THE JOURNAL OF ENERGY

AND DEVELOPMENT

Adam Rein and Karen Cruz

“Philippines Energy Policy and Development,”

Volume 34, Number 1

Copyright 2011
 PHILIPPINES ENERGY POLICY AND
DEVELOPMENT

Adam Rein and Karen Cruz*

Introduction

T he Philippines Department of Energy states that ‘‘[it has] committed to pursue

national development through the two-fold agenda of attaining energy in-
dependence and implementing power market reforms.’’ This paper analyzes the
feasibility of energy independence within the Philippines and offers an alternate

*Adam Rein is a co-founder at Altaeros Energies, a remote wind technology company, and an
early founder of SolSolution, a nonprofit to help schools go solar while spurring clean energy
education. The author holds an M.B.A. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School
of Management, a master’s in public administration from the Harvard University Kennedy School of
Government, and a B.A. in ethics, politics, and economics from Yale University. His past research
has covered a range of energy topics, including U.S. advanced coal policy, the use of microfinance to
spur clean energy technology in the developing world, and the market for home energy-efficiency
products and services. The author has worked in Southern Africa with TechnoServe, a nonprofit, to
help the Mozambican government develop policies and market opportunities in the biofuels sector.
Karen Cruz is an energy consultant at Shaw Consultants International, a subsidiary company of
the Shaw Group. She researches and analyzes clean energy markets, technologies, and costs, with
a particular focus on solar technologies, biomass, and clean coal technologies. Her research papers
and conference presentations have covered a range of energy topics, including the role of affordable
energy in developing countries, solar photovoltaic technology and efforts to reduce carbon dioxide
concentration to under 450 ppm. The author has led financial analysis work for independent
engineering reviews of solar plants for the U.S. Department of Energy Loan Guarantee
Program and has assisted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the Bushwick Environment
and Health Collaborative Project to research links between asthma and the environment. She is an
honors graduate of Boston University with a joint B.A. and M.A. degree in economics and a B.A.
degree in environmental analysis and policy. The views expressed in this article are those of the
authors only.

The Journal of Energy and Development, Vol. 34, Nos. 1 and 2

Copyright Ó 2011 by the Intrnational Research Center for Energy and Economic Development
(ICEED). All rights reserved.
129
130 THE JOURNAL OF ENERGY AND DEVELOPMENT

energy framework that can benefit both the Philippines and other countries that
face continued foreign energy dependency.
Energy independence is an alluring goal, offering hope of simultaneously
improving economic growth, environmental impact, and energy security. Un-
fortunately, for countries that are neither endowed with large fossil fuel resources
nor inexpensive renewable sources, energy independence creates a huge burden of
continuous investment in new power sources that can result in sharply increased
consumer energy prices while offering limited security benefits. For middle-
income countries such as the Philippines, which face skyrocketing energy demand
and limited resources, the pursuit of energy independence also frequently limits
broader development goals to reduce widespread poverty. Thus, a better energy
policy balances the economic and security benefits of domestically sourced pro-
duction with the significantly higher costs needed to achieve this goal and sec-
ondary impacts on the quality of life for the citizenry.
The Philippines has adopted one of the most popular strategies for increasing
domestic electricity production—a renewable energy goal. Unlike coal, gas, or oil,
the thinking goes, renewable fuels by nature can only be produced locally and
thus will have spillover benefits to both the economy and the environment. This
thinking is mistaken on three levels. First, if a renewable is more expensive than
a conventional source, then the benefits may be outweighed by higher costs paid in
government subsidies or higher consumer electricity rates. Second, if the Philip-
pines incurs increased debt from expensive renewables projects, it will be
replacing energy dependence with financial dependence. Finally, generation
sources whose fuel is domestic still rely on foreign components and technology.
Thus, 100-percent energy self-sufficiency is neither possible nor desirable.
Instead, energy dependent countries should develop a comprehensive energy
policy that supports energy interdependence; an energy policy that improves se-
curity, economic growth, innovation, poverty reduction, the environment, and
other national goals, while openly acknowledging that trade-offs exist among
these goals. This paper details initiatives that will bring the Philippines closer to
true energy stability and national prosperity in the long run. The first initiative
highlights a strategy to reduce dependence on oil from one region by diversifying
into Russian imports, a policy that will reduce effects from possible supply shocks
and deepen the relationship with a promising trade partner. The second initiative
emphasizes key areas of investment in fuel efficiency in the transportation sector,
which results in lower oil imports, consumer energy spending, urban traffic, and
pollution. The third initiative would limit spending on expensive domestic energy
projects that lack the ability to scale or positive externalities, including regional
gas pipelines and some first generation renewables. The fourth initiative would
support local innovation in alternative vehicles, enhanced geothermal systems
(EGS), or distributed generation, which can create local innovation in areas where
the Philippines holds a competitive advantage. These four initiatives would not
 PHILIPPINES ENERGY POLICY 131

result in a Philippines that is energy self-sufficient by 2020, but it would put the
country on a path towards greater growth, security, and stability for both the gov-
ernment and the broader public.

Philippines Energy Background

Roughly a third of the Philippines’ primary energy comes from oil, roughly
another third from natural gas and traditional biomass, and a third from coal,
geothermal, hydro, and other renewables.1 Energy end use is divided about evenly
among the industrial, transport, and building sectors. Today, some 57 percent of
primary energy is supplied from domestic resources, close to the national goal of
60 percent independence by 2010.
The Philippines economy consumes approximately 320,000 barrels of oil per
day. It meets less than 10 percent of this need from domestic output, which has
been stable at 25,000 barrels per day since 2006.2 The Philippines only began
significant production of its 139 million barrels of proven oil reserves after the
1998 deregulation of the Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC) monopoly
allowed foreign upstream partners to tap new offshore deepwater deposits in
Malampaya. In 2005 the Philippines reached a memorandum of understanding
with China and Vietnam to jointly pursue oil research into large potential deposits
in the South China Sea, where territorial disputes remain.3
Despite this progress, the Philippines still depends on imports for over 90
percent of its oil, mainly from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar.4
The Philippines struggles to operate its two refineries profitably.5 Moreover, in
2010 one of its refineries was issued a complaint by the Philippines due to alleged
tax evasion.6
A similar import dependence exists for coal. Despite recent efforts to double
coal production over historical levels to 2.6 million short tons per year, the
Philippines faces booming electricity demand and must import over 75 percent of
its coal.7
The one fossil fuel not currently imported is natural gas. Following de-
regulation, a joint venture with Shell and Chevron was formed in 2001 to begin
tapping the 3.9 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of proven reserves of offshore deposits. Gas
is currently being pumped via a sub-sea pipeline to fuel electricity plants totaling
2.7 gigawatts (GW). From 2002 to 2008, gas grew its share of Philippines elec-
tricity production from roughly one-fifth to one-third. Exploration at a second
offshore field at Sampaguita has the potential to double or triple reserves if a new
liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility is constructed. Roughly 85 percent of natural
gas is used for electricity production.8
Electricity: Between 1994 to 2006, electricity consumption and installed ca-
pacity both doubled, and this strong growth rate continues. In order to meet this
132 THE JOURNAL OF ENERGY AND DEVELOPMENT

need, in 2001 the government broke up the electricity monopoly, Napocor, into
separate transmission, generation, and distribution entities, and regulated the
creation of independent power providers. Today, the Philippines provides roughly
62 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity per year from five major sources: natural
gas (33 percent), coal (27 percent), geothermal (17 percent), hydro (16 percent),
and oil/diesel (7 percent). The Philippines is best known internationally as the
second largest producer of geothermal energy in the world, behind only the United
States, with installed capacity close to 2.0 GW in 2008.9
One notable electricity source missing from the mix is nuclear power. In the
1970s, the Marcos regime responded to an energy crisis by building the Phil-
ippines’ only nuclear plant, a light-water reactor in Bataan some 100 kilometers
west of Manila.10 The plant, hampered by corruption, cost overruns, and poor
planning, was nearly completed but never fueled. In 1986, international in-
spectors deemed the plant unsafe due to earthquake and volcano risk, and the
Philippines government responded by adding a constitutional ban on all nuclear
power.

Figure 1
a
2009 ELECTRICITY GENERATION BY SOURCE
(in percent)

a
The actual sources in gigawatt-hours (GWh) were: Oil-Thermal, 909 GWh (of which 73 GWh
was from domestic sources); Diesel, 3,771 GWh (301 GWh domestic); Gas Turbines/Combined
Cycle, 700 GWh (all domestic); Hydro, 9,788 GWh (all domestic); Geothermal, 10,234 GWh (all
domestic); Natural Gas, 19,887 GWh (all domestic).
 PHILIPPINES ENERGY POLICY 133

Pursuing Energy Independence and Current National Energy Policy

Like many oil-importing countries, the Philippines touts a slogan of energy

independence. It has repeated its commitment to achieving energy independence
while numerous energy outlooks and the government itself acknowledges that the
country will be reliant on energy imports for years to come. The energy sector’s
agenda focuses on attaining a sustainable 60 percent energy self-sufficiency be-
yond 2010 and promoting a globally competitive energy sector. Currently about 57
percent of Philippines’ energy demand is met by indigenous resources.
Three main energy plans dictate the overall agenda for the country’s energy
policy: The Philippine Energy Plan 2005-2014 (PEP 2005-2014), The Philippine
Energy Plan 2009-2030 (PEP 2009-2030), and The Clean Technology Fund In-
vestment Plan (CTF Investment Plan), submitted to the World Bank and Asian
Development Bank’s Clean Technology Fund and approved at the end of 2009.
The Clean Investment Plan is the most recent energy blueprint, which builds upon
PEP 2005-2014, PEP 2008-2030, the upcoming National Environmentally Sus-
tainable Transport Strategy (final draft expected by the end of 2010), and other
relevant sector plans.
Mid-Term—Philippines Energy Plan 2005-2014: The Philippines Department of
Energy (DOE) has committed to pursue national development through the twofold
agenda of attaining energy independence and implementing power market re-
forms, which they have affirmed in their PEP 2005-2014. Power-sector reforms
consist of legislation to continue the privatization, deregulation, and competition
within the power sector started in 2001.11
Long-Term—Philippine Energy Plan 2009-2030: The PEP 2009-2030 is a long
term and less-detailed plan that emphasizes three strategic directions: (1) ensure
energy security, (2) pursue effective implementation of energy-sector reforms, and
(3) implement social mobilization and a cross-sector monitoring mechanism. Like
the medium term PEP 2005-2014, PEP 2009-2030 emphasizes energy security. To
ensure energy security, the PEP 2009-2030 lists several initiatives, including the
exploration and development of domestic fuels and development of renewable and
energy-efficiency projects. In particular, the PEP 2009-2030 aims to increase
indigenous coal production by 250 percent, more than double renewable energy
capacity by 2030, and displace 20 percent of diesel and gasoline imports with
biofuels by 2030.12
2009 Clean Technology Fund Investment Plan: The Philippines government
therefore sought Clean Technology Fund (CTF) support to help move from the
business-as-usual case to a lower carbon case. The Clean Technology Fund is
a financing scheme supported by several multilateral institutions including the
Asian Development Bank and the World Bank, among others. Access to Clean
134 THE JOURNAL OF ENERGY AND DEVELOPMENT

Technology Fund financing requires the endorsement of the country’s Clean

Technology Fund Investment Plan. These plans are intended to be ‘‘living doc-
uments’’ that can be revisited periodically.13 The Philippines CTF goals are as
follows: (1) increase renewable energy-based capacity by 100 percent in 10 years;
(2) be the number one geothermal energy producer in the world; (3) be the number
one wind energy producer in Southeast Asia; (4) double hydropower capacity with
additional 3,000 MW; (5) be the solar cell manufacturing hub in the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN); and increase the new contribution from bio-
mass, solar, and ocean energy by more than 100 MW.
Renewable Energy Act of 2008: The Renewable Energy Act of 2008 creates
a renewable energy board, mandates the creation of a renewable portfolio standard
(though it does not detail what the required percentage should be), and provides
a variety of incentives for first generation renewables such as a feed-in tariff and
tax incentives.14
All three plans—the PEP 2005-2014, PEP 2009-2030, and the Philippines CTF
Plan—emphasize energy independence and first generation renewables. They
have few linkages with foreign policy and have little explicit emphasis on eco-
nomic development.

Energy Independence Policy Weaknesses

The pursuit of energy independence does not address the true policy challenge
of meeting long-term, skyrocketing demand in a secure, economic, and environ-
mentally friendly manner. First, simply because the generation fuel is domestic
does not make the generation plant itself a completely domestic source. Com-
ponents and materials for renewables will have to be obtained from other countries
in addition to technical expertise. In addition, if the Philippines borrows large
amounts of money to pay for expensive domestic generation, then it actually will
find itself more dependent, not less.
Second, the emphasis on energy independence fails to confront oil import
security concerns. Less than 10 percent of 2009 electricity generation was de-
rived from oil. Despite the energy independence rhetoric, the 2009-2030 Energy
Plan aims to meet 20 percent of the 2030 diesel demand and 20 percent of 2030
gasoline demand from renewable sources. Specifically, even if the Philippines
attains its ambitious biofuel goals, over 60 percent of gasoline and diesel demand
will be met from conventional sources. Barring a highly unexpected domestic oil
discovery, the Philippines will continue to receive over four-fifths of its oil from
Middle East imports. Current policy does not address the risk of disruptions to
energy imports that could occur from transportation disturbances in key shipping
choke points.
 PHILIPPINES ENERGY POLICY 135

Another energy security concern involves climate-change-related natural di-

sasters. Renewable proponents hope to use the flooding in late 2009 to raise
awareness of the link between natural disasters and climate change. However,
greenhouse gas emissions in the Philippines are low—0.9 tons of carbon dioxide
(CO2) per capita—largely due to the size of the renewables and service sectors.15
Domestic emissions have almost no impact on global climate change. As a result,
while the Philippines is at risk of climate-change-related natural disasters, its
efforts to reduce carbon emissions will do very little to decrease its risk.
Finally, current policy lacks linkages with economic goals. These strategies
rely on expensive technologies that push up consumer electricity prices at a time
when millions of poor Filipinos are now dependent on the grid. Additionally, the
existing policy does not adequately address long-run job creation in the energy
field; it will subsidize first generation renewable technologies but much of the
technical expertise and technologies themselves will be imported even though
there is domestic preference for national renewable energy developers. Domestic
jobs will be created for installations; however, installations comprise a relatively
small portion of the jobs in the chain. Current policy does include the aim of being
a solar manufacturing hub, but that will be contingent on the Philippines having
relatively low electricity rates and is, nonetheless, not a bold enough goal. The
Philippines must focus its efforts away from exporting workers and relying on
imported goods and technical expertise and, instead, to developing its domestic
sectors.

Energy Strategies for Interdependent Geopolitical and Economic Goals

The Philippines has made great progress in the development of its energy
sector. However, the government clings to an unrealistic goal of energy in-
dependence. A better policy would take a more comprehensive view, integrating
energy, foreign policy, and economic imperatives.
The Philippines energy policy rightly seeks to reform the power sector, build
out indigenous oil, gas, coal, and renewables production, and promote energy
efficiency. We outline below a 2010 to 2030 strategy based on a set of broader,
more integrated goals that achieve the true main overarching goals of energy
policy: (1) alleviating poverty and (2) meeting energy demand in a secure, low
cost, and sustainable manner.

Goal 1—Avoid Oil Import Disruptions Due to U.S.-China Tension or Mideast/

Southeast Asia Piracy: Strategically diversify oil imports away from the Middle
East to East Russia. The Philippines oil dependence is forecast to increase from 92
percent in 2010 to almost 100 percent by 2030, continuing to consume roughly 4
percent of gross domestic product (GDP) per year. The Philippines has reached out
136 THE JOURNAL OF ENERGY AND DEVELOPMENT

to foreign partners to help find new sources of oil—ExxonMobil recently began

exploration offshore of the southern islands, and seismic research continues in the
South China Sea. However, barring an unexpected discovery, the Philippines will
continue to receive over four-fifths of its oil from Middle East imports. This
contrasts with the nation’s coal imports, which are diversified among the regional
suppliers of Indonesia, China, and Australia.
The largest geopolitical energy threat to the Philippines is the disruption of this
supply. Additionally, imports could be disrupted by a pirate attack in the Straits of
Malacca, which funnels about one-quarter of the world’s oil trade, or a military
strike on Iran that could cause output to be taken off the global market. If countries
face a future crisis, a small importer like the Philippines, with little international
leverage, could struggle to secure supplies.
A strategy to mitigate this risk is a geopolitical partnership with Russia to fund
and gain access to Siberian oil, gas, and coal supplies currently under de-
velopment. The Philippines, of all the members of the ASEAN, is the country
located closest to the Russian Far East. In 2007, Russia briefly flirted with
a proposal to build an oil refinery and storage facilities in the Philippines to serve
Southeast Asia, but further developments were not undertaken.16 The Philippines
should seek to obtain a portion of oil and coal imports from Russia, diminishing
the risk of Middle East supply disruptions and opening a new front in the ‘‘in-
dependent’’ foreign policy. No additional financial or economic resources would
be required. The possibility of obtaining some oil from Russia has been mentioned
very briefly in Philippines energy policy discussions in the Medium Term 2004-
2010 plan, but follow-up action has not been completed.17

Goal 2—Reduce Oil Demand That Drives Dependency: Strategically make

transportation a priority over the power sector and focus on long-term strategies
to lower oil demand. The increase in energy demand is projected to be driven
significantly by the transportation sector. Oil imports for the transportation sector
also play a larger role in energy security as the power sector relies on more di-
versified coal imports and a substantial portion of renewable energy generation. In
addition, pollution from the transportation sector has a far greater impact on the
environment and quality of life of Filipinos and can be addressed by the Philip-
pines government on its own in a way that climate change cannot. As discussed,
the Philippines currently contributes very little greenhouse gas emissions and
becoming carbon neutral would do nearly nothing to mitigate the risks the nation
faces from potential climate change disasters. Reducing pollution from transpor-
tation would have the most rapid impacts on smog, particulate matter, and other
emissions. Moreover, many of the policies to reduce oil imports in transportation,
such as improving mass transit, have important secondary benefits like reducing
congestion, which reduces quality of life and hinders economic development. The
nature of Philippines transportation—wherein citizens are more likely to travel
 PHILIPPINES ENERGY POLICY 137

within a smaller area—lends itself better to incremental adoption of new trans-

portation technologies.
The CTF Plan does target the transport sector in a meaningful way but should
be emphasized more and over renewable energy in the power sector. The CTF Plan
cites a medium-carbon and a low-carbon scenario in which 16 million tons of oil
equivalent (MTOE) and 36 MTOE are saved, respectively, through measures such
as alternative fuels and large-scale transportation. The CTF Plan estimates that
project preparation is expected to require a total of U.S. $3.5 million: U.S. $2.5
million for renewable energy and $1 million for transport-sector projects.18 Thus,
about 30 percent of the CTF resources would be dedicated to the transportation
sector. The ratio of Philippines government spending between transportation and
renewable energy should not correspond with that of the CTF Plan. It should
devote more of its monetary resources to reducing oil demand.
The Philippines has increased its use of natural gas taxis and compressed
natural gas (CNG) buses. It also has completed pilot runs of an electric jeepney.
However, the most ubiquitous transportation vehicle remains the jeepney. While
the Philippines has summoned the political will to pass ambitious renewable en-
ergy goals, it still has not mustered the will to increase fuel efficiency of the widely
used diesel jeepneys. These jeepneys have an average fuel efficiency of only 22
miles per gallon and use diesel, which has higher CO2 emissions per gallon than
gasoline. If 100,000 jeepneys increased their fuel economy to 30 miles per gallon
with diesel, CO2 emissions would be reduced by 256,000 tons per year. The de-
velopment of an electric jeepney is a good program, but there are currently
available options to decrease pollution from its vehicles. The Philippines would do
well to put more subsidies behind cleaner, currently available transportation.

Goal 3—Meet Near-Term Electricity Demand in a Low-Cost, Sustainable Manner:

The strategy would (1) develop projects that are most economical by estimating all
pre-subsidy primary and secondary costs and benefits. (2) The strategy would
pursue mutually beneficial foreign linkages that can lower renewable capital and
financing costs.
Meeting near-term electricity demand in a low-cost, sustainable manner is an
inherently difficult balancing act because, in most areas, the least-expensive op-
tion by analysis of the power plant and fuel would likely be coal.
Requiring all pre-subsidized costs be shown for any projects, both conventional
and unconventional fuel projects, would then need the completion of a conven-
tional cost-benefit analysis, adding secondary benefits to projects where appli-
cable. Applicable secondary benefits include job creation, reduced emissions and
pollutants—sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic compounds (VOC), CO2—
and transmission grid benefits, among others. Such a requirement will help glean
a clearer picture of the benefits and costs of a project and is more likely to en-
courage project developers to plan their projects such that secondary benefits
138 THE JOURNAL OF ENERGY AND DEVELOPMENT

are increased. With such an analysis it is likely that natural gas would be de-
termined to be a good bridge fuel for several areas.
The Philippines has already signed the Renewable Energy Act into law. Ret-
roactively changing energy policies, even if they result in substantially increased
electricity prices, would be detrimental for investment. However, the Philippines
should focus these renewable incentives in areas where renewable energy would
have been the least expensive in any case, which likely would be rural, un-electrified
barangays.
In the near term, the Philippines also should pursue mutually beneficial link-
ages with countries with high transportation and renewable energy expertise but
low energy demand growth, e.g., Japan; such countries may be more eager to
provide external non-loan funding and better financing terms in order to access
a market with greater energy demand than their own.

Goal 4—Develop an Internationally Competitive Private Sector in Renewable

Technology: The strategy would be to fund innovation in advanced vehicles, en-
hanced geothermal systems, second generation biofuels, or distributed generation.
The Philippines energy community is focused on the achievement of the Re-
newable Energy Act of 2008. However, the majority of the billions of dollars of
renewables investment leaks out to foreign development partners that bring
technical expertise—a pattern mirrored in the fossil fuel sector. The Philippines
would have domestic sources for the fuel itself, but not for the capital and labor to
develop the generation.
The Philippines should aim for having a larger portion of the energy project
supply chain domestic. The national government should set aside up to $500
million per year to fund research, development, and deployment of next generation
renewables. The $500 million annually seems quite high, but it would be less than
2 percent of the $30 billion 2010 budget and less than 0.40 percent of the Phil-
ippines 2008 GDP.
There are significant hurdles. The Philippines would need to exercise care that
money disbursed is actually going towards research. The country does not cur-
rently have a strong research and development base and would need to bring in
external technical expertise to support research. Technical knowledge would
transfer and technological achievements would be achieved within the country.
The substantial sum of money for a long term and less tangible goal may be
initially unpopular but is necessary. In no other way will an active indigenous
renewable energy sector develop. The Philippines would be waiting for foreign
firms to open plants and offices in the country and would be importing technol-
ogies for even more years to come.
An indigenous renewable technology sector will provide three benefits. First, it
will diversify the economy by supporting a new sector that promotes manufacturing,
technology, and exports. Second, this funding will create the next generation of
 PHILIPPINES ENERGY POLICY 139

technologies needed to break through constraints to tap new renewable sources.

This includes lowering the technical and cost barriers for EGS, algal biodiesel, and
small-scale distributed renewable generation. This last technology will be especially
critical to allow the millions of Filipinos on remote islands, out of reach of the
electric grid, to replace their kerosine lighting and diesel generation with modern
energy. A final benefit would be to keep a larger share of renewable utility in-
vestment within the local economy.

Conclusion

The goal of energy independence is very appealing, a seemingly clear goal that
has multiple positive spillover effects. However, the reality is that for a developing
country with limited conventional resources the goal of energy independence is
not as simple as it seems.
With this in mind, ‘‘interdependence’’ should be the new energy-sector focus.
The government can shift its short-term attention away from expensive renewables
and domestic oil. Instead, the Philippines can use its energy policy to diversify its
imports through a partnership with Russia, invest in the next generation of renewable
technology companies, and build a future transport infrastructure that improves the
quality of life.

NOTES
1
Philippines Department of Energy, Website, available at www.doe.gov.ph/, accessed 2010.
2
‘‘Country Energy Profile-Philippines,’’ U.S. Energy Information Adminsitration’s Country
Energy and Data Anaylsis, (Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information
Administration, June 2010), accessed August 2010 and available at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/
country_energy_data.cfm?fips=RP.
3
Shicun Wu and Keyuan Zou, eds., Maritime Security in the South China Sea: Cooperation and
Implications (Farmham, United Kingdom: Ashgate Publishing, 2009).
4
Philippines Department of Energy, Website, op. cit.
5
Myrna M. Velasco, ‘‘New Oil Refinery Investment Policy Sought,’’ mb.com.ph-Manila Bul-
letin Publishing Corporation (online version of the Manilla Bulletin), June 29, 2010, available at
www.mb.com.ph/node/264361.
6
Francisco Alcuaz, ‘‘Shell Philippine Unit Has $567 Million Smuggling Complaint From
Government,’’ Bloomberg, October 13, 2010, available at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-
10-14/philippine-bureau-of-customs-files-smuggling-complaint-against-shell-unit.html.
7
‘‘Country Energy Profile-Philippines,’’ op. cit.
8
Philippines Department of Energy, Website, op. cit.
140 THE JOURNAL OF ENERGY AND DEVELOPMENT
9
Ibid.
10
‘‘IAEA Advises Philippines on Next Steps for ‘Mothballed’ NPP,’’ International Atomic
Energy Agency, July 2008, available at www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2008/bataannpp.html,
accessed August 2010.
11
Philippine Energy Plan Framework-2005 Update, (Taguig City, Phillipines: Philippines De-
partment of Energy, 2005), available at http://www.doe.gov.ph/pep/PEP_2005_2014.pdf.
12
Philippines Department of Energy, Website, op. cit.
13
The World Bank, Clean Technology Fund Guidelines for Investment Plans (Washington,
D.C.: The World Bank, 2009).
14
Philippines Renewable Energy Act of 2008.
15
The World Bank, World Bank Development Indicators, (Washington, D.C.: The World Bank,
2009), available at http://data.worldbank.org/indicator.
16
Francisco Alcuaz, ‘‘Russia Plans Asian Energy Invasion,’’ Gulfnews, April 25, 2007, available
at http://gulfnews.com/business/oil-gas/russia-plans-asian-energy-invasion-1.173854.
17
Philippines National Economic Development Authority, Medium-Term Philippine Develop-
ment Plan 2004-2010 (Pasig City, the Philippines: The Philippines National Economic Develop-
ment Authority, 2003), chapter 10, ‘‘Energy Independence.’’
18
The World Bank, Clean Technology Fund Investment Plan (Washington, D.C.: The World
Bank, 2009).