Integrated electricity planning: introduction & demonstration

Tira Foran, PhDUnit for Social and Environmental Research,

Chiang Mai University

Mekong Energy and Environment Network Workshop

14 May 2009

Purpose of talk

Review power development plan (PDP) process in Thailand

Introduce IRP ~ integrated electricity resource planning Demonstrate how it might work Review governance challenges

Motivation: during the 1990s, Thailand’s EGAT built a controversial dam . . .

During the “5 month, 9 day rally” Dec. 1994. Source: Buchita

After the “win-win” opening solution, June 2004

. . . But also successfully implemented energy efficiency!

Annual avoided peak power (MW) from EGAT high efficiency appliance programs

0

50

100

150

200

250

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004(through

Aug)

2005(through

Sept)

Lighting Refrigerator

Air Conditioner

Can Thailand find more clean, efficient, sustainable options? Integrated electricity planning may help What is it? Who does it and in what context? What governance obstacles exist?

Part I: Review and critique of Thailand’s (EGAT’s) PDP

EGAT’s planning objectives

EGAT’s PDP: Six limitations

1 Definition of basic objectives2 Costs 3 Role of energy efficiency 4 Role of renewable energy5 Role of scenario thinking (เหต�

การณจำ�าลอง)6 How to deal with risks

1 Basic emphasis is on supply-side options

Thailand power development plan (EGAT 2007)

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

220,000

240,000

260,000

280,000

300,000

320,000

340,000

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

Imported Power NuclearRenewable EnergyDieselHeavy OilNatural GasImported CoalLigniteHydro (Domestic)

8%

12%7% 6%

73%

69%71%

72%

11%

6%

13%

70%

6% 6% 12%

73% 69%

5%

10%8%7% 6% 6%

12% 10%

75%

65%

9% 8%

8%

9%9%

8%8%

8%

8%8%

8%

5% 9%

75%

6%

GWh

GWh

YearYear

69%

10%

6%

7%0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

220,000

240,000

260,000

280,000

300,000

320,000

340,000

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

Imported Power NuclearRenewable EnergyDieselHeavy OilNatural GasImported CoalLigniteHydro (Domestic)

8%

12%7% 6%

73%

69%71%

72%

11%

6%

13%

70%

6% 6% 12%

73% 69%

5%

10%8%7% 6% 6%

12% 10%

75%

65%

9% 8%

8%

9%9%

8%8%

8%

8%8%

8%

5% 9%

75%

6%

GWh

GWh

YearYear

69%

10%

6%

7%

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

2004 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022

Cum

ula

tive

Cap

acit

y (M

W)*

Coal (ICG) (MW)

CCGTurbine (MW)

SCGTurbine (MW)

DR (MW)

Wind (MW)

Conservation (aMW)

Example of “20-year load forecast and resource plan”

Basic emphasis is on supply-side options

- Distribution transformers- Smart metering- Automated demand response

Structural(“hardware-intensive”)

Institutional (knowledge intensive)

Supply development

Demand management

POWER SECTOR

- PERFORMANCE-BASED REGULATION OF UTILITIES- Tariff incentives for consumers- Energy or Carbon taxes

- New coal, hydropower, or nuclear plant or upgrades

- Regional power trade

- Add power capacity to existing dams- Reduce transmission loss

- Change manufacturing processes- Efficient end user technology

- Improve facility operations- Improve cost recovery

- Privatisation policies- Policies to attract investors

- Minimum equipment performance standards

- Very small power producers(grid connected or stand alone)

INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLANNING

2 PDP still discloses little data to public about costs

Real fuel price assumed constantor slight increase for inflation

Cost is financial cost of EGAT, not society’s economic costsMany externalities not included

3 PDP still does not take energy efficiency seriously

EGAT’s DSM division does a 5-year plan, but PDP is a 15-year plan

Energy efficiency is not modeled in a detailed manner Assumption that

“elasticity” of economy will improve

Top-down approach10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

2021

Actual Mar07 Elasticity=1.18 Elasticity=1.32

MW

. . . But top-down assumptions must link to bottom-up program design!

Annual avoided peak power (MW) from EGAT high efficiency appliance programs

0

50

100

150

200

250

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004(through

Aug)

2005(through

Sept)

Lighting Refrigerator

Air Conditioner

Energy Efficiency is <50% of cost of new supply capacity

or energy Source: EGAT’s DSM Division 2008

4 PDP still does not consider renewable energy seriously

Many small power producers (“non-firm”) are not counted as supply option in the PDP

Very small power producers (VSPP) are not counted as supply in the PDP They are accounted for on the demand-side

(which is external to the optimization) analyzed in a superficial manner in the Load

Forecast Long-term planning by Dept of Alternative Energy

Dvmt (DEDE; กรม พพ.) not in the PDP

5 Limited use of scenario thinking

“Scenarios” Stories about different possible futures (social and/or

technical), based on what is already known

Help improve understanding about different factors that planners cannot control Economic conditions Fossil fuel markets Political changes

For example: How would the power system look if . . . EGAT cannot just build any power station it wants to renewable energy is subsidized more strongly (“feed-in tariff”) energy efficiency is planned and implemented more vigorously

6 PDP does not explicitly deal with risk

Reasons for limitations of PDP

Institutional limitations 1 Financial model: rate-of-return หร�อ ROIC

Institutional limitations 2 Many units, many plans, no integration

Power of discourse (วาทกรรม) “energy efficiency is not as reliable as building new power

plant”

If you want cheap electricity, you need to build large power stations

Part II: Introducing integrated electricity resource planning

IRP: what is it?

Comprehensive options assessment

Balanced treatment of demand-side and supply-side options

Invest in least-economic cost first

Can be done for energy, water

- Distribution transformers- Smart metering- Automated demand response

Structural(“hardware-intensive”)

Institutional (knowledge intensive)

Supply development

Demand management

POWER SECTOR

- PERFORMANCE-BASED REGULATION OF UTILITIES- Tariff incentives for consumers- Energy or Carbon taxes

- New coal, hydropower, or nuclear plant or upgrades

- Regional power trade

- Add power capacity to existing dams- Reduce transmission loss

- Change manufacturing processes- Efficient end user technology

- Improve facility operations- Improve cost recovery

- Privatisation policies- Policies to attract investors

- Minimum equipment performance standards

- Very small power producers(grid connected or stand alone)

INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLANNING

IRP: who typically does it & in what context?

Requires engineering and economic data

. . . utilities typically do it In North America:

required to do so by strong regulators

Hasn’t always been popular belief that privatization

makes detailed planning unnecessary

SPPs(11% )

EGAT(51% )

EGCO(10% )

IPPs(10% )

Production

Transmission

Distribution

EGAT (100% )

PEA(63% )

MEA(35% )

Direct Customers(2% )

State

Regulator

Users Users

Imports(2% )

RATCH(16% )

EGAT and subsidiaries

Demonstration of IRPWork in progress (see Foran 2008 [in Thai])

How much electricity (kWh, MW) from large stations could be avoided if Thailand were to attain its ‘practically achievable potentials’ in energy efficiency + renewable energy + CHP (combined heat and power) ?

Timeframe: 2008-2018; 2008-2027 (for RE) Practically achievable potential

It is < Commercially viable potential < Economically viable potential < Technical potential

การประหย�ดพล�งงานไฟฟ�าท��ค�!มค"าทางการเง#นและบรรล�ได!ในทางการตลาด

. . . thus it is an estimate

IRP can be designed as an integrated, participatory assessment

Step 1 Create reference scenario Business-as-Usual (BAU) scenario = Thailand power development plan (EGAT 2008)

-2000

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

MW

Import - Coal or Not specified

Import - Hydropow er

Nuclear

RPS or SPP NET

Domestic thermal / thermal CC NET

Total

Step 2 Review demand forecasting

I took the official load forecast (pink line) as a BAU scenario

Ideally forecasting would be bottom-up (based on regular user surveys) as well as top-down (macroeconomic) Peak Demand Increase Per Year (MW):

Actual vs. March-07 Forecast

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

19

85

19

86

19

87

19

88

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

Actual Mar-07 Forecast

15 yr average = 914 MW

14 yr avg = 1,884 MW

Past averages:20 yr = 897 MW10 yr = 808 MW

Peak Demand Increase Per Year (MW):Actual vs. March-07 Forecast

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

19

85

19

86

19

87

19

88

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

20

20

21

Actual Mar-07 Forecast

15 yr average = 914 MW

14 yr avg = 1,884 MW

Past averages:20 yr = 897 MW10 yr = 808 MW

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

2021

Actual Mar07 Elasticity=1.18 Elasticity=1.32

MW

Step 3 Estimate the achievable potential energy efficiency options

Review literature Du Pont 2005 Foran, du Pont & Parinya

2006 Bundit Limmeechokchai 2006

Trend in Energy Efficiency Ratio of new units and total stock, assuming average growth in new unit sales at 5.1% p.a.

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

12.00

13.00

14.00

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EER (Btu/hr/W)

New labelled sales(#5)# 5 standard

#3 standard

Total stock

New unlabelled sales

Options FactoriesCommercial Buildings

Residential Buildings (Apartments and Homes)

1 Space Cooling1.1 Absorption chillers

1.2Increase efficiency of room air conditioners and fans

1.3 Install insulation

2 Lighting2.1 Increase efficiency of fluorescent lighting 2.2 Switch to compact fluorescent lamps

Switch to LEDs

3 Motors 3.1 Install efficient motors 3.2 Install efficient compressors

4 Other

4.1 Increase efficiency of common appliances:4.2 refrigerators 4.3 rice cookers 4.4 water heaters (solar and electric)

4.5Hire a facility energy manager or ESCO (cost paid by energy savings)

Sector

T12 40W

T8 36W

T5 28W

บ�ลลาสตอ#เลคทรอน#กสบ�ลลาสตแกนเหล(ก4

T12 40W

T8 36W

T5 28W

บ�ลลาสตอ#เลคทรอน#กสบ�ลลาสตแกนเหล(ก4

General Energy Efficiency

A

Achievable Energy Savings

60% 80%

B

Achievable No. of Facilities20% 40%

C

Achievability Assumption as % of Economic Potential (= A x B) 12% 32%

Option End-use Energy Efficiency MeasureSimple Payback

Period (years)

Average Savings (% of

facility electricity use)

1 A/C Absorption chiller 1.3 11.50%2 Motor High Efficiency Motors 4.4 11.10%3 Process Energy-efficient air compressor 3.3 5.00%4 Process Cooling system control improve. 2 2.70%5 Lighting Luminaire and reflector 2.7 2.50%6 Fan Ventilation fan efficiency 0 2.30%7 Process Air compressor controller install. 2.2 1.10%8 Process Air pressure leak reduction 1.5 1.10%9 Motor Motor speed controller (inverter) 1.3 1.10%

10 A/C Building insulation install. 3.5 0.90%11 A/C Electronic thermostat 0.9 0.90%12 Lighting Compact fluorescent lamps 1.3 0.70%13 Elec. Sys. Transformer capacity matching 0.2 0.60%14 A/C A/C cleaning & maintenance 0.5 0.50%15 Lighting Fluorescent tube lamps 4.1 0.20%

Total 42.20%

Total (not including motors and chillers) 19.60%

D 2.35%

E 6.27%

F 4.31%

Optimistic ScenarioConservative Scenario

Achievable Savings (Mid-range) = average of D and E

Achievable Savings (Conservative) = (12% x 19.60%)

Achievable Savings (Optimistic) = (32% x 19.6%)

Review energy efficiency cost data

Lack of recent data But Thai data show energy efficiency is much cheaper than new supply International data confirm

Source Cost Notes

du Pont 2005 0.92 THB / kWh based on EGAT (2000) & earlier

EGAT 2006 0.26 THB/ kWh Includes new ESCO start-up

0.49 THB / kWh EGAT’s Long-run marginal cost

Energy efficiency options: achievable potential by 2018

Achievable savings by 2018 (this study)(As % of sector electricity demand) Compared to

du Pont (2005)

% % GWh/yr MW

FactoriesExisting 4.30% 9.30% 2221 347

New 7.00% 14.00% 2392 374

Total 4613 721

Commercial buildingsExisting 3.30% 6.60% 1181 185

New 2.25% 4.50% 535 84

Total 1,716 269

AppliancesFive common

appliances 6.16%

2594 376.13

Total 8,922 1,366

Sector Achievable savings by 2018 (this study)

Step 4 Estimate the achievable potential renewable energy options

Review literature du Pont 2005 JGSEE 2007 Jepsen et al. 2006

Cost Supply Curve - Full Potential

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

12.00

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000

110,000

120,000

130,000

Power Production [GWh]E

co

no

mic

Po

wer

Pri

ce

[T

HB

/kW

h]

RE REF-ex REF

BP5BioGas

CD20CCP

Hydro

CD10

BP1

CD5Wind

MSW

Solar

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00%

Financial internal rate of return (FIRR)

% o

f tec

hnic

al p

oten

tial

Accumulated Penetration

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

0 5 10 15 20 25

Year

Pe

ne

tra

tio

n

Review renewable energy cost data (THB / kWh)

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

Financial generationcost

Conventionalproduction (fuel mix)

Step 4a Estimate the achievable potential renewable energy options

New modeling: explore effect of different prices for renewable energy, biomass feedstock and crude oil

Same model as Jepsen et al. (2006), revised assumptions Crude oil Biomass Base tariff Feed-in tariff

ช� วมวล 1200 บาท/ ต�น น�*า ม�นด#บ 110 ดอลล"าร สรอ./ บาเร(ล

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

ราคาร�บซ�* อไ ฟฟ�าเฉล��ย ( ก"อนรวม feed-in tariff) บาท/ หน"วย

GWh

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

MW

GWh

GWh แผนป�จจ�บน

MW

MW แผนป�จจ�บน

Achievable renewable energy potentialCase: year-1 base tariff: 3.34 THB/kWh + Feed-in tariff: Southern provinces rate

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027

Year

MW

พลงลม

พลงน���ขน�ดเล�ก

ก��ซช�วภ�พ

ช�วมวล

Assumptions:

Crude oil: 110 146 USD/barrel

Biomass: 1000 1200 THB/ton

Step 5 Estimate achievable potential of combined heat and power (CHP) options

Review literature: Dusan Gvozdenac et al. 2006

Study of Thailand’s existing ‘designated buildings’

42% are suitable for CHP installation

Estimated 3633 MW (23,565 GWh) potential

I took 30% of this as achievable potential

Avoided central station electricity by use of CHP systems (total 23,565 GWh)

5%

2%

85%

8% Buildings - own use

Buildings - sell to grid

Factories - own use

Factories - avoided T&Dloss

Step 6 Review other data for near-term achievable potential

Ministry of Energy has small power producer (SPP) and very small power producer programs (VSPP)

Private-sector apply to sell power to grid

Popular with private-sector (favorable prices: ‘feed-in tariffs’)

Some applications already in PDP; many not

NGOs criticize arbitrary limits on SPP (= 1700 MW)

I assumed all bids submitted to Ministry but not yet in the PDP power are achievable

‘Near-term potential’ : 3023MW

¦³Á£� �

¦¦ »°¥¼nÄÂ� � � � � PDP®¦º° Load Forecast ¦� �Âoª®¦º°Å¤n MW

Á° µ¦°oµ°·� � � / ®¤µ¥Á®»�

1 æ µ¦ ¦³®¥ Å¢¢jµ� � � � � ³° »¦´¬r¡¨´µÅ¢¢jµ� � � � �

°oµªnµ°¥¼nÄ� � Load Forecast Âoª 890

¡� . 2550 ¢� � . 2549 (Ħ³¥³Áª µ�

®oµe� 2549–53)

2 Å¢¢jµ¡¨ ®¤»Áª¥� � � (RE)

2.1

SPP Firm ³Non-firm (Åo¦´ µ¦ ° ¦´Âoª� � � � � � 11

¦µ¥) Ťn Á� � � � 154 ¡� . 2551�

3 ¦³ ·Å¢¢jµÂ³ ªµ¤� � � � �¦o° ¦nª¤� (CHP)

3.1

SPP pµ ¦¦¤ µ·� � � � � (Åo¦´� �µ¦ ° ¦´Âoª� � � � 20¦µ¥) ¥� Ťn 1,704 ¡� . 2551�

4

SPP (ÁºÊ°Á¡¨· » ·� � � � � � � ) Á °Âoª¥¦° ¨� � � ¥Å¤n� 2,600 ¡� . 2551�

4.1

¦ª¤SPP-Firm ³SPP-natural gas (ª É� � 2.1 +

3.1 +4) ¥Å¤n� 4,458 MW µ¥Ä®o¢� � � .

4.2

� ¦·¤µ É°¥¼nÄÂ� � � � � � PDP Âoª (1,700) EGAT (2008: 74)

4.3 ¦ª¤ ¥Å¤n� 2,758

5 VSPP (ÁºÊ°Á¡¨· » ·� � � � � � � )

Á °Âoª¥¦° ¨� � � ¥Å¤n� 958 ¡� . 2551�

5.1

¨ ¦·¤µ� � � nª Á¡·É¤ É� � °¥¼nÄ� Load Forecast Âoª (693)

VSPP Ä®¤n µ¥Ä®o� ¢� � .

+ ¢£� . ( ¡� . 2550: 10-11)

5.2 ¦ª¤ ¥Å¤n� 265

6 ¦ª¤ Ê®¤� � � ¥Å¤n� 3,023

Step 7 Sum the clean, distributed, domestic options achievable by 2018 Near-term potential: 3023 MW (previous slide) Medium-term potential: 4890 MW Total clean domestic achievable by 2018: 7913 MW (~ 33,000

GWh)

Option MW GWh Source

1Energy efficiency 1,366 8,922Foran 2008 Table 11

2Renewable energy 2,142 14,000Foran 2008 Figure 20

3Combined heat and power 1,382 7,070

30% of level assumed by

Gvozdenac et al. 2006

Total 4,890 29,992

Step 8 Compare clean domestic options with reference case (EGAT 2008)

Thailand needs total net new supply of 30,413 MW, according to reference case EGAT’s PDP 2007, Revision 1

Clean domestic options: total achievable by 2018 = 7913 MW (~ 33,000 GWh) Can substitute large central

stations (coal, gas, hydropower, nuclear)

If demand grows according to reference case (5.5% per annum) tremendous challenge!

But it may not

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

MW

ไ ฟฟ��น��เข�� – สะสม

ท�งเล#อกภ�ยในประเทศ (DSM/EE+ RE + CHP)

New imports – hydro + coal

Clean domestic (EE +RE +CHP

If all clean domestic (7913 MW) substitutes for imports, might avoid:

2011 ~ Nam Ngum 2 (597 MW)

2012 ~ Theun Hinboun Expansion (220 MW)

2013 ~ Nam Ngum 3 (440 MW) + Hongsa 1 (490MW)

2014 ~ Either: Nam Theun 1

(523 MW), Nam Ngiap (261 MW), Nam Ou 1 (200 MW)

Or: Hongsa 2 & 3 (2 x 490 MW)

2015 ~ Nam Ou 2 (843 MW)

2017 ~ Unspecified (510MW)

Im ported pow er by year com pared to dom estic clean portfolio, 2008-2018

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

MW

ไ ฟฟ��น�� เข� � – พลงน���

ไ ฟฟ��น�� เข� � – ถ*�นห,น หร#อ ไ ม*ระ บ�

ท�งเล#อกภ�ยใ นประ เทศ (DSM/EE +RE + CHP)

Nam Ou 2

Nam Ngum 3

Nam Ngum 2

Hongsa 1

Nam Theun 1, Nam Ngiap, Nam Ou 1

But may also want to use clean domestic (7913 MW) as substitute for ‘dirty’ domestic

Reference case: Nuclear: 4000 MW (2020 and 2021) Old coal: Mae Moh New thermal (coal + natural gas)

-2000

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

MW

Import - Coal or Not specified

Import - Hydropow er

Nuclear

RPS or SPP NET

Domestic thermal / thermal CC NET

Total

IRP: governance challenges

Basic regulatory framework = “rate-of-return”

Profits are a fixed percentage return on invested assets (8.4%)

Institutional preference for large scale, supply-side options

Political tension

Challenges are institutional, but also involve powerful discourses

E.g., ‘Energy efficiency not as reliable as power plant’

‘Very small power producers not as reliable’

IRP: institutional challenges

Preference for large scale, supply-side options

Governance problems Basic regulatory

framework = “rate-of-return”

Lack of meaningful participation

Conflicts of interest

Large scale (PDP model options):

700 MW Coal-Fired Thermal Power Plant

700 MW Gas-Fired Combined Cycle Power Plant

230 MW Gas Turbine Power Plant 1,000 MW Nuclear Power Plant

Demand forecast: Low Medium (“Base”) High

Summary: clean, distributed, domestic options achievable by 2018 for Thailand

Total clean domestic achievable by 2018: 7913 MW (~ 33,000 GWh) Based on detailed review + modeling

Near-term potential: 3023 MW (SPP + VSPP programs)

Medium-term potential: 4890 MW (our analysis) Enhanced feed-in tariffs for RE Enhanced support for EE

Already have successful DSM Need to implement new building code Need to mainstream EE building design

Sources of medium term potential

44%

28% 15%

5%

8%

RE - biomass

CHP

EE - factories

EE - buildings

EE - appliances

Summary: IRP presents opportunities & challenges Opportunities

(1) Provides structure for meaningful public participation- Lots of interest in civil

society

(2) Coherent framework- Boost legitimacy - helps identify gaps in

analysis(3) Helps communicate to

policy-makers

Challenges

(1) Legitimacy(2) May need additional

data(3) Time-intensive; requires

modeling

IRP should be designed as an integrated, participatory assessment

Recent + recommended steps for pro-sustainability advocacy in Thailand

Build good relations with elite actors Energy Regulatory Commission: Palang Thai, CMU-USER,

AWISH organized 2008 study tour to USA + January 2009follow-up visit by U.S. experts

Demand Side Management Division with EGAT

Promote integrated electricity planning to other actors Private sector: SPP + VSPP

Increase public interest in energy efficiency and micro-generation