Explainer: What Happens If There Are Blackouts On Election Day?

Back in 1992, blackouts and power outages stole the spotlight of national elections in the Philippines. Literally and figuratively. This was how The New York Times described the situation as of May 24, nearly two weeks after.

When Filipinos voted in 1986, the election was decided not by the rigged tallies, but by huge “people power” demonstrations that ultimately ousted the ostensible winner, Ferdinand E. Marcos, and installed Corazon C. Aquino as President.

But this weekend, as the painfully slow process of tabulating results in the latest presidential election enters its third week, the determining factor is not people power but electric power.

The leader in the pre-election surveys, then Agrarian Reform Secretary Miriam Defensor Santiago, called out the window for “electoral fraud.” Fast forward to 2022, how much has the situation changed? From official sources such as the National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP) to independent analysts such as the Institute of Climate and Sustainable Cities (ICSC), they provide this warning: blackouts and power outages are possible by Election Day.

The optimistic estimate is to have a surplus of 2,600 megawatts (MW), similar to the available power capacity as of January 2022. However, ICSC argues that even a 1,300 MW surplus could easily be depleted when power plants fail to meet their expected dependable capacity. Historically, with the exception of 2020 when lockdowns drastically decreased demand, data from the Department of Energy (DOE) electricity consumption across the country peaks in the May-June period. Essentially, the same period when elections and the tabulation of poll results occur.

Another window for vote manipulation and electoral fraud? Will the Philippines be able to overcome this cycle?

The Philippine energy mix: Is it powerful enough?

As of 2020, the largest sources of power generation in the Philippines according to DOE are as follows: coal (58.2 percent), natural gas (19.5 percent), geothermal (10.8 percent), hydroelectric (7.2 percent), and oil (2.5 percent). Solar, wind, and biomass sources account for a combined share of 3.7 percent. The changes since 2005 have been evident: the share of coal power doubled from 27 percent as the share of other power sources decreased. The share of solar, wind, and biomass, which was almost negligible in 2005, had made a quantum leap, but not sufficient enough to constitute a double-digit share. All in all, renewable energy sources have around 22 percent in generation share.

Moving away from oil-based sources seem to be partially rooted with pollution issues, and the volatility of the global petroleum market, but growing dependence on coal has also attracted controversy despite being relatively cheaper and more reliable. Not only were the shutdowns of coal-based plants involved in power outages across Luzon last year, their environmental impact leaves much to be desired. Globally, while a third of power generation comes from coal, it also produces a fifth of all greenhouse gas emissions, the single largest source of pollution in the world.

While the Philippines may not rival the production of, say the People’s Republic of China, where the share of coal in power generation was at 57 percent as of 2020, it does not discount that coal would still have an impact closer to home. The Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air estimates that if all planned coal power projects in the Philippines are commissioned and put in commercial operations by 2024, over 26,000 premature deaths could result in the next 40 years, the expected lifespan of coal power plants.

We are not even starting the arguments for and against nuclear energy, but that will probably have to be discussed in another time. Despite being committed to the peaceful use of nuclear power since at least 1955, the first in Asia to be in America’s “Atoms for Peace” program, the Philippines has yet to operate a nuclear power plant.

Renewable energy: The best possible future?

The reliance on non-renewable fossil fuels, however, may not be entirely illogical when considering available renewable energy sources. Solar? The sun is not always shining. Wind? The wind is not always blowing. Tidal? It is not always high tide. Geothermal? There are risks in digging for steam. Hydro? Water is scarce during the hot dry season, when Filipino electricity consumption reaches its peak. Biomass? Fuel processing takes time.

More so, surface power density remains a challenge for a number of renewable energy sources. The kind of power density being referred to here is the power generated within a certain given area, e.g., watts per square meter.

Taken together, however, they might just be able to form a reliable network of energy sources. ICSC, for instance, observed that from 2017 to 2021, solar and wind power only had 13 days of outage a year, compared to 74 for coal. Investing more on grid reliability could help the overall power structure to support each other when necessary.

Notably, the Philippines is no stranger to renewable energy sources. The 35-megawatt Caliraya Dam, which construction began in 1939, is regarded as the first major project of the National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR). Caliraya is still intact to this day. To add to this, the Philippines is considered as the first in Southeast Asia to introduce geothermal energy in its power grid. The country remains as one of the world’s largest producers of geothermal power. Then again, is full 100 percent renewable energy feasible to supply our electricity needs?

This was proposed as early as 1975, and some have taken up the mantle of all-renewable advocacies to this day. In the Philippines, however, an all-renewable option may not be optimal at this juncture. A study on this by Balanquit and Daway-Ducanes (published in Powering the Philippine Economy, 2018) saw that having equal weights to all types of energy sources, renewable or otherwise, registered the highest expected rate of return (26.87) among the scenarios they analyzed. Nonetheless, the risk is just as high with a variance of 13.69. Compare this to the actual Philippine energy mix used in their analysis, which has 12.20 expected rate of return, and 8.76 risk.

The 100 percent coal scenario, meanwhile, registered an expected rate of return of 8.41, and a risk of 20.26, the greatest variance among the presented scenarios. What about the aforementioned 100 percent renewable scenario? The result was 9.22 in expected rate of return, and 2.63 in risk, one of the lowest variance in the analysis. Nonetheless, with a lower rate of return than the current energy mix, it may dampen its appeal to short-term considerations regarding investments and cost-effectiveness. This is what some has called the energy trilemma, which meant striking a balance between energy equity, energy security, and environmental sustainability.

On that note, the Philippines was ranked 70th by the World Energy Council in its 2021 Energy Trilemma Index.

The study would therefore propose a 30-30-30-10 mix, wherein 10 percent share is from oil-based sources, while the rest (coal, natural gas, renewables) have 30 percent share each. It increased the rate of return to 17.42 while reducing the risk to 7.20, placing it in a sort of middle path approach between an equal weights scenario and all renewable.

In relation to this, my own study on renewable energy development in the Philippines found that maintaining the status quo, i.e., introducing no new policy measure to encourage renewable energy growth, would result to 25 percent share in power generation by 2040, short of either the 30 percent proposal by Balanquit and Daway-Ducanes, or the 35 percent target of the DOE for the Philippines to achieve in the same year (2040).

Interestingly enough, support for small-scale renewable energy development, particularly in unserved and underserved areas, as well as provision for having energy efficient buildings might theoretically push this number to 30 percent by 2040. Feasibility-wise, there is little adjustment to be done in reference to the current policy framework owing to how these improvements lay more on the technical side.

The Department of Science and Technology (DOST), for instance, has recommended the integration of e-sensors and cloud monitors to help improve energy efficiency in structures. In the main, these concepts are already being mulled upon in official circles. In terms of political acceptability, there will hypothetically be less challenges. As to how effective they would actually be in the long run, however, we will probably have to see for ourselves.

The prevailing fiscal incentives regime, as well as the governing framework on power generation and distribution, would be another matter. As mentioned earlier, investments will be needed to continually grow the energy capacity of the country. Obtaining investments and sustaining a power structure best suited for our energy market would be vital in keeping the pace of economic growth and recovering from the pandemic. The Philippines has one of the most expensive power rates in Asia, potentially discouraging new investments in the country.

May-December affair: Is our election date optimal?

If powering up our automated elections is the issue, and investing on additional energy capacity cannot be accelerated enough, how about adjusting our election cycle instead? Before 1978, Filipino elections are usually held in November, similar to the United States. Average monthly consumption of electricity in the Philippines is usually lower in November than in May, yet for some reason, Filipinos have sustained voting during the hot dry season.

Is voter turnout lower when Filipinos voted in November than when Filipinos voted in May? For presidential elections, the average turnout from 1946 to 1969 (the last before Martial Law) is 78.2 percent. On the other hand, the average turnout from 1992 to 2022 is 78.7 percent. The elections in 1981 and 1986 are exemptions in the comparison since they were held in June and February, respectively. Their voter turnouts? 80.9 and 78.8 percent, respectively.

Apparently, even with the introduction of automated elections in the 21st century, voter turnout in the Philippines remained virtually the same since the end of the Second World War. There was no significant difference either regardless of which month Filipinos voted. Considering this, would it be acceptable in both a technical and a sociopolitical perspective to adjust the election cycle accordingly for voting to avoid blackouts and power outages?

With sufficient power capacity, it may virtually remove the prospect of electricity being blamed for electoral losses.

Of course, voting during the wet season also has its disadvantages. Typhoon Haiyan (local name Yolanda) struck in November, and so did Typhoon Goni (local name Rolly). They were just seven years apart. That is, 2013 and 2020. Such calamities making considerable damage close enough to the polling season will likely take a costly toll. Having climate change in mind, what could have been quite predictable a century ago may not be so in the near future.

Conclusion

The ballot may be stronger than the bullet, as the saying goes, but in the age of electronic voting, electric power may transform lives in more ways than one. Power that travels near the speed of light can make or break the nation.

Yet as with any large-scale endeavor, it will take dedicated time and resources to reform the systemic challenges we face, whether it is election-related or electron-related. Stopgap measures can only provide relief in a while, and the cost of acquiring them might be less than optimal in the long-term. Then again, the promise of additional, and more optimal, power in the future might be too far ahead to address the gap between supply and demand in the present.

To conscientiously weigh the options available, both administrator and the administered will have to work together in coming up with the most feasible solution. It may not be the best, as no one size fits all, but it will have to be good enough. As for the 2022 elections, we can only hope that our grid could accommodate the expected demand hike, but let us not always count on it. After all, even at the height of the pandemic in 2020, the decrease in peak demand compared to the previous year was only 1.9 percent. Peak demand in 2020 would still be higher than that of 2018.

When will we see an election period freed from the intrigues of power outages and energy vulnerability?