PEP 2023-2050 — Three Scenario Comparison

The Philippine Energy Plan 2023-2050 models three distinct energy futures for the country over a 27-year planning horizon. They share a common macroeconomic baseline but diverge sharply on energy supply strategy — particularly on how aggressively the Philippines decarbonizes its power sector and manages its growing import dependence.

The Three Scenarios at a Glance

All three scenarios are built on the same macroeconomic baseline: GDP growing at an average 7.1%/yr from 2022 to 2050, anchored to the Philippine Development Plan 2023-2028 and AmBisyon Natin 2040. Population projections come from the 2020 POPCEN (PSA); fuel price forecasts from DBCC, IMF, and OPEC WOO 2045. The models used are Simple E2 (IEEJ) for final energy demand, PLEXOS (Energy Exemplar) for power capacity expansion, and LEAP (Stockholm Environment Institute) for GHG accounting — with 2022 as the base year and 2023 as the first projection year (→ Reference Scenario (REF) ).

The scenarios differ only in their policy and technology interventions. REF represents current-policy continuation; the CES scenarios layer additional measures on top. CES-1 and CES-2 are themselves identical in every assumption except one.

Reference Scenario (REF) — Current Policy Continuation

Common misconception: REF is not a no-policy baseline. It already includes the official RE generation-mix targets and the 2020 coal moratorium. What it lacks is the aggressive technology push of the CES interventions (→ Reference Scenario (REF) ).

REF supply assumptions:

• Existing plants and committed projects as registered in WESM as of May 2023
• RE share targets: 35% by 2030 → 50% by 2040 → >50% by 2050 (generation mix)
• Capacity development under NREP and the 25 CREZ zones
• Indigenous fossil fuel targets: oil 61.3 MMB at 2.3 MMB/yr; gas 5.1 TCF at 0.2 TCF/yr; coal 191 MMT at 6.5 MMT/yr
• LNG imports from 2023 to replace the declining Malampaya gas field (→ Malampaya Gas Field , LNG Imports as Transition Fuel )
• Coal moratorium sustained: no new coal beyond the committed 2023–2027 pipeline (→ Coal Moratorium (2020) )
• No nuclear energy

REF demand assumptions:

• Energy intensity reduction consistent with ASEAN/APEC regional targets (at current-effort pace)
• EV penetration: 10% of road transport by 2040
• Biofuels: B2 biodiesel / E10 bioethanol blending maintained
• EEC savings sustained at current levels only (~5%)

The REF outcome: Coal’s generation share collapses from 59.6% (2022) to 14.1% (2050) as committed plants age out — but without OSW or nuclear to replace them, natural gas fills the gap. LNG imports grow from zero to 24.3 MTOE by 2050 (+8.37%/yr), making gas the single largest power source at 35% of generation. Self-sufficiency worsens from 49.4% to 38.9% as the economy grows faster than domestic RE can offset fossil fuel import demand (→ LNG Imports as Transition Fuel ).

Clean Energy Scenario 1 (CES-1) — 19 GW Offshore Wind + Nuclear

CES-1 adds six interventions on top of REF across supply and demand. These are not aspirational targets but the specific modeled assumptions built into the PLEXOS/LEAP runs (→ Clean Energy Scenarios (CES-1 and CES-2) ):

Additional supply (vs. REF):

The 40-year coal life rule is what drives the modeled ~3,660 MW of voluntary CFPP retirement under CES-1 — it is not a mandate but an engineering assumption about useful plant life (→ Voluntary CFPP Retirement and Repurposing ).

Additional demand (vs. REF):

Together, the demand-side measures reduce TFEC by 7.7 MTOE versus REF by 2050, cutting TFEC growth from 3.4%/yr (REF) to 3.0%/yr (→ Energy Intensity and Efficiency Indicators ).

What CES-1 prevents: The 19 GW of OSW and 4,800 MW of nuclear together displace 14.2 MTOE of natural gas and 3.4 MTOE of coal from primary energy supply by 2050 compared to REF. Gas generation falls from 158.8 TWh (REF) to 67.9 TWh (CES-1) — a 57% reduction. Gas’s NDC contribution to GHG avoidance is the single largest component at −33.2 MtCO₂e annually (→ GHG Emissions — Energy Sector (2022 Baseline) ).

Clean Energy Scenario 2 (CES-2) — 50 GW Offshore Wind

CES-2 is identical to CES-1 in every assumption except one: offshore wind capacity is raised from 19 GW to 50 GW by 2050 (→ Clean Energy Scenarios (CES-1 and CES-2) , Offshore Wind (OSW) ). All demand assumptions, the nuclear ramp-up, the biodiesel blend schedule, the EV target, and the EEC savings are unchanged.

This one change cascades across the system:

• Wind generation jumps from 144.5 TWh (32.6%, CES-1) to 220.4 TWh (49.5%, CES-2) — making wind the dominant power source
• The higher wind output displaces solar downward (89.0 → 47.7 TWh) since both are variable RE competing for the same dispatch priority
• Gas drops a further 4.3 pp to 11.0% of generation
• Coal falls to 9.5% (vs 11.0% in CES-1)
• An additional 1,143 MW of CFPP retirement is triggered (~4,803 MW total) by the reduced need for coal baseload (→ Voluntary CFPP Retirement and Repurposing )

Why the CES-1 OSW target is already conservative: As of October 2023, the Philippines had awarded 80 service contracts totalling 62.3 GW — already exceeding the CES-1 target before construction begins. The World Bank study estimates total OSW potential at 178 GW, meaning CES-2’s 50 GW represents only 28% of identified resource. CES-2 is not an extreme scenario; it is a moderate draw on a large domestic resource (→ Offshore Wind (OSW) ).

What Distinguishes the Three Scenarios — Summary

Sources: (→ Reference Scenario (REF) , Clean Energy Scenarios (CES-1 and CES-2) )

Early Divergence: 2028 Milestone

The gap between scenarios opens well before 2050. By 2028, under the PDP 2023-2028 medium-term plan (→ MOC: Philippine Energy Plan 2023-2050 — Volume I ):

By 2028, CES-1 already exceeds the PDP RE target by 6.2 percentage points, with approximately 2 GW of OSW in operation. Both scenarios exceed all four SDG Tier 1 indicators.

Headline Comparison (2022 → 2050)

Sources: (→ MOC: Philippine Energy Plan 2023-2050 — Volume I , Reference Scenario (REF) , Clean Energy Scenarios (CES-1 and CES-2) )

¹ RE share of generation, not TPES. The 32.6% figure sometimes cited for 2022 is the RE share of Total Primary Energy Supply; the generation share was 22.1% [PEP 2023-2050 Vol. I, p.8, 2023]. See Power Generation Mix (2022 Baseline) .

Energy Demand

Total Final Energy Consumption

All three scenarios see TFEC roughly double from the 2022 baseline, driven by economic growth (7.1% GDP average annual rate through 2050) and rising living standards (→ Reference Scenario (REF) ).

The 7.7 MTOE CES-1 saving comes from three demand-side interventions: EV penetration (−3% of TFEC), higher biofuel blending (−3%), and 10% EEC savings on oil and electricity (−6%) — a combined 12.3% reduction vs. the unmitigated case (→ Clean Energy Scenarios (CES-1 and CES-2) ).

Structural Fuel Shift

Across all scenarios, electricity displaces biomass and partially displaces oil as the dominant household fuel (→ Reference Scenario (REF) ):

Under CES, oil drops further (−7.0 MTOE by 2050 vs. REF) as EVs displace gasoline and diesel consumption.

Energy Intensity

All scenarios improve energy intensity, but at different rates (→ Energy Intensity and Efficiency Indicators ):

The CES meets the ASEAN APAEC energy intensity target (32% reduction from 2005) in 2023 — two years early — and the APEC 45% target in 2028, seven years ahead of the 2035 deadline.

Power Sector

The power sector is where the three scenarios diverge most dramatically. All scenarios roughly quadruple total generation from 111.5 TWh (2022) to ~445 TWh (2050). The mix changes entirely.

Generation Mix by Fuel (2050)

Sources: (→ Reference Scenario (REF) , Clean Energy Scenarios (CES-1 and CES-2) )

The REF gas trap: Under REF, natural gas rises from 16% to 35% of generation — replacing coal’s baseload role. This is not because gas is clean, but because it is dispatchable and LNG infrastructure is available. Gas GHG emissions grow at +8.4%/yr, making it the fastest-growing emissions source in the REF (→ LNG Imports as Transition Fuel ).

The CES inversion: CES-1 and CES-2 prevent the REF gas trap. OSW and nuclear together displace ~150 TWh of gas generation by 2050, keeping gas below 16%. Nuclear enters in 2032 at 9.7 TWh and grows to 38.6 TWh (8.7% of generation) by 2050 (→ Nuclear Energy Program (Philippines) ). CES-2 takes this further: wind alone at 49.5% makes it the dominant source, displacing solar downward as the two VREs compete for the same dispatch priority (→ Offshore Wind (OSW) ).

Installed Capacity by Fuel (2050)

Source: (→ Clean Energy Scenarios (CES-1 and CES-2) )

Solar vs. wind trade-off under CES-2: Adding 50 GW of OSW to CES-2 reduces solar capacity relative to CES-1 (from 54,694 MW to ~35,651 MW) as wind’s higher capacity factor (44%) displaces the need for as much solar nameplate capacity. CES-2 also replaces onshore wind (lower CF) with offshore wind — so the total RE capacity barely changes, but the quality of RE improves (→ Offshore Wind (OSW) ).

Battery Storage

BESS is the critical enabling technology for variable RE (VRE). The requirement scales dramatically with VRE share (→ Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) and Energy Storage System Policy , Renewable Energy Targets 2023-2050 ):

The 5.8× jump in BESS between REF and CES-1 is the clearest indicator of how different the grid management challenge becomes when 65% of generation is variable RE. Pump hydro storage adds a further 2.3 GW (CES-1) and 2.1 GW (CES-2) as long-duration backup.

CFPP Retirement

Under the CES scenarios, a 40-year technical life is applied to existing coal plants, triggering earlier retirement of older units (→ Voluntary CFPP Retirement and Repurposing ):

Retirement is voluntary, not mandated. The coal moratorium (2020) only prohibits new approvals; existing plants operate through their economic or technical lives unless retired early under the ETM financing structure (→ Voluntary CFPP Retirement and Repurposing , Energy Transition Mechanism (ETM) ).

Import Dependency and Self-Sufficiency

This is the most strategically significant divergence between the scenarios (→ Energy Import Dependency , LNG Imports as Transition Fuel ):

The REF trajectory is a structural deterioration: as Malampaya gas depletes (→ Malampaya Gas Field ), LNG imports fill the gap, growing from 0 to 24.3 MTOE by 2050 (→ LNG Imports as Transition Fuel ). The Philippines trades oil and coal import dependence for LNG import dependence — a different fuel but not a more secure supply chain.

CES-1 and CES-2 reverse this by treating nuclear and offshore wind as domestic energy resources. Nuclear qualifies despite uranium imports because enrichment (conversion to usable energy) is classified as domestic production (→ Nuclear Energy Program (Philippines) ). OSW’s resource is entirely indigenous. Together, they reduce LNG demand from 24.3 MTOE (REF) to 10.6 MTOE (CES-1) by 2050 — a 56% reduction in the largest import category.

GHG Emissions and Climate Impact

The scenarios produce markedly different GHG trajectories (→ GHG Emissions — Energy Sector (2022 Baseline) ):

Even under CES-2, GHG emissions are still 39% higher in 2050 than 2022. The Philippines does not commit to net-zero within the planning horizon — energy security and reliability take precedence, and natural gas remains a core transition fuel (→ Philippine Energy Transition Program (PETP) ). Mitigation is structural (RE + nuclear displacing fossil dispatch), not absolute.

What Drives the CES-1 vs. REF Gap?

The 70.5 MtCO₂e annual reduction by 2050 comes primarily from the power sector (transformation), which accounts for 69% of the gap (→ GHG Emissions — Energy Sector (2022 Baseline) ). By fuel:

• Gas: −33.2 MtCO₂e (47% of gap) — OSW + nuclear prevent the LNG baseload expansion
• Oil: −19.9 MtCO₂e — EV penetration reduces transport demand
• Coal: −17.3 MtCO₂e — earlier retirement + lower dispatch share

Carbon per Capita

Despite total GHG doubling under REF, carbon per capita increases more modestly as population grows (→ GHG Emissions — Energy Sector (2022 Baseline) ):

For context, the global average carbon per capita in 2022 was approximately 4.7 tCO₂e/person. The Philippines remains far below this benchmark even under REF.

Investment and Jobs

The CES scenarios require substantially more capital — but generate substantially more employment (→ PEP 2023-2050 Investment Requirements ):

The CES-2 premium over REF (PhP 11,690B / USD 212.5B) buys a 73% improvement in jobs created. The largest divergence items are EVs and EVCS (largest single CES-over-REF gap), followed by BESS (→ PEP 2023-2050 Investment Requirements ).

RE investment as a share of GDP averages 0.4% (REF), 0.5% (CES-1), and 0.7% (CES-2) annually — modest relative to the structural change being purchased, and declining over time as RE capital costs fall (→ Philippine Energy Transition Program (PETP) ).

Key Tensions and Strategic Implications

1. The REF Gas Lock-in Risk

REF requires 25,613 MW of new gas capacity by 2050 — a 7× increase from 2022. Seven LNG terminal projects totalling 22 MTPA are already planned (→ LNG Imports as Transition Fuel ). If these are built and LNG contracts are signed on 20–25 year terms, the Philippines risks locking in gas infrastructure that the CES pathway would then need to strand. The decision window on gas vs. OSW is now, not 2030.

2. OSW as the Swing Variable

The sole technical difference between CES-1 and CES-2 is 31 GW of additional offshore wind — yet that difference produces: +1.9 pp self-sufficiency, −4.6 MTOE net imports, +6% RE generation share, −11.6 MtCO₂e GHG annually, and 284.7 MtCO₂e more cumulative avoidance. No other single technology lever in the plan achieves comparable impact per GW. The 178 GW potential means even CES-2 is conservative (→ Offshore Wind (OSW) ).

3. Transmission is the Binding Constraint

All three scenarios assume RE targets are met — but since 2009, NGCP has expanded the transmission grid by only 8% (1%/yr pre-pandemic). RE can be built in 1–2 years; transmission takes 10+. Without the SGGP delivering on-time grid expansion, CES-1 and CES-2 generation capacity cannot be dispatched (→ Smart and Green Grid Plan (SGGP) , Competitive Renewable Energy Zones (CREZ) ).

4. Nuclear is Load-Bearing in CES

Removing the 4,800 MW nuclear component from CES-1 would require either (a) more OSW/solar to compensate, (b) accepting higher gas dependence, or (c) missing the 50%+ RE target in 2040. Nuclear’s firm, dispatchable baseload profile is precisely what makes the 50%+ target achievable at system reliability — VREs alone at 65% would require far more BESS than the plan models (→ Nuclear Energy Program (Philippines) , Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) and Energy Storage System Policy ).

5. Clean Fuel Share Stays Below 50% Even Under CES-2

Despite achieving 70.7% RE generation, the clean fuel share of TPES (RE excluding traditional biomass, plus nuclear) reaches only 46.7% (CES-1) and 48.3% (CES-2) by 2050 (→ GHG Emissions — Energy Sector (2022 Baseline) ). The transport and industrial sectors continue consuming oil and coal directly. Power sector decarbonization alone cannot close the emissions gap — it requires parallel decarbonization of transport (EVs), industry (efficiency), and agriculture.

Source Pages