Power to the People
Energy analyst Chuenchom Sangarasri Greacen is making the technocrats accountable for sloppy energy policy
It is an area that involves everybody, but only very few understand, let alone are able to communicate it to the less informed. One of the few exceptional people who is able to do this is Chuenchom Sangarasri Greacen, and we Thai consumers as well as the many fighting against large-scale power development projects, have a lot to thank this lady for.Why? For years, the field of national energy planning has been the exclusive realm of a tightly knitted group of technocrats. The majority of the Thai public simply accepts whatever figures and interpretations cited to them in the justifications for ever-rising electricity bills, the construction of huge power plants, the importation of more and more electricity from our neighbours, the privatisation of state enterprises in charge of energy supply, and last but not least, the introduction of nuclear energy. Due to a lack of information in such technically loaded terrain, most Thais feel the
experts must be right, that their forecasts of the country's future demands for electricity must be unquestionably prophetic and in line with national interests.
But thanks to Chuenchom's quiet dedication, number crunching and critical
reassessments of models presented by those in the corridors of power, an
alternative picture of energy emerges. Perhaps, the energy analyst argues
boldly, we might not have needed as many as 34 power plants than stipulated
in the original Power Development Plan, or PDP, (2007 to 2021) had there
been more transparency in the policy boardroom and more efficiency in energy
management. (the total sum has later been scaled back in the PDP's revised
version approved early this year) And why should nuclear reactors be a
constant must-have in every scenario postulated in the PDP _ regardless of
forecasts of economic growth? Who has actually benefited from the historic
two-minute sell-out of Petroleum Authority of Thailand (PTT) stocks during
the Thaksin regime? Who might have reaped another windfall had a similar
scheme to privatise the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (Egat)
not been halted by the Administrative Court (due in large parts to
Chuenchom's well-researched analyses submitted as counter-evidence to the
court)? Shall we, as Thai taxpayers, have to endure the reckless planning by
energy czars that resulted in excessive power supply well beyond the
standards of developed countries? (As of last year, the reserve margin was
29 percent, compared to the official target of 15 percent.)
Another aspect of Chuenchom's extensive campaigning has been the search for
alternatives to mainstream energy issues. With her husband, Chris Greacen,
the couple has set up a non-profit organisation, Palang Thai (
www.palangthai.org), which has been working on three core areas _ monitoring
energy policy, procuring small-scale hydro or solar powered energy supply to
medical units and refugees' camps along the Thai-Burmese borders and
supporting ''Very Small Power Producers'' (VSPP) drive in communities around
Thailand.
For Chuenchom, the ultimate goal is to push for a transformation in power
management that embraces ''peace, environmental sustainability and social
justice,'' she stressed.
However, her path has been far from rosy. Chuenchom laments how the Thai
establishment continues to adopt a top-down approach to energy policy and
planning. Moreover, she noted, they subscribe to the conventional notion
that the more electricity generated, even when not needed, the more
''secure'' the future of the nation is.
''They are not aware that energy efficiency can bring about
[national] security as well. Instead, they believe that as a developing
country, we have not yet attained the level of consumption that rich nations
enjoy. So they keep harping, 'Just build more and more power plants, there's
no need to worry, for all the electricity will be finally spent anyway!'
''Little do these people realise how much electricity Thailand has been
actually consuming. And in terms of the impact on climate change, we have
already surpassed the world's average.''
Chuenchom noted that Thailand ranks 21st in carbon emissions, at 344 million
tonnes, but has the world's second highest annual growth rate of
carbon-dioxide emission, estimated at 12 percent per year! (It should be
noted that most of the energy generated is gobbled up by only a few users,
namely, industrial factories, huge shopping complexes and office buildings _
see graphic by the Green World Foundation.)
Besides, environmental concerns are a huge financial burden on Thai
ratepayers, notably through an item on the electricity bill called ''FT''
(Fuel tariffs). In one of their papers, Chuenchom and her husband argue how
the so-called ''cost plus'' structure has unwittingly provided a strong
incentive for substantial over-investment in electricity generation: The
government has set a fixed rate of return to be equal to a certain
percentage of expenditures, which means that the more utilities spent, the
more profits they are allowed to accrue. The superfluous power supply,
especially after the financial crisis of 1997/98, together with the
volatility of fossil fuel prices, have been conveniently absorbed by
consumers who have had no say in how the national energy system should be
managed.
After all, the ability to ''play with'' the figures might be due to the fact
that there is a sort of revolving door game among Thailand's few
decision-makers. In effect, an individual or his or her affiliates can sit
on committees that both forecast future demands and design how many plants
and what types of fuels are needed, as well as screen and approve projects.
Such concentrations of power has indeed allowed little room for independent
regulation and, one might even say, innovation of ideas that look at the
future from broader and more inclusive and caring perspectives.
But Chuenchom is not the type to give up. A few acquaintances say they have
been impressed by her tireless energy and optimism in trying to turn things
around. Her solid research and back-up data, coupled with her
straightforward but non-confrontational personality, has won her way around
otherwise conflict-rife spheres, be they the closed-door meetings of energy
planners or fierce public debates between proponents of mega projects and
their opponents.
One even recalled a sight of Chuenchom boarding a train, strapped with her
two toddler children, heading out into the villages in the Northeast or in
the South to give talks to the rural folk about how national energy policies
might affect their lives. ''She once confided she felt a bit worried whether
or not she could make some technical ideas clear and simple enough for the
villagers to understand,'' said the friend.
Such a way of life is light years away from Chuenchom's former posting as a
young hotshot government officer at the National Energy Policy and Planning
Office (EPPO). An extremely bright woman _ she was a former recipient of the
much-coveted King's Scholarship _ the thirty-something woman would have had
little difficulty climbing up the hierarchical ladder had she stayed on the
same track. However, after four years at the EPPO, Chuenchom decided to quit
the government job and started Palang Thai with her husband.
In retrospect, the first seed of self-transformation has probably been sown
since her days studying environmental science in the United States.
Chuenchom says the inter-disciplinary curriculum, plus her exposure to
different cultures and peoples, has taught her to see the
inter-connectedness of everything, and that technology may not be the sole
answer.
Despite the limitations of Thai bureaucracy, Chuenchom managed to push for
change in her own small ways. One initiative she pursued with her colleagues
during her tenure at EPPO was to facilitate the adoption of a programme to
buy power from ''very small-scale power producers'', also known as ''net
metering'' or ''VSPP''. Her husband, Chris, with help from a specialist
friend, also stepped in to help draft the first versions of regulations in
this emerging sector. Eventually, in May 2002, Thailand became the first
developing country to issue a law allowing VSPPs, originally referring to
those who produce no more than one-megawatt of renewable energy, to resell
the electricity back to the national grid.
Again, Chuenchom added that her goals have always been to promote broader
access and an alternative structure and approach in the field of energy _
one that is more democratic, less centralised (it is estimated that about
seventy percent of electricity can be lost during transmission through the
national grid), allowing participation by consumers and villagers
themselves. In December 2006, the government amended the 2002 regulation by
increasing the ceiling threshold for potential sellers to under 10
megawatts. This has led to an explosion of renewable energy development in
Thailand. The VSPPs have since been flourishing; as of June of this year,
1,265 very small power producers have proposed selling a combined 6,300
megawatts to the system.
It's not all perfect, however.
''Several large biomass power plants are having a considerable environmental
impact and are facing community opposition,'' she noted. ''Work needs to be
done by project developers to involve local communities in the
decision-making process from the beginning. Also, work needs to be done by
policymakers to target environmental review requirements more precisely on
power plants even if they squeeze under the current 10-megawatt threshold of
environmental impact assessment requirements.''
Chuenchom continues to explore new channels to influence policymakers. With
funding from the US-based Blue Moon Foundation, last year the Palang Thai
group organised a one-week ''study trip'' where they invited several key
players in the energy field _ four then-recently appointed Energy
Commissioners, a handful of executives from electricity and natural gas
utilities and National Energy Policy and Planning Office, Democrat
parliamentarian Alongkorn Pollabut, and representatives from some NGOs and
media _ to visit the US states of Oregon and Washington.
Why the trip? According to Chuenchom, the Pacific Northwest region can offer
so many invaluable lessons to Thailand both in regard to past mistakes and
how citizens have since learned to make their state-wide energy management
more sustainable, democratic and efficient. It was also to be the very first
overseas excursion for some members of Thailand's Energy Regulatory
Commission upon taking their new positions since the relevant law went into
effect last year, as well as a forum where they could interact with their
counterparts from another country and with different sectors across the
board.
For Sarinee Achavanantakul, Thammasat lecturer in business and finance and
editor of OpenOnline, the study trip was eye-opening in that the US examples
show how the concept of ''energy efficiency'' (EE) can become a viable and
serious choice of investment on the same par as other conventional plans,
and not an ''afterthought'' as has been the practice in Thailand.
''Whenever they make a plan about building a power generator, they try to
include every possible cost into their accounting _ construction expenditure
as well as the cost of potential social and environmental impacts for
current and future generations. Some choices might appear cheap now, but
when taking the future costs of, say, the disposal of radioactive waste into
consideration, they might become too expensive. On the other hand, what
seems costly now, for example establishing solar- and wind-powered energy
sources, might be in fact much cheaper in the long run.
''The bottom-up and decentralised approach also enables representatives from
low-income sectors to take part in the decision-making process, to provide
information on what low-powered housing is like.''
Such an integrated resource planning process does not come out of a vacuum.
Chuenchom said during the 1970s and 1980s, the state governments of Oregon
and Washington were at a similar stage as Thailand is now: Planners had
projected a tremendous rise in power demands and up to 27 nuclear reactors
were thus slated for construction. The ambitious scheme fell in a
spectacular flop, however, largely due to delays, drastic cost over-runs,
and high interest rates. The electricity rates then skyrocketed by up to 500
percent; there was a severe drop in demand; and the failed projects prompted
the largest bond default, at the time about $2.25 billion, in US history.
In the end, only one nuclear plant was completed; four others in varying
stages of completion were shut down or ''mothballed'' at a colossal cost to
rate-payers in Washington and Oregon.
''The rate-payers in the region became extremely irate,'' described
Chuenchom. ''They staged protests and finally a law was passed which
stipulated that from then on every energy policy must be the 'most
integrated and cheapest' possible, and secondly, that energy efficiency must
always be the first priority.
''Moreover, another law in Oregon dictates nuclear reactors will be built in
the state only when the government can find permanent solutions to the waste
issue (and even then, a citizen referendum is still needed to authorise the
construction).''
Chuenchom and Sarinee recall seeing the gruesome rows of thick concrete
pipes containing spent plutonium surrounded by armed around-the-clock
security guards. For the ''waste'', if stolen, could be reprocessed
(''enriched'') and turned into deadly atomic bombs that have similar, or
even more destructive capacities than those that ravaged the cities of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II.
For Chuenchom, that is a telling scene. She said her past critiques of
Thailand's energy management have come from the ''left side of the brain'',
the use of arguments and technical reasoning, but when it comes to the
nuclear issue, she wants to do a campaign warning the public of its danger
from a mother's stance, appealing to common sense.
''As a mother, I want to be able to give my children the good things I have
had the opportunity to enjoy. And I see nuclear energy as something that
completely goes against the principles of peace, sustainability and justice
that I believe in.
''It is a technology that is based on risk, can induce war and other
violence, and block freedom of thoughts. It will leave behind a host of
problems _ such as radioactive waste _ to the younger generations. I thus
take it as my responsibility to ensure a safe and clean future for my
children.''