Thirty three years after the EDSA I People Power Revolution, hundreds of militant activists from Manila once again held a protest caravan against the revival of Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP), a project of the ousted dictator Ferdinand Marcos. Church people, environmentalists, scientists, health professionals and women joined the caravan which was organized by the multi-sectoral alliance NO to BNPP Revival.

The BNPP is a not only a monument of folly but also a symbol of corruption during the dictatorship of President Marcos. The struggle of the people against the nuclear plant then has contributed to expose the blatant corruption and fraud during Marcos regime. These protests added to the widening discontent during the period which also led to the ouster of the dicator’s regime. Now, we face a similar situation where the plant is being revived under a more corrupt and fraudulent administration.

The Bataan Nuclear Power Plant was designed to deliver 620 Megawatts of electricity (MW) to the power grid. When it was shutdown and mothballed during the Aquino regime, no replacement was made to replace the loss. When the brownouts of the 1990s came, government’s solution was short sighted: ask private sector to build the plants. We entered contracts with various independent power producers. These contracts included one-sided take-or-pay provisions that was billed under the infamous purchased power agreements (PPA) in our electricity rates.

The end result was an oversupply of electric power but at rates higher than the cost to generate the electricity and run the plant. When the PPA overshoot the basic charge in our bills, consumers took to the streets to protest and President Arroyo ordered the National Power Corporation (NPC) to suspend the collection of their PPA. This caused losses for the NPC until they brought the PPA back later.

Following the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA), government policy is to sell all the power plants under the NPC, partly to relieve it from its losses due to the PPA suspension and to complete the privatization and liberalization of the local power industry. Yet for nearly eight years, what EPIRA accomplished was to raise our electricity rates to around ten pesos per kilowatt hour and tie government’s capability to move on its own to stabilize our power supply situation. It left the initiative to build plants to the private sector and foreign investors despite the obvious need for strategic power supply availability.

Power gap?

Congressman Mark Cojuangco of Pangasinan introduced a bill for the immediate re-commissioning of the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP) ostensibly to address the looming power crisis in 2012 as well as to contribute to the mitigation of carbon dioxide emissions to combat climate change. Yet even with these two premises, the revival of the BNPP is unnecessary and will only add to the economic burden that Filipinos are already carrying.

Reopening the BNPP is supposed to address a looming “three thousand megawatt shortage in the nation’s electric generating capacity projected to happen 2012” as well as to reduce electricity prices.If we look at figures from the various updates of the Philippine Energy Plan from the Department of Energy website, the projected shortage in 2012 can be addressed by building geothermal, hydro power, natural gas, wind, solar and coal plants even without the operation of the nuclear plant in Bataan. This is only if the government builds the necessary indicative capacity additions and develop and upgrade exisiting power plants.

These indicative capacity additions can yield around 2534 – 3000 MW, enough to address the gap in 2012 if only government commits to finance the new plants and develop and upgrade exisiting power plants. Yet it is government’s refusal to shoulder the cost of building new power plants and leaving this task to private industry that is partly to blame for the projected shortage.

If the House is indeed serious about addressing the power shortage, then the projected cost of 1 billion US dollars for the nuclear plant’s rehabilitation could have funded part of the required investments under the Philippine Energy Plan. Instead of waiting for a foreign investor to do it for us, government should build and rehabilitate power plants and stop the sale of these power assets to private independent power producers (IPPs). They should repeal the EPIRA and seriously fund power generation that would consider local and national interest.

Instead of mulling over the reopening of the Bataan nuclear power plant, the Philippines should develop and tap the many available energy resources from hydropower, geothermal, natural gas, wind and solar. These have been all put to sale by the government to private independent power producers (IPPs). It seems that the government now plans to run the BNPP only to ask foreign operators to take over it later.

Nuclear Tax

The proposed bill would pass on the cost of the BNPP to ordinary consumers as a de facto nuclear tax of P0.10 per kilowatt hour of the total electric power generated in the country for the first five years of the plant’s operation. Furthermore, a P 0.141 per kilowatt hour will be set aside for the decomissioning and waste disposal during the whole operational lifetime of the plant.

How much would this cost you and me? According to figures from the DOE website, the total electric power sales in 2007 is 48,009 GigaWatt hours (1,000,000,000 or billion watt-hour) or 48,009 million kilowatt hours. This translates to a nuclear tax of around 4 billion pesos per year or 100 M USD per year to be imposed on electric consumers. For five years, the total would be 20 billion pesos.

That would mean an extra 10 centavos per kwh extra on your electric bill. If one consumes 300 kwh per month, you would have to pay an additional of 30 pesos (no VAT yet) per month for that nuclear tax or a total of 1800 pesos for five years. The remaining 500 Million USD balance from the projected cost is to be obtained by entering into international or domestic loan agreements. Despite this cap on a billion dollars for the combined surcharge and loan, delays and interest repayments can drive this higher and become a new burden for the Filipino people.

The remaining 14.1 centavos to be set aside for decomissioning and waste disposal will run up to nearly 60 billion pesos for a 30 year lifetime of the plant. NPC either will absorb decomissioning costs and add to its increasing deficit or pass it on to us as part of our generation rate .

All in all, for a 300 kWh household per month, the nuclear tax for rehabilitation, decomissioning, and waste disposal will add up to an additional 58 pesos per month. Include the value added tax, this would be 65 pesos per month on top of the usual bill you get. That is 65 pesos too much for most consumers.

In addition, the projected peak demand for 2012 should be recomputed to include the effects of the global economic crisis and recession. According to IBON Foundation, GDP growth in 2009 is expected to be only half or even less than that in 2007. This would be the slowest growth since 2001. Adjusting for such growth, the projected “gap” will only amount to 169 MW in 2012. This gap can be addressed by a few new power plants.

The remaining 500 Million USD balance from the projected one billion dollar cost is to be obtained by entering into international or domestic loan agreements. Despite this cap on a billion dollars for the combined surcharge and loan, delays and interest repayments can drive this higher and become a new burden for the Filipino people.

Carbon-free?

The proposed bill writes that the use of the BNPP to generate electricity is intended “as proactive action in addressing the ever worsening global warming and carbon emissions issue.”

Even this promise of the nuclear plant being a solution to address climate change is questionable since the processed nuclear fuel has used embedded carbon in its processing even before it has been used. According to a feature in Nature Reports (doi:10.1038/ climate.2008. 99), the life cycle carbon emissions of a nuclear plant can range from a low of 1.4 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per kWh produced up to a high of 288 grams. The article points out that the reasonable average, 66 grams per kilowatt hour, is still twice as much carbon than solar photovoltaic and six times as much than the carbon emissions produced by wind farms.

Overall, the “proactive” impact of the BNPP’s operation on global reductions on climate change would be very minimal as the Philippines is not a top producer of greenhouse gases and energy production is second only to transportation in terms of emissions in our country. Although the risks associated with climate change is real and immense, the present power plant in Bataan is not without any risk as well.

Safety issues

While the proponents of the move to recommission the plant are enthusiastic about the supposed benefits of having a running nuclear facility, the economic, technical and social aspects of the plant’s operation should be addressed fully and to the satisfaction not only of the experts but of the nearby communities as well before even considering turning on the plant.

Every pipe, every component, equipment and systems has to be inspected by a competent independent team. Each seal has to be tested if it is still viable and a thoroughgoing test of the plant’s structural integrity should be done. The Korean Electric Power Company (KEPCO) has volunteered to do a preliminary study on reopening the plant since they operate a similar plant in South Korea.

However, leaving the preliminary inspection to interested parties such as KEPCO is questionable since they have an interest in pushing for the reopening of the plant. The national government, according to the pending bill in Congress, would be hiring foreign nationals to operate the plant in the absence of local skilled workers and engineers. The study that KEPCO will make would also be its foothold in the management contract that would follow the reopening of the plant.

We should approach KEPCO’s report in this light. Even the International Atomic Energy Agency in news reports has cautioned the Philippines not to let “commercial interests take precedence over safety issues” when considering the revival of delayed nuclear plants.

Other issues regarding the safety of the site as well as the plant have already been amplified by other oppositors including geologist Dr. Kelvin Rodolfo. He clearly pointed out the danger of Mount Natib and possible faults in the area. Passing this bill would make the operation of the BNPP a fait accompli despite absence of studies on the actual safety of the plant after 20 years of non-operation, on its site location and its long term economic viability. The BNPP has been shown to be defective according to the Puno Commission, the Senate Ad-Hoc Committee on the BNPP and other studies. It’s partner plant in Brazil has a spotty record in delivering power. There are numerous and significant arguments being raised with regards to geologic hazards, infrastructure integrity, and nuclear waste storage and disposal. Its operation will pose great risks to the health and lives of the people and the environment.

Government has a poor record on regulation and enforcement of environmental laws. If we are to look at recent environmental accidents in the Philippines such as the Rapu-Rapu mine spill, the Marinduque Copper spill and the like involved poor regulation and enforcement by the concerned agencies of government. Furthermore, the Philippine Nuclear Research Institute has to be retooled into a nuclear regulatory commission that should have the interest of the community and the people foremost in their mandate.

Viable Alternatives

Indigenous and renewable energy sources can help a lot in the growth of our country in building local industry and developing our agriculture in rural areas. We have the 3.3 trillion cubic feet of proven natural gas reserves in Malampaya off in Palawan. We are number one in the world per capita in geothermal power usage. We need to develop and expand geothermal and hydropower to supply baseload capacity in our energy mix as well as funding and developing energy-storage solutions that can compensate for the disadvantages of wind and solar power. These projects should take into account the welfare of the community where the power plants will be built and operated.

Biodiesel and other alternative fuels should be developed in view of the long term problems and concerns of the country. The current oil monopoly and control of a few companies, the current land monopoly and control of a few landlords, and the mainly export-oriented nature of production in our country are major stumbling blocks to the benefits of these alternatives.

Public utilities are services that are used by the people in their daily activities and economic production. These are power, water, fuel, transportation and telecommunications services. Limited access to these services would introduce additional difficulties that can be eased or facilitated by the use of the services provided by said utilities.

The nationalization of public utilities is important since these public utilities are strategic in nature to the development of the country. It provides the necessary infrastructure and support to the people’s daily activities and industrial growth. If these industries are left to foreign monopoly capital, whose interest is to recoup their investment and rake in profits--- we would lose quality of service, an unending increase in utility costs and our national interest will not be addressed.

A government serious in developing our economy and desirous to ensure the welfare of the people should provide the necessary infrastructure and affordable services for them. It ensures that public utilities are part of the basic industries it builds and not hope for foreign investors to do it for the government.

Sadly, these will not be carried out by a government that wants to sell our national patrimony, allows foreign control of vital utilities, and is uninterested in genuine industrial development such as the current one in Malacanang.

Government must deal with the genuine concerns of the community surrounding the BNPP as well as the general public. As nuclear power is not without any risk, there should be a serious evaluation as to the sustainability of operating the BNPP: how the economic, technical and social factors add up and whether this will be of genuine benefit to the people.

Passing this bill would make the operation of the BNPP a fait accompli despite the absence of studies on the actual safety of the plant after 20 years of non-operation, on its site location, its long term economic viability with regard to the risks associated with the plant.