The Department of Energy’s (DOE) draft tender rules for pioneer nuclear power plants (DC2025-10-0019) put private profits ahead of consumer protection and renewable energy progress. While proponents pitch nuclear energy as a solution by 2035, the government’s proposed framework threatens to lock the Philippines into expensive power, lock out cheaper renewables, and burden taxpayers with multi-billion-dollar liabilities.
The DOE draft rules create a sweetheart deal that shifts project risks, construction delays, and cost overruns directly onto electricity consumers and taxpayers:
This structure shields private investors while placing all financial exposure on the public. It mirrors the policy failures of the 1990s that left the National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) with hundreds of billions of pesos in stranded debt—a burden Filipinos paid off through electricity bill surcharges for decades.
Based on Department Circular No. DC2025-10-0019and the associated Draft Nuclear Capacity Tender Guidelines:
- The Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) will implement a Regulatory Asset Base (RAB)-type model or a similar capital recovery mechanism. This model is anchored on minimum contract terms of 25 years, extendable for up to another 25 years (50 years total). The RAB mechanism functions by allowing utilities/developers to recover capital costs and lock in a guaranteed rate of return over the facility’s lifecycle, effectively transferring long-term financial risks to captive electricity consumers.
- Developers/bidders are allowed to request and negotiate sovereign support or sovereign guarantees from the government. Under these provisions, taxpayers—rather than private developers alone—absorb financial indemnities associated with political risks, regulatory delays, or severe financial liabilities.
- The Philippine government has an option to acquire up to a 10% equity stake in the winning nuclear project company. This state participation could be executed via entities such as the Maharlika Investment Corporation (MIC) or the Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC), committing state funds directly to the project’s ownership structure.
Nuclear power is too slow and too expensive to address the country’s immediate power reserve shortages. It is a false solution for the grid:
According to IRENA and Lazard benchmarks, new nuclear costs $140–$220+ per MWh—up to three times more expensive than 24/7 Firm Solar/Wind with storage ($54–$82 per MWh). Furthermore, with target operations delayed until 2038–2047, nuclear provides zero relief to current reserve shortages. The tender schedule targets commercial operation between 2038 and 2047. In contrast, solar, wind, and battery storage projects can be built in 12 to 36 months, delivering immediate relief to the power grid.
The draft circular also assigns nuclear plants “must-run” priority dispatch status, superseding Renewable Energy under RA 9513. Because nuclear reactors are rigid and cannot easily adjust output, the grid operator will be forced to curtail (turn off) cheap, zero-emission solar and wind during low-demand hours just to keep inflexible nuclear units running.
Beyond the economic traps, we would like to emphasize the grave physical dangers of nuclear power:
Despite decades of industry claims, nuclear energy has historically proven that it has never been safe. This inherently volatile technology poses an intolerable hazard in an archipelagic nation situated squarely on the Pacific Ring of Fire. The Philippines is riddled with active fault lines and frequently battered by super typhoons and extreme weather events. Siting reactors and storing volatile radioactive waste in regions prone to high-magnitude earthquakes and storm surges invites catastrophic risk. A single seismic event could trigger radiological contamination, devastate marine ecosystems, and destroy local livelihoods. This is a gamble the nation simply cannot afford.
Claiming nuclear technology is 100% safe while restricting host sites to coastal provinces like Bataan, Masbate, or Palawan exposes a glaring contradiction. Despite technological advances that make modern nuclear power modular, such as Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), these designs do nothing to eliminate the core problem of toxic radioactive waste. In fact, studies show that many modular reactor concepts can actually generate higher volumes of nuclear waste per unit of electricity produced compared to traditional large-scale reactors. Urban centers consume the majority of electricity, yet rural and coastal communities are asked to absorb 100% of the catastrophic risks, marine thermal discharge, and multi-generational spent fuel. Without a legally mandated permanent deep geological waste repository, host LGUs risk becoming permanent, de facto radioactive dump sites.
The Asian Peoples’ Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD) demands that the DOE scrap draft circular DC2025-10-0019 entirely, cancel all nuclear tender plans and prioritize grid modernization and storage. Focus resources on transmission upgrades and 24/7 firm renewables with battery storage (BESS) that can be deployed at half the cost within 3 years.
Contact: Lani C. Villanueva
Mobile/Whatsapp/Viber: 09052472970