Showing posts with label Ramon Clarete. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ramon Clarete. Show all posts

Thursday, March 22, 2018

BWorld 197, Estimating electricity price hikes because of TRAIN, Part 2

* This is my article in BusinessWorld on March 19, 2018.


Part 1 of this short study was published in this column on Feb. 15. Some corrections and adjustments are made here because of (a) lower coal consumption for power generation, and (b) using an incremental increase in coal excise tax.

Total coal consumption in 2016 was 23.2 million tons but one industry player informed me that not all of these were used for coal power plants. Some were used for cement plants and other industrial uses. The estimated amount used for coal power generation is 20 million tons.

Coal excise tax before TRAIN (Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion) was P10/ton, the law has increased this per ton to P50 in 2018, P100 in 2019, and P150 in 2020. The incremental increase is used in the table below.

Meralco computation of oil cost for their captive customers based on November 2017 data was 0.6 centavos/kWh in 2018 when oil tax is only P2.50/liter. There are no projections for 2019-2020 so I estimated the numbers for these years using the respective oil tax rates of P4.50 then P6/liter.

Oil share in Meralco power distribution that period was only 0.9% of total. In 2016, oil share to total power generation nationwide was 6.2%. So a multiplier of 7x (= 6.2/0.9) is used for the national oil tax rate.

Before, VAT on transmission charge was minimal, it applied only on ancillary service. With TRAIN, the VAT is applied on other transmission costs (power delivery, system operator, metering, etc.).

Hike in universal charge is not included here but this might be minimal. Many island provinces and remote islands of big provinces get electricity from gensets running on diesel. The generation cost is naturally high, from P10-20/kwh but residents there are not charged that full amount, a big portion is subsidized and passed on to all other consumers nationwide via the universal charge.

Last month, the Energy Policy Development Program (EPDP) published a new study, “Electricity prices and TRAIN” by Dr. Ramon L. Clarete. It is a neat study because it considered variations in heat content per coal type (Yes, not all coal are the same, the same way that not all dogs are the same). For brevity purposes, I added only a portion of his table 5 which summarize the projected hikes in electricity prices because of TRAIN (see table).



So from my estimates, there will be a projected electricity price hike in centavos/kWh of 13.4 this year, nearly 20 in 2019, and 24.6 in 2020.

The estimates by Dr. Clarete are much higher. By 2020, 14 centavos/kWh for coal plants and P1.67/kWh for diesel plants. VAT on these hikes are not included yet, and VAT on transmission charge also not included.

In addition, Dr. Clarete used coal price for 2016 in his study. The average price per ton of thermal coal was $70 in 2014, $58 in 2015, $66 in 2016, $85 in 2017 (Q1-Q3), data from statista.com. In the first three months of 2018 it is around $100 average.

So with 2018 prices about 50% higher than 2016 prices, the projected rise in electricity price from coal plants would be higher than his estimated 14 centavos/kWh, perhaps could go up to 18 centavos or higher.

These costs are for direct household electricity consumption alone. Not included are pass-on rates in the form of higher prices by factories, schools and universities, shops and malls, hotels and restaurants, hospitals and airports, etc. These enterprises consume tens of thousands of kWh per month, the additional electricity cost will be passed on the consumers, which might affect sales and hence, affect future salaries and benefits of workers.

The tax hike for coal and oil products is among the worst mistakes of TRAIN law. Retaining the high 12% VAT is another. Government has no justification in making cheaper energy become expensive. We hope that these mistakes will be recognized soon so that succeeding TRAIN 2, TRAIN 3, etc. will either reverse them, or at least not make them even worse.
---------------

See also: 

Monday, December 19, 2016

BWorld 96, Free trade means more investments and people mobility

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last December 15, 2016.


Free trade means giving people and private enterprises the freedom to produce more commodities that consumers demand at certain prices. These producers then leave sectors and areas where expected returns and other gains are lower if not dwindling.

This may sound “heartless” for losing sectors but whether one supports free trade or protectionism, there will always be winners and losers. It is just that there are more “net gains” from trade while there are more “net losses” from protectionism.

In a paper “Goods trade liberalization under the ASEAN Economic Community: Effects on the Philippine economy” published in the Philippine Review of Economics (PRE), December 2015, authors Dr. Ramon Clarete (UPSE) and Philip Arnold Tuano (AdeMU) examined the economy-wide effects of goods trade liberalization in the ASEAN. They used the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) model in assessing the impact of the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) implemented in 1992.

The important provisions of AFTA mandated the 10 countries to: (a) reduce trade taxes and tariff on goods coming from other member countries, (b) remove quantitative restrictions on goods and convert it into tariffs that should decline through time, (c) reduce other non-tariff measures (NTMs), and (d) enforce rules of origin or goods should have local content of at least 40% of the freight on board (fob).

The results for the Philippines in their study showed the following:

1. Production effect: Of the 40 industries representing the Philippine economy, 24 suffered some output decline and 16 experienced output expansion at a bigger rate than the losses of the former.

2. Employment effect: Of the 40 industries, 31 experienced decline in the hiring of skilled labor while nine experienced expansion at rates larger than the combined employment losses in the former.

3. Trade effect: Thirty-six of the 40 industries that imported goods were able to benefit as compared to the 16 industries that engaged in exports. However, the gains were much larger than the losses of the other industries.

4. Price effect: Wages of both skilled and unskilled labor, cost of capital increased while land rent declined.

5. Overall effect: The Philippines gained some $237 million, equivalent to 0.05% of GDP, as a result of trade liberalization in goods under AFTA.

There are other benefits from trade liberalization besides the four measured by the above study. Freer trade creates more goodwill not only in trade and investments but also in mobility of foreign workers/managers and tourists across countries through more cultural and educational exchanges, and so on.

Here are some data on revenues from merchandise or goods exports, foreign direct investment (FDI) net inflows (i.e., inflows minus outflows for the given year), worker remittances and compensation of employees, and international tourism receipts that correspond with expansion in tourist arrivals.

  
The Philippines did not expand its merchandise exports as fast as compared to its many ASEAN neighbors. There are many factors for this, including a generally over-valued exchange rate, and many trade bureaucracies that prolong the process and increase the cost of exports and imports. All the four tigers in North-East Asia plus Singapore and Thailand are major exporters.

In FDI net inflows though, the Philippines reported an expansion of almost four times in just 10 years. Vietnam and Singapore benefitted the most in the southern region while China and Hong Kong continue to attract huge FDIs.

In labor remittances, China is #1 in the world while the Philippines is #1 in the ASEAN and about #4 worldwide, next to China, India, and Mexico perhaps.

The Philippines also reported that its receipts from international tourism expanded by more than twice.

Notice that five ASEAN neighbors that have higher merchandise exports are also the same countries that have higher tourism receipts than the Philippines.

The lesson here is that trade liberalization -- by cutting tariffs to very low, if not zero, rates and reducing non-tariff barriers -- can result in more FDI inflows, more tourist arrivals, more cultural exchanges in the region.

Other factors should accompany trade liberalization of course. Like better airports, seaports, and roads; cheaper electricity and high power capacity; more competition among airlines and shipping companies; fewer bureaucratic processes in investments and mobility; rule of law and reduced corruption and instability in enforcing various local and national laws.

Fewer taxes and trade restrictions, stronger law enforcement are just among several key ingredients to further modernize and reduce poverty in the Philippines and other developing countries.


Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is the president of Minimal Government Thinkers, a SEANET Fellow and both institutes are members of EFN Asia.
-----------

See also: 
BWorld 93, ASEAN multinationals, December 02, 2016 
BWorld 94, Economic freedom, taxes and tariffs in Asia, December 17, 2016 
BWorld 95, Manufacturing and electricity costs in Asia, December 17, 2016

Saturday, September 19, 2015

Free Trade 53, TPP "final push" this September + paper by Dr. Clarete

There are rush efforts this month to finally push a Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement. Here are some few news reports, September 16-18, 2015.

From the Globe and Mail

An effort to land a massive Pacific Rim free trade agreement within weeks is under way, raising the prospect the wide-ranging Trans-Pacific Partnership could dominate the final stretch of the Canadian election campaign.

The costs of entry to the Trans-Pacific Partnership could include exposing the Canadian auto parts sector, which employs 80,000 people, to far more foreign competition and eroding the preferential position the industry enjoys under the North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It could also cause headaches for dairy farmers by opening their sheltered industry to significantly more imports.


Two to three days of talks will be held in the U.S. city of Atlanta. Free trade rules for most of the 31 areas covered by the TPP were settled at the last round of talks in July. But intense disagreement remains on dairy products, automobiles, intellectual property for pharmaceuticals, and other areas where national interests are at stake. Chief negotiators will meet ahead of the ministerial talks, seeking to lay the groundwork for consensus.

From Bloomberg BNA

Sept. 17 (BNA) -- The next round of Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) talks will take place in Atlanta from Sept. 23–Oct. 4, with the trade ministers from the 12 Pacific Rim countries meeting Sept. 30–Oct. 1, several non-U.S. TPP sources told Bloomberg BNA.
The sources said an announcement on the conclusion, in principle, of the agreement is expected Oct. 1, adding that the chief negotiators are scheduled to stay until Oct. 4 to clear up any loose ends.


The best trade policy for any country of course is unilateral trade liberalization, both in tariff and non-tariff measures. Keep trade negotiations to the minimum, involving only products and services that can affect public health and safety, security. The rest of products and services, allow free trade, imports and exports.

The second best trade policy is global, multilateral trade liberalization under the WTO. But both unilateral and global liberalization are far out at the moment.

So the third best trade policy is regional liberalization, like the ASEAN free trade area (AFTA), NAFTA, EC, and so on. TPP is along this line. So a successful TPP Agreement will, overall, be a good and positive thing for the 12 member-countries. I wish that the TPPA will become a reality within the year.

Meanwhile, there was a good presentation made by Dr. Ramon Clarete during the UPSE-Ayala Economic Forum in Manila last October 23, 2014, Going Regional: Which Mega Trade Deals Should the Philippines Join? 

I am reposting some of his points below:

Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs): ‘Termites’ of the WTO trading system
- Bhagwati calls PTAs so.
- However the WTO under its GATT 1994 allows PTAs.
- But the ‘termites’ increased in number: 70 before 1990s, 300 in 2010, and 432 in 2013… and growing.
- Most PTAs are bilaterals, free trade areas, and trade and investment agreements.
- But then came the mega trade deals in the last decade.

Mega trade deals means
- Deep integration trade and investment agreements
- Major share of world trade and foreign direct investments
- Aim to improve regulatory compatibility, and
- Provide a rules-based framework for ironing out differences in investment and business climates

Why mega trade deals
- gain preferential access to new markets
- economic stimulus in times of tight budgets
- upgrade 'old' agreements
- achieve more ambitious agreements
- address new issues
- create potential precedents for future WTO agreements
- improve competitiveness
- keep the momentum for openness going while the WTO is stalled

Political economy of mega trade deals
- Changing views of US away from multilateralism, case of NAFTA
- Checking China’s rise and the pivot to Asia policy of the Obama administration
- Developed countries demand regulatory convergence, to calibrate trade rules that facilitate more investments and trade in regional or global value chains
- WTO turning out into a forum that the developed countries find too difficult to set the trade rules they want

Two sides of mega trade deals
- Corrects the ‘spaghetti bowl’ effect of PTAs
- Has the potential of undermining WTO’s role as a forum for negotiating and enforcing trade rules and expanding market access in the world
- Risks having trade rules by trading blocs, Back to ‘great powers’ world of the 19th century. 



TPP: gold standard for PTAs?
- Since the 1990s, about 300 preferential trade agreements (PTAs) entered into force, were signed but yet to be implemented, or are being negotiated.
- TPP is a gold standard of PTAs
- WTO + PTA (deeper trade liberalization)
- WTO – PTA (goes beyond the WTO)

Features of TPP
- Comprehensive elimination of tariff and non-tariff trade barriers
- Regional agreement that supports formation of global value chains among its members
- Cross cutting trade issues: regulatory coherence, regional value chains, Small and medium enterprises, Development
- Dedicated to solving trade and investment issues arising from new technologies/products
- Living agreement

Issues negotiated under TPP
1. Market access for goods
2. Rules of origin
3. Sanitary and Phyto-sanitary standards
4. Technical barriers to Trade
5. Telecommunications
6. Temporary Entry
7. Textiles and Apparel
8. Trade remedies
9. Competition policy
10. Cooperation and Capacity Building
11. Cross-Border Services
12. Customs
13. e-Commerce
14. Environment
15. Financial Services
16. Government procurement
17. Intellectual property
18. Investment
19. Labor
20. Legal issues
------------


See also: