Bronzed

Philippine sports remain in the Bronze Age.

When the Asian Games closed this weekend, the Philippines ranked 19th in the medals standing. Our medals effort was eclipsed by tiny Singapore and overshadowed by Indonesia.

Everyone, of course expected China to dominate. For Beijing, sporting prowess is a statement of national power. The world’s most populous country has a fully endowed sports establishment that gets the best and the brightest and prepares them unremittingly for greatness.

Women athletes contributed all our four gold medals. Hidilyn Diaz’s was expected. The two gold medals from our women’s golf team and the one added by a skateboarder were unexpected.

The two silver medals contributed by our boxers were disappointments. We expected the boxing contingent to be a powerhouse.

The 15 bronze medals were commendable. No one should belittle the great effort put in by our athletes against great odds.

Some might excuse our middling performance by saying we were not in it for the medals but for the solidarity the Games represent. Sure. But it is the medals that are counted.

Some might say we did our best. That is debatable. Our basketball team was hastily patched together after the earlier decision to withdraw from the game was reversed.

Still others will say we actually did better than we did in the previous Asian Games. That is true. But over the past few decades, our national sports program has been in steady decline. If this year’s performance represents a reversal of that trend, it is not a strong rebound.

We all know our national sports program has been a floating wreck for some time. Our national sports associations have been failing to raise the resources required to prepare competently for international competitions. Often they are riddled by infighting and beset with incompetence.

Our performance in international competition matters: not so much for the glory our athletes bring but as an indicator of the quality of governance which infects all spheres of life, sports most visibly. The governance of our national sports program is as mediocre as the governance of other spheres of civic life. If we cannot keep our rivers clean, we cannot aspire to be a regional sporting power.

Conversely, if we are able to run a more competitive national sports program, this might be an indicator our governance is improving. We might even manage to keep our rivers clean in the future.  

Overruns

While on the subject of governance: there is reason to be alarmed about our ability to provide for the country’s energy security deeper into the future.

The DOE projects that by 2040, the country will need 43,765 MW of additional generating capacity. We might need even more, considering global warming could cause demand for air conditioning to rise at a faster rate.

In 2017, our total installed capacity is 22,730 MW, up 6.1 percent from the preceding year’s installed capacity. It must be noted, however, that 60 percent of our operating plants are older than 15 years. This is over half of the expected 25- to 30-year life spans of such plants.

It must be noted, too, that in 2017 the country’s peak demand was recorded at 13,789 MW. That is 3.9 percent higher than the peak demand the year preceding.

At present, we have a 15 percent power reserve capacity. It is a matter of debate whether this reserve is ample enough. Some experts argue we should be maintaining a reserve of 25 percent, considering how calamity-prone our country is.

Japan maintains a power reserve capacity of 50 percent. This is the reason why, despite closure of the Fukushima array of nuclear plants after that great tsunami, the heavily industrialized country did not have to resort to power rationing. Rationing would have been devastating for her large industries. This is the reason why Japan keeps healthy reserves despite the added costs imputed to actual power consumption. There is a price to pay for energy security and they are willing to pay for it.

Assurance of adequate power is, of course, vital to keeping our competitiveness – especially for industrial investments.

Vietnam, our rival for investment flows, presently enjoys power generation capacity of 42.13 GW. This dwarfs what we have. The energy generated there is cheaper, with 37.6 percent created by hydro power and 34.3 percent created by modern coal plants.

Notwithstanding, Vietnam plans $148 billion worth of investment in additional power generation capacity and improved electricity distribution. Of this total, $40 billion is planned for investment between 2016 and 2020.  We can only look across the South China Sea in awe.

The least we could do is provide a more feasible policy and legal framework to streamline the processing of government permits and licenses. Currently, the process requires 4 to 6 years. We should likewise continue providing investment incentives for investments falling under the Energy Projects of National Significance (EPNS).

It is urgent that government reassesses the regulatory approvals process. Presently, it requires about 2 years just for the Energy Regulatory Commission to approve applications for power supply agreements.

That is simply too long and it holds up necessary investments in power. There are many instances where investors are ready with other aspects of the project, from financial closure, to LGU support, to connection agreements with the grid at operation and maintenance agreements. But they are forced to cool their heels waiting for ERC approvals.

Considering the peso’s projected depreciation and the elevated inflation rate regime, the delay could lead to cost overruns. Our energy sector will remain in the Bronze Age.