(Part 1)

Energy security has become one of the central policy challenges facing the Philippines as the country navigates decarbonization, the energy transition, and growing concerns over its long-term economic transformation. The stakes are tangible: the Philippines has long relied heavily on imported fossil fuels—coal, largely sourced from Indonesia, accounts for a major share of power generation—leaving consumers exposed to global price swings and supply disruptions. Against this backdrop, the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS), the government's lead socioeconomic policy think tank attached to the National Economic and Development Authority, held a policy forum titled "Energy Security in the Age of Renewables: Is the Philippines Ready for the Energy Transition?" on June 24. Held in conjunction with the PhilEnergy Expo 2026, the forum featured the study "How Energy Secure is the Philippines?" by Dr. Adoracion Navarro and her co-authors.

The paper makes four key contributions to measuring Philippine energy security.

First, it broadens the definition of energy security. While Philippine planning has traditionally framed energy security in terms of affordability, accessibility, and reliability, the authors argue that this conception is incomplete. Drawing from international literature, they propose a six-dimensional framework consisting of sufficiency, reliability, resilience, affordability, accessibility, and sustainability. This multidimensional approach mirrors a broader global shift in how energy security is conceptualized, moving beyond simple supply adequacy toward considerations of resilience and decarbonization.

Second, the paper makes a methodological contribution. Rather than treating the dimensions of energy security as abstract aspirations, it identifies indicators that allow them to be measured. The authors then assess how the Philippines performs across the various dimensions and identify areas of strength and vulnerability. Key findings include the country's continued dependence on imported fuels, the concentration of imports among a limited number of suppliers, high fuel and electricity prices relative to Southeast Asian neighbors, and the continuing challenges of transitioning toward a more sustainable energy system. The concentration of imports among few suppliers is a familiar vulnerability in the region, where several economies depend heavily on a single source of coal.

Third, the paper emphasizes that energy security requires a forward-looking perspective. Current conditions may appear manageable, but future demand growth can quickly expose inadequacies in supply and infrastructure. The authors therefore complement their indicators with demand and supply forecasting designed to identify emerging vulnerabilities.

Finally, the paper argues that energy security indicators and forecasts should be regularly produced and monitored as a public good. Better information reduces uncertainty and information asymmetry, helps investors make more informed decisions, improves public policymaking, and ultimately strengthens energy security.

During the forum, Dr. Navarro closed her presentation with reflections responding to the event's focus on renewable energy and the energy transition. She enumerated opportunities whereby renewable energy can help improve each energy security dimension. For instance, utilization of abundant geothermal, hydro, solar, wind, and biomass resources can raise sufficiency, while various renewable energy supply arrangements (such as microgrids or community solar systems) can increase resilience. Off-grid renewable solutions can enhance accessibility.

While making important contributions to understanding energy security in the Philippine context, several points may help deepen the discussion.

The first concerns affordability.

The paper compares Philippine energy prices with those of neighboring countries and concludes that affordability remains a major concern. While this is undoubtedly correct, price comparisons alone may not tell the full story. Electricity prices reflect underlying institutional arrangements and policy choices. Some countries subsidize electricity directly through fiscal transfers. Others rely on state-owned utilities that absorb certain costs or recover them through mechanisms outside electricity tariffs.

In the Philippines, electricity consumers pay not only for the costs of generation, transmission, and distribution. Electricity bills also recover various regulatory charges, including universal charges that fund missionary electrification and the recovery of stranded costs associated with earlier sector restructuring, as well as mechanisms intended to support the transition toward cleaner energy systems. The overall tax treatment may also differ across countries. A more complete understanding of affordability therefore requires looking not only at final electricity prices, but also at the policy, regulatory, and institutional choices embedded in those prices.

The second concerns the concepts of sufficiency and sustainability.

The indicators are largely measured against current patterns of energy consumption and existing projections of economic growth. Yet energy requirements are not independent of development strategy. The energy needs of a service-oriented economy differ from those of an economy pursuing industrialization. The requirements of an economy focused on assembly activities differ from those of one seeking to develop advanced manufacturing, critical minerals processing, electric vehicle production, artificial intelligence infrastructure, or other energy-intensive activities.

In other words, energy security is relative to a particular vision of development. Put differently, the answer to whether the energy system is sufficient depends partly on what the economy is expected to become. A country seeking only to sustain current patterns of growth may require one level of energy security, while a country seeking structural transformation may require another. This raises a fundamental question: sufficient energy for what kind of economy?

The sustainability dimension can also benefit from a more dynamic perspective. The paper appropriately includes both renewable energy deployment and carbon emissions among its indicators. But an equally important question is how these evolve in relation to one another. Is renewable energy merely being added to the system while fossil fuel generation continues to expand? Or is renewable deployment actually transforming the energy mix and reducing the carbon intensity of electricity? Understanding the transition therefore requires measuring not only current conditions but also the direction and pace of structural change.

This surfaces a related question. The paper adopts a broad framework that can accommodate different technological pathways. But should energy security analysis remain entirely technology-neutral? As countries pursue decarbonization, renewable energy may no longer be simply one technological option among many, but a strategic direction in itself. Interestingly, Dr. Navarro's concluding "Additional Insights" slide began moving in this direction by illustrating how renewable energy could contribute not only to sustainability, but also to sufficiency, resilience, accessibility, and other dimensions of energy security. If so, should this strategic orientation be reflected more explicitly in the analytical framework itself, rather than being a supplementary insight?

Finally, the paper invites reflection on the role of government. The authors rightly emphasize government's role in producing information as a public good. Reliable information on energy conditions, future demand, infrastructure requirements, and system vulnerabilities reduces uncertainty and improves both public and private decision-making. This is an important contribution. But information is only one dimension of the State's role. A broader question remains: what role should government play in shaping the country's energy transition? The author will return to this question in a subsequent column.

These observations do not diminish the value of the PIDS paper. By broadening the concept of energy security and providing practical tools for its measurement, the paper significantly advances the policy discussion while opening important questions for future work.

Nepomuceno Malaluan is co-founder and trustee of Action for Economic Reforms, and a member of its Industrial Policy Team.