IN a statement issued on August 29, a motley collection of naysayers posing as energy and environmental advocates scoffed at the Carbon PH initiative led by the Aboitiz Group, labeling it as "greenwashing" and "a 'cover-up' to the issue of an alleged coal moratorium violation through the planned expansion of Therma Visayas Inc. (TVI) Unit 3 in Toledo, Cebu."

Gerry Arances, the convenor of one of the groups, the Power for People Coalition (P4P), said in the statement, "This project is Aboitiz's attempt to masquerade as environmental champions while, in truth, they are worsening carbon emissions by expanding their coal fleet in Toledo. Coal is one of the major contributors to climate change, and Aboitiz has been at the forefront of further expansion of this industry despite an existing coal ban. They are in no way the image of environmental protection."

These people take the same approach to their advocacy as those kids who are sent out with drums to canvass the neighborhood for donations to the local festival — make enough loud, annoying noise in the hope that someone gives them what they want to make them go away. The P4P group is one that frequently manages to appear in news stories of late; another is the Center for Energy, Ecology and Development (CEED), a name chosen in an apparent attempt to give the impression it is some kind of think tank.

The controversy over the expansion of the TVI facility took a new turn recently when the P4P group, along with leftist party-list group Sanlakas, filed a graft complaint against Energy Secretary Raphael Lotilla before the Ombudsman, alleging that the approval for the construction of what would be the third unit at TVI violated the 2020 moratorium that the Department of Energy issued against new coal plants. The complaint is utterly specious, which seems to be a disturbing new pattern with energy-related cases filed at the Ombudsman's office.

To my recollection, the expansion of the TVI plant, which currently has two units and a generating capacity of about 360 megawatts, was acknowledged as a future project as far back as 2018 or 2019, well before the coal moratorium was announced by former energy secretary Alfonso Cusi. When it was approved by Lotilla earlier this year, the energy chief was careful to clarify how the new third unit was covered by the exceptions allowed by the original moratorium.

Get the latest news
delivered to your inbox
Sign up for The Manila Times newsletters
By signing up with an email address, I acknowledge that I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

In any event, the complainants made the elementary mistake of conflating a department memorandum from the DoE with an actual law. The memorandum, which had an effective date of Oct. 27, 2020, has the legal force of a "suggestion." It informs concerned stakeholders of a change in how the DoE will manage its approval process and adds that "this will be regularly assessed," implying that it can be modified if, in the DoE's judgment — no one else's, and especially not a court's or the sentiments of a bunch of placard-carrying yahoos — that becomes necessary. Secretary Lotilla may, at his discretion, modify the memorandum or scrap it entirely, and informing those affected by it is a matter of courtesy.

Lotilla would certainly not scrap the whole thing and being, if anything, even more environment-conscious than his predecessor, would not diverge too far from the basic conditions of the moratorium unless need and practicality required it. That is exactly the case with the TVI expansion; without it, energy-hungry Cebu would face serious shortages as early as next year and blackouts of the level not seen since the 1990s by 2027 or 2028.

Like it or not, the "renewables-only" approach to adding needed generating capacity is unrealistic. RE capacity should be expanded as much as possible, but an energy transition that keeps the lights on in the face of unchecked demand also requires upgrading grid infrastructure, employing off-grid energy solutions, mostly solar, wherever feasible, and maintaining reliable baseload power, which can transition to cleaner sources as technology improves.

Yes, the practical and effective "just energy transition" model is not ideal; everyone would prefer that all our energy come from emission-free sources. That is not possible, however, current generating technology being what it is, and probably won't be a conceivable reality for another 20 or 30 years. As long as steps are being made in that direction, even modest ones, that is progress. Expanding TVI with a new unit is not a great option, but it is far superior to the other options currently available to Cebu, which is either to make up its looming energy deficit with dirty sources such as diesel or choose who gets to do without electricity at all.

With regard to the Aboitiz Group's supposed "greenwashing" with the Carbon PH initiative, the accusation is both unfair and unrealistic. The initiative seeks to reforest 29,000 hectares of the Central Cebu Protected Landscape (CCPL), and besides the various companies under the Aboitiz umbrella that are participating, the effort also includes GT Capital Holdings, JG Summit Holdings, SM Investments Corp., the Lucio Tan Group and the Jollibee Group Foundation, among others.

Besides helping to protect the landscape and a large number of endangered species, the reforestation project will have a significant impact on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions mitigation. Once the new forest is growing, perhaps a year or two after planting, it will absorb between 10 and 30 metric tons of CO2 per hectare annually; these estimates come from research at the US Energy Information Agency (EIA), Yale University and Ohio State University.

At a conservative estimate of 11 metric tons of CO2 per hectare annually, the reforested area will thus remove about 339,000 metric tons of CO2 per year. A high estimate of emissions for the planned 150-MW unit at TVI would be about 550,000 MT per year, based on EIA data. The reforestation project would then offset about 58 percent of the new plant's emissions.

That's not quite good enough, of course; the planners at the Aboitiz Group will need to find an additional way to offset the unaccounted-for 211,000 metric tons of CO2 emissions per year from TVI. But the Carbon PH project can hardly be described as "greenwashing," because the definition of greenwashing is making a claim of sustainability without actually doing anything.

The current roster of advocacy groups in the Philippines is achieving nothing but discrediting their own cause by resorting to attention-seeking antics rather than critical thought and purposeful engagement with the energy sector. They use the term "energy transition" just as everyone else does, but they obviously have not stopped to think about the actual meaning of the word "transition," which means the process of changing from one state to another, or in other words, a series of steps toward a new condition.

I don't doubt that they have good intentions, but their approach displays a lack of patience and either a lack of competence, a lack of intellectual discipline, or both. And it is poisoning the well of public engagement to the extent that it is becoming difficult for anyone else with a similar advocacy but a commitment to a sober approach to the problem to get a word in edgewise. My suggestion to them is to find something else to complain about and leave energy policy and planning to the grownups.


[email protected]