Upload
philomena-cook
View
220
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Integrated electricity planning: introduction & demonstration
Tira Foran, PhDUnit for Social and Environmental Research,
Chiang Mai University
Mekong Energy and Environment Network Workshop
14 May 2009
Purpose of talk
Review power development plan (PDP) process in Thailand
Introduce IRP ~ integrated electricity resource planning Demonstrate how it might work Review governance challenges
Motivation: during the 1990s, Thailand’s EGAT built a controversial dam . . .
During the “5 month, 9 day rally” Dec. 1994. Source: Buchita
After the “win-win” opening solution, June 2004
. . . But also successfully implemented energy efficiency!
Annual avoided peak power (MW) from EGAT high efficiency appliance programs
0
50
100
150
200
250
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004(through
Aug)
2005(through
Sept)
Lighting Refrigerator
Air Conditioner
Can Thailand find more clean, efficient, sustainable options? Integrated electricity planning may help What is it? Who does it and in what context? What governance obstacles exist?
Part I: Review and critique of Thailand’s (EGAT’s) PDP
EGAT’s planning objectives
EGAT’s PDP: Six limitations
1 Definition of basic objectives2 Costs 3 Role of energy efficiency 4 Role of renewable energy5 Role of scenario thinking (เหต�
การณจำ�าลอง)6 How to deal with risks
1 Basic emphasis is on supply-side options
Thailand power development plan (EGAT 2007)
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
220,000
240,000
260,000
280,000
300,000
320,000
340,000
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Imported Power NuclearRenewable EnergyDieselHeavy OilNatural GasImported CoalLigniteHydro (Domestic)
8%
12%7% 6%
73%
69%71%
72%
11%
6%
13%
70%
6% 6% 12%
73% 69%
5%
10%8%7% 6% 6%
12% 10%
75%
65%
9% 8%
8%
9%9%
8%8%
8%
8%8%
8%
5% 9%
75%
6%
GWh
GWh
YearYear
69%
10%
6%
7%0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
220,000
240,000
260,000
280,000
300,000
320,000
340,000
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Imported Power NuclearRenewable EnergyDieselHeavy OilNatural GasImported CoalLigniteHydro (Domestic)
8%
12%7% 6%
73%
69%71%
72%
11%
6%
13%
70%
6% 6% 12%
73% 69%
5%
10%8%7% 6% 6%
12% 10%
75%
65%
9% 8%
8%
9%9%
8%8%
8%
8%8%
8%
5% 9%
75%
6%
GWh
GWh
YearYear
69%
10%
6%
7%
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
2004 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022
Cum
ula
tive
Cap
acit
y (M
W)*
Coal (ICG) (MW)
CCGTurbine (MW)
SCGTurbine (MW)
DR (MW)
Wind (MW)
Conservation (aMW)
Example of “20-year load forecast and resource plan”
Basic emphasis is on supply-side options
- Distribution transformers- Smart metering- Automated demand response
Structural(“hardware-intensive”)
Institutional (knowledge intensive)
Supply development
Demand management
POWER SECTOR
- PERFORMANCE-BASED REGULATION OF UTILITIES- Tariff incentives for consumers- Energy or Carbon taxes
- New coal, hydropower, or nuclear plant or upgrades
- Regional power trade
- Add power capacity to existing dams- Reduce transmission loss
- Change manufacturing processes- Efficient end user technology
- Improve facility operations- Improve cost recovery
- Privatisation policies- Policies to attract investors
- Minimum equipment performance standards
- Very small power producers(grid connected or stand alone)
INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLANNING
2 PDP still discloses little data to public about costs
Real fuel price assumed constantor slight increase for inflation
Cost is financial cost of EGAT, not society’s economic costsMany externalities not included
3 PDP still does not take energy efficiency seriously
EGAT’s DSM division does a 5-year plan, but PDP is a 15-year plan
Energy efficiency is not modeled in a detailed manner Assumption that
“elasticity” of economy will improve
Top-down approach10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
Actual Mar07 Elasticity=1.18 Elasticity=1.32
MW
. . . But top-down assumptions must link to bottom-up program design!
Annual avoided peak power (MW) from EGAT high efficiency appliance programs
0
50
100
150
200
250
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004(through
Aug)
2005(through
Sept)
Lighting Refrigerator
Air Conditioner
Energy Efficiency is <50% of cost of new supply capacity
or energy Source: EGAT’s DSM Division 2008
4 PDP still does not consider renewable energy seriously
Many small power producers (“non-firm”) are not counted as supply option in the PDP
Very small power producers (VSPP) are not counted as supply in the PDP They are accounted for on the demand-side
(which is external to the optimization) analyzed in a superficial manner in the Load
Forecast Long-term planning by Dept of Alternative Energy
Dvmt (DEDE; กรม พพ.) not in the PDP
5 Limited use of scenario thinking
“Scenarios” Stories about different possible futures (social and/or
technical), based on what is already known
Help improve understanding about different factors that planners cannot control Economic conditions Fossil fuel markets Political changes
For example: How would the power system look if . . . EGAT cannot just build any power station it wants to renewable energy is subsidized more strongly (“feed-in tariff”) energy efficiency is planned and implemented more vigorously
6 PDP does not explicitly deal with risk
Reasons for limitations of PDP
Institutional limitations 1 Financial model: rate-of-return หร�อ ROIC
Institutional limitations 2 Many units, many plans, no integration
Power of discourse (วาทกรรม) “energy efficiency is not as reliable as building new power
plant”
If you want cheap electricity, you need to build large power stations
Part II: Introducing integrated electricity resource planning
IRP: what is it?
Comprehensive options assessment
Balanced treatment of demand-side and supply-side options
Invest in least-economic cost first
Can be done for energy, water
- Distribution transformers- Smart metering- Automated demand response
Structural(“hardware-intensive”)
Institutional (knowledge intensive)
Supply development
Demand management
POWER SECTOR
- PERFORMANCE-BASED REGULATION OF UTILITIES- Tariff incentives for consumers- Energy or Carbon taxes
- New coal, hydropower, or nuclear plant or upgrades
- Regional power trade
- Add power capacity to existing dams- Reduce transmission loss
- Change manufacturing processes- Efficient end user technology
- Improve facility operations- Improve cost recovery
- Privatisation policies- Policies to attract investors
- Minimum equipment performance standards
- Very small power producers(grid connected or stand alone)
INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLANNING
IRP: who typically does it & in what context?
Requires engineering and economic data
. . . utilities typically do it In North America:
required to do so by strong regulators
Hasn’t always been popular belief that privatization
makes detailed planning unnecessary
SPPs(11% )
EGAT(51% )
EGCO(10% )
IPPs(10% )
Production
Transmission
Distribution
EGAT (100% )
PEA(63% )
MEA(35% )
Direct Customers(2% )
State
Regulator
Users Users
Imports(2% )
RATCH(16% )
EGAT and subsidiaries
Demonstration of IRPWork in progress (see Foran 2008 [in Thai])
How much electricity (kWh, MW) from large stations could be avoided if Thailand were to attain its ‘practically achievable potentials’ in energy efficiency + renewable energy + CHP (combined heat and power) ?
Timeframe: 2008-2018; 2008-2027 (for RE) Practically achievable potential
It is < Commercially viable potential < Economically viable potential < Technical potential
การประหย�ดพล�งงานไฟฟ�าท��ค�!มค"าทางการเง#นและบรรล�ได!ในทางการตลาด
. . . thus it is an estimate
IRP can be designed as an integrated, participatory assessment
Step 1 Create reference scenario Business-as-Usual (BAU) scenario = Thailand power development plan (EGAT 2008)
-2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
MW
Import - Coal or Not specified
Import - Hydropow er
Nuclear
RPS or SPP NET
Domestic thermal / thermal CC NET
Total
Step 2 Review demand forecasting
I took the official load forecast (pink line) as a BAU scenario
Ideally forecasting would be bottom-up (based on regular user surveys) as well as top-down (macroeconomic) Peak Demand Increase Per Year (MW):
Actual vs. March-07 Forecast
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
Actual Mar-07 Forecast
15 yr average = 914 MW
14 yr avg = 1,884 MW
Past averages:20 yr = 897 MW10 yr = 808 MW
Peak Demand Increase Per Year (MW):Actual vs. March-07 Forecast
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
Actual Mar-07 Forecast
15 yr average = 914 MW
14 yr avg = 1,884 MW
Past averages:20 yr = 897 MW10 yr = 808 MW
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
Actual Mar07 Elasticity=1.18 Elasticity=1.32
MW
Step 3 Estimate the achievable potential energy efficiency options
Review literature Du Pont 2005 Foran, du Pont & Parinya
2006 Bundit Limmeechokchai 2006
Trend in Energy Efficiency Ratio of new units and total stock, assuming average growth in new unit sales at 5.1% p.a.
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
EER (Btu/hr/W)
New labelled sales(#5)# 5 standard
#3 standard
Total stock
New unlabelled sales
Options FactoriesCommercial Buildings
Residential Buildings (Apartments and Homes)
1 Space Cooling1.1 Absorption chillers
1.2Increase efficiency of room air conditioners and fans
1.3 Install insulation
2 Lighting2.1 Increase efficiency of fluorescent lighting 2.2 Switch to compact fluorescent lamps
Switch to LEDs
3 Motors 3.1 Install efficient motors 3.2 Install efficient compressors
4 Other
4.1 Increase efficiency of common appliances:4.2 refrigerators 4.3 rice cookers 4.4 water heaters (solar and electric)
4.5Hire a facility energy manager or ESCO (cost paid by energy savings)
Sector
T12 40W
T8 36W
T5 28W
บ�ลลาสตอ#เลคทรอน#กสบ�ลลาสตแกนเหล(ก4
T12 40W
T8 36W
T5 28W
บ�ลลาสตอ#เลคทรอน#กสบ�ลลาสตแกนเหล(ก4
General Energy Efficiency
A
Achievable Energy Savings
60% 80%
B
Achievable No. of Facilities20% 40%
C
Achievability Assumption as % of Economic Potential (= A x B) 12% 32%
Option End-use Energy Efficiency MeasureSimple Payback
Period (years)
Average Savings (% of
facility electricity use)
1 A/C Absorption chiller 1.3 11.50%2 Motor High Efficiency Motors 4.4 11.10%3 Process Energy-efficient air compressor 3.3 5.00%4 Process Cooling system control improve. 2 2.70%5 Lighting Luminaire and reflector 2.7 2.50%6 Fan Ventilation fan efficiency 0 2.30%7 Process Air compressor controller install. 2.2 1.10%8 Process Air pressure leak reduction 1.5 1.10%9 Motor Motor speed controller (inverter) 1.3 1.10%
10 A/C Building insulation install. 3.5 0.90%11 A/C Electronic thermostat 0.9 0.90%12 Lighting Compact fluorescent lamps 1.3 0.70%13 Elec. Sys. Transformer capacity matching 0.2 0.60%14 A/C A/C cleaning & maintenance 0.5 0.50%15 Lighting Fluorescent tube lamps 4.1 0.20%
Total 42.20%
Total (not including motors and chillers) 19.60%
D 2.35%
E 6.27%
F 4.31%
Optimistic ScenarioConservative Scenario
Achievable Savings (Mid-range) = average of D and E
Achievable Savings (Conservative) = (12% x 19.60%)
Achievable Savings (Optimistic) = (32% x 19.6%)
Review energy efficiency cost data
Lack of recent data But Thai data show energy efficiency is much cheaper than new supply International data confirm
Source Cost Notes
du Pont 2005 0.92 THB / kWh based on EGAT (2000) & earlier
EGAT 2006 0.26 THB/ kWh Includes new ESCO start-up
0.49 THB / kWh EGAT’s Long-run marginal cost
Energy efficiency options: achievable potential by 2018
Achievable savings by 2018 (this study)(As % of sector electricity demand) Compared to
du Pont (2005)
% % GWh/yr MW
FactoriesExisting 4.30% 9.30% 2221 347
New 7.00% 14.00% 2392 374
Total 4613 721
Commercial buildingsExisting 3.30% 6.60% 1181 185
New 2.25% 4.50% 535 84
Total 1,716 269
AppliancesFive common
appliances 6.16%
2594 376.13
Total 8,922 1,366
Sector Achievable savings by 2018 (this study)
Step 4 Estimate the achievable potential renewable energy options
Review literature du Pont 2005 JGSEE 2007 Jepsen et al. 2006
Cost Supply Curve - Full Potential
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000
110,000
120,000
130,000
Power Production [GWh]E
co
no
mic
Po
wer
Pri
ce
[T
HB
/kW
h]
RE REF-ex REF
BP5BioGas
CD20CCP
Hydro
CD10
BP1
CD5Wind
MSW
Solar
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00%
Financial internal rate of return (FIRR)
% o
f tec
hnic
al p
oten
tial
Accumulated Penetration
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
0 5 10 15 20 25
Year
Pe
ne
tra
tio
n
Review renewable energy cost data (THB / kWh)
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
18.00
Financial generationcost
Conventionalproduction (fuel mix)
Step 4a Estimate the achievable potential renewable energy options
New modeling: explore effect of different prices for renewable energy, biomass feedstock and crude oil
Same model as Jepsen et al. (2006), revised assumptions Crude oil Biomass Base tariff Feed-in tariff
ช� วมวล 1200 บาท/ ต�น น�*า ม�นด#บ 110 ดอลล"าร สรอ./ บาเร(ล
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
ราคาร�บซ�* อไ ฟฟ�าเฉล��ย ( ก"อนรวม feed-in tariff) บาท/ หน"วย
GWh
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
MW
GWh
GWh แผนป�จจ�บน
MW
MW แผนป�จจ�บน
Achievable renewable energy potentialCase: year-1 base tariff: 3.34 THB/kWh + Feed-in tariff: Southern provinces rate
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Year
MW
พลงลม
พลงน���ขน�ดเล�ก
ก��ซช�วภ�พ
ช�วมวล
Assumptions:
Crude oil: 110 146 USD/barrel
Biomass: 1000 1200 THB/ton
Step 5 Estimate achievable potential of combined heat and power (CHP) options
Review literature: Dusan Gvozdenac et al. 2006
Study of Thailand’s existing ‘designated buildings’
42% are suitable for CHP installation
Estimated 3633 MW (23,565 GWh) potential
I took 30% of this as achievable potential
Avoided central station electricity by use of CHP systems (total 23,565 GWh)
5%
2%
85%
8% Buildings - own use
Buildings - sell to grid
Factories - own use
Factories - avoided T&Dloss
Step 6 Review other data for near-term achievable potential
Ministry of Energy has small power producer (SPP) and very small power producer programs (VSPP)
Private-sector apply to sell power to grid
Popular with private-sector (favorable prices: ‘feed-in tariffs’)
Some applications already in PDP; many not
NGOs criticize arbitrary limits on SPP (= 1700 MW)
I assumed all bids submitted to Ministry but not yet in the PDP power are achievable
‘Near-term potential’ : 3023MW
¦³Á£� �
¦¦ »°¥¼nÄÂ� � � � � PDP®¦º° Load Forecast ¦� �Âoª®¦º°Å¤n MW
Á° µ¦°oµ°·� � � / ®¤µ¥Á®»�
1 æ µ¦ ¦³®¥ Å¢¢jµ� � � � � ³° »¦´¬r¡¨´µÅ¢¢jµ� � � � �
°oµªnµ°¥¼nÄ� � Load Forecast Âoª 890
¡� . 2550 ¢� � . 2549 (Ħ³¥³Áª µ�
®oµe� 2549–53)
2 Å¢¢jµ¡¨ ®¤»Áª¥� � � (RE)
2.1
SPP Firm ³Non-firm (Åo¦´ µ¦ ° ¦´Âoª� � � � � � 11
¦µ¥) Ťn Á� � � � 154 ¡� . 2551�
3 ¦³ ·Å¢¢jµÂ³ ªµ¤� � � � �¦o° ¦nª¤� (CHP)
3.1
SPP pµ ¦¦¤ µ·� � � � � (Åo¦´� �µ¦ ° ¦´Âoª� � � � 20¦µ¥) ¥� Ťn 1,704 ¡� . 2551�
4
SPP (ÁºÊ°Á¡¨· » ·� � � � � � � ) Á °Âoª¥¦° ¨� � � ¥Å¤n� 2,600 ¡� . 2551�
4.1
¦ª¤SPP-Firm ³SPP-natural gas (ª É� � 2.1 +
3.1 +4) ¥Å¤n� 4,458 MW µ¥Ä®o¢� � � .
4.2
� ¦·¤µ É°¥¼nÄÂ� � � � � � PDP Âoª (1,700) EGAT (2008: 74)
4.3 ¦ª¤ ¥Å¤n� 2,758
5 VSPP (ÁºÊ°Á¡¨· » ·� � � � � � � )
Á °Âoª¥¦° ¨� � � ¥Å¤n� 958 ¡� . 2551�
5.1
¨ ¦·¤µ� � � nª Á¡·É¤ É� � °¥¼nÄ� Load Forecast Âoª (693)
VSPP Ä®¤n µ¥Ä®o� ¢� � .
+ ¢£� . ( ¡� . 2550: 10-11)
5.2 ¦ª¤ ¥Å¤n� 265
6 ¦ª¤ Ê®¤� � � ¥Å¤n� 3,023
Step 7 Sum the clean, distributed, domestic options achievable by 2018 Near-term potential: 3023 MW (previous slide) Medium-term potential: 4890 MW Total clean domestic achievable by 2018: 7913 MW (~ 33,000
GWh)
Option MW GWh Source
1Energy efficiency 1,366 8,922Foran 2008 Table 11
2Renewable energy 2,142 14,000Foran 2008 Figure 20
3Combined heat and power 1,382 7,070
30% of level assumed by
Gvozdenac et al. 2006
Total 4,890 29,992
Step 8 Compare clean domestic options with reference case (EGAT 2008)
Thailand needs total net new supply of 30,413 MW, according to reference case EGAT’s PDP 2007, Revision 1
Clean domestic options: total achievable by 2018 = 7913 MW (~ 33,000 GWh) Can substitute large central
stations (coal, gas, hydropower, nuclear)
If demand grows according to reference case (5.5% per annum) tremendous challenge!
But it may not
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
MW
ไ ฟฟ��น��เข�� – สะสม
ท�งเล#อกภ�ยในประเทศ (DSM/EE+ RE + CHP)
New imports – hydro + coal
Clean domestic (EE +RE +CHP
If all clean domestic (7913 MW) substitutes for imports, might avoid:
2011 ~ Nam Ngum 2 (597 MW)
2012 ~ Theun Hinboun Expansion (220 MW)
2013 ~ Nam Ngum 3 (440 MW) + Hongsa 1 (490MW)
2014 ~ Either: Nam Theun 1
(523 MW), Nam Ngiap (261 MW), Nam Ou 1 (200 MW)
Or: Hongsa 2 & 3 (2 x 490 MW)
2015 ~ Nam Ou 2 (843 MW)
2017 ~ Unspecified (510MW)
Im ported pow er by year com pared to dom estic clean portfolio, 2008-2018
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
MW
ไ ฟฟ��น�� เข� � – พลงน���
ไ ฟฟ��น�� เข� � – ถ*�นห,น หร#อ ไ ม*ระ บ�
ท�งเล#อกภ�ยใ นประ เทศ (DSM/EE +RE + CHP)
Nam Ou 2
Nam Ngum 3
Nam Ngum 2
Hongsa 1
Nam Theun 1, Nam Ngiap, Nam Ou 1
But may also want to use clean domestic (7913 MW) as substitute for ‘dirty’ domestic
Reference case: Nuclear: 4000 MW (2020 and 2021) Old coal: Mae Moh New thermal (coal + natural gas)
-2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
MW
Import - Coal or Not specified
Import - Hydropow er
Nuclear
RPS or SPP NET
Domestic thermal / thermal CC NET
Total
IRP: governance challenges
Basic regulatory framework = “rate-of-return”
Profits are a fixed percentage return on invested assets (8.4%)
Institutional preference for large scale, supply-side options
Political tension
Challenges are institutional, but also involve powerful discourses
E.g., ‘Energy efficiency not as reliable as power plant’
‘Very small power producers not as reliable’
IRP: institutional challenges
Preference for large scale, supply-side options
Governance problems Basic regulatory
framework = “rate-of-return”
Lack of meaningful participation
Conflicts of interest
Large scale (PDP model options):
700 MW Coal-Fired Thermal Power Plant
700 MW Gas-Fired Combined Cycle Power Plant
230 MW Gas Turbine Power Plant 1,000 MW Nuclear Power Plant
Demand forecast: Low Medium (“Base”) High
Summary: clean, distributed, domestic options achievable by 2018 for Thailand
Total clean domestic achievable by 2018: 7913 MW (~ 33,000 GWh) Based on detailed review + modeling
Near-term potential: 3023 MW (SPP + VSPP programs)
Medium-term potential: 4890 MW (our analysis) Enhanced feed-in tariffs for RE Enhanced support for EE
Already have successful DSM Need to implement new building code Need to mainstream EE building design
Sources of medium term potential
44%
28% 15%
5%
8%
RE - biomass
CHP
EE - factories
EE - buildings
EE - appliances
Summary: IRP presents opportunities & challenges Opportunities
(1) Provides structure for meaningful public participation- Lots of interest in civil
society
(2) Coherent framework- Boost legitimacy - helps identify gaps in
analysis(3) Helps communicate to
policy-makers
Challenges
(1) Legitimacy(2) May need additional
data(3) Time-intensive; requires
modeling
IRP should be designed as an integrated, participatory assessment
Recent + recommended steps for pro-sustainability advocacy in Thailand
Build good relations with elite actors Energy Regulatory Commission: Palang Thai, CMU-USER,
AWISH organized 2008 study tour to USA + January 2009follow-up visit by U.S. experts
Demand Side Management Division with EGAT
Promote integrated electricity planning to other actors Private sector: SPP + VSPP
Increase public interest in energy efficiency and micro-generation