure of about 19,000 GWh/year is roughly commensurate with the projection for year 2026 by Foran and Du Pont.
Table 6: Government's energy saving target. The government approved the 20‐year Energy Efficiency Plan in April 2010 which called for almost 70,000 GWh of annual electricity savings or 20% of total load by 2030. Source: (Energy 2011) and (Foongthammasan, Tippichai et al. 2011)
The PDP2010 made no mention of the 20‐year Energy Efficiency Development Plan because the latter was approved after the PDP2010 was issued. To ensure consistency of different government energy plans, our proposed PDP2012 adopts the target of 20% savings compared to baseline consumption (the adjusted demand projections) for year 2030. The 20% target is consistent with the overall target of savings for the various energy sub‐sectors set forth in the 20‐year Energy Efficiency Development Plan.
[5] Demand Side Management (DSM) is another name for energy efficiency – referring to addressing electricity demand at the 'demand side' by lowering or shifting load, not at the 'supply side' by building power plants.
[6] For example, the PDP2010 investment budget for transmission upgrade added an additional 40% on top of the generation investment budget (Source: EGAT, PDP 2010). In addition, Metropolitan Electricity Authority and Provincial Electricity Authority have their own distribution investment plans and budgets that correspond to the expansion planned in the PDP2010.
