During the winter months, it accounted for 34.7% of the country’s electricity production. At the same time, the bill that seeks to bring forward the decarbonization plan by several years is gaining support..
Source: Pulso – La Tercera
Although the plan to modify the energy matrix and displace coal shows several advances, in recent times this fuel has managed to retain the number one position among the sources of electricity production. According to figures from the Electricity Coordinator, during the months of June, July and August – colder and rainier months and, therefore, more intensive in the use of energy – 34.7% of electricity production is due to this energy source, which puts it far above gas or hydroelectricity (see graph).
This number represents a decrease of four points compared to the same period in 2019, a sign of progress in the withdrawal of this energy. To date, three units are closed and two more will be closed by the end of this year. It is expected that 11 units will be closed by 2025, representing 30% of the installed capacity based on this fuel.
But is this progress enough? In Congress they believe it will not and, for this reason, a bill was presented that seeks the total closure of the coal-fired power plant not in 2040 as agreed, but by 2025 at the latest, an initiative that was approved by the House Environment Committee at the beginning of August.
The initiative is of concern to the authority. The executive secretary of the National Energy Commission (CNE), José Venegas, said that “the calculations that are usually made are very simplistic and ignore the complexity of the operation of the Electricity System. They add up the megawatts of installed capacity and that is not correct”.
“It is not about arriving and comparing installed megawatts or replacing the large proportion of safe generation that coal represents today with hypothetical projects or investment developments that will supposedly occur. At the CNE we have made these simulations and we consider it imprudent to proceed with a rapid decarbonization without providing for a myriad of measures that would be necessary,” he added.
Along the same lines, in the monthly report of the consulting firm Systep, several arguments were put forward to support the fact that, for now, it is not feasible to eliminate coal by 2025. “The early withdrawal of coal would result in an increase in the average marginal costs of the system of 104% in the short-medium term, as a result of the increased dispatch of gas and diesel power plants. On a monthly basis, the marginal cost could increase by up to 124 US$/MWh, under very dry hydrological conditions”, it was stated.
The executive president of Generadoras de Chile said that it is important to promote projects that allow the development of clean technologies and avoid creating regulatory uncertainty. “Any public policy that is promoted must be cost-effective, with the corresponding environmental, social, economic and technical evaluations, in order to ensure a safe, reliable, sustainable and reasonably priced energy supply,” he added.
The director of Chile Sustentable, Sara Larraín, was in favor of the project. “The 2040 deadline is ridiculous. The market and the parent companies will push the coal companies to leave earlier and the government will have made a fool of itself in its conservative position. The same thing happened with NCRE. The law required 20% NCRE by 2025, but that was already achieved in 2019,” he said.
