Power to the people

Perhaps it could not have been timelier to recall the country’s energy sector than during this year’s Independence Day commemoration.

Freedom and power are two vastly different words, but it seems in this case they are intertwined.

It’s a play on the word “power,” one might say, that brings up all sorts of questions, especially in light of Energy chief Alfonso Cusi recently calling for a return of government involvement in the power sector.

A little background: the generation of power for the entire Philippines was once the main role of the National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR).

When the Electric Power Industry Reform (EPIRA) Act, or Republic Act 9136, was signed on 8 June 2001 by then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, NAPOCOR’s assets, including its plants, became subject to privatization.

The EPIRA exemplifies freedom in the sense that it is meant to give stakeholders a choice — being mainly “designed to bring down electricity rates and to improve the delivery of power supply to end-users by encouraging greater competition and efficiency in the electricity industry,” to borrow the word of power company Zameco 2 on its website.

With the restructuring of the electricity industry came “the separation of the different components of the power sector, namely, generation, transmission, distribution and supply,” with distribution and transmission regulated by the Energy Regulatory Commission or ERC.

Power generation and supply are currently in focus with Cusi bringing forth a few talk points, such as government participation anew in the distribution of power, especially after the recent “red alerts” in Luzon, as well as for lawmakers to consider alternative sources of power, which would allow the Philippines to gain a more competitive position in the region.

Secretary Cusi had, in fact, “vowed to include nuclear power into the Philippines’ energy mix even without the revival of the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP).”

The reopening of the BNPP — supposed to be the Philippines’ first nuclear power plant in 1976 — had been raised time and again, usually when problems come up with power supply or electricity rates.

Naysayers to its reopening mainly argue about safety.

Cusi, however, said in a report that technological advances now make it possible to manage these risks better, as other Asian countries are proving with their nuclear power supply.

Meanwhile, environment advocates also bring up the question of what “clean energy” really means and how nuclear energy should be categorized in this regard.

Contrary to fears about its dangers, nuclear energy (which powers communities across 28 states in America) “protects air quality by producing massive amounts of carbon-free electricity,” says its Office of Nuclear Energy within the US Department of Energy.

Nuclear power, it reiterates, is the “largest source of clean power” in the US.

But the US is a rich nation, others argue. Indeed, a study by the University of the Philippines is “advising against the development of coal and nuclear power plants in Luzon” as the costs of these technologies could drive up electricity rates.

Can we afford it? Will the public be educated enough on its science to support such inclusion in the country’s energy mix?

One thing is clear — it’s high time our lawmakers gave this power source question a much closer scrutiny.

As the world moves forward from this pandemic to post-pandemic times, the play of power around the world has been most apparent.

We have territories to protect and resources to explore — and never have these realities been more pronounced than now, when some freedoms we hold dear continue to be restricted, threatened and even controlled by outside interests.

“Environment advocates also bring up the question of what ‘clean energy’ really means and how nuclear energy should be categorized in this regard.

“Power generation and supply are currently in focus.