From Waste to Renewable Energy: A Policy Review on Waste-to-Energy in the Philippines

Abstract

Solid waste management issues continue to pose challenges in the Philippines. The increasing generation of waste, coupled with a foreseen lack of infrastructure for disposal, inevitably leads to overflowing sanitary landfills laced with environmental and health issues. As a result, the Philippine government is placing emphasis on Waste-to-Energy (WtE) technology as an ideal and immediate solution to the waste problem. By reviewing past, current, and future government policies and conducting interviews, this paper comprehensively explores the Philippine policy framework regulating WtE. The analysis shows several policy gaps and concerns, which stem from the fundamental concept of treating waste as a renewable energy resource. As it stands, the current waste management framework puts heavy emphasis on waste minimization, while the renewable energy framework explicitly promotes WtE technologies. To address this conflict in policy goals, several policies are recommended that are grounded in clarifying the country’s stances on waste as a renewable energy resource and WtE’s role in the waste management hierarchy. With clear policies and regulations on WtE, this will boost its potential as a key driver not only in waste management but also in the country’s drive for renewable energy generation.

1. Introduction

Three key trends in recent decades have characterized solid waste management issues in the Philippines: (i) Volume of waste generated; (ii) quality of waste generated; and (iii) waste disposal methods [1]. This led to the enactment of the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (ESWMA) [2] in 2001, which aims to adopt a comprehensive and systematic ecological solid waste management program. Two decades later, the country has yet to fully implement and realize the policies envisioned by the ESWMA. Two of the key issues that the government has failed to address are the growing generation of waste coupled with a foreseen lack of infrastructure to properly dispose of such waste. From the ESWMA’s perspective, sanitary landfills are the only ones allowed to be developed as final disposal sites, thereby disallowing the operation of open dump sites. As of 1 March 2023, there were 279 operational sanitary landfills with a total capacity of 66.87 million cubic meters [3], with the Philippine Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) aiming to establish 300 sanitary landfills [4]. However, based on the National Solid Waste Management Commission’s (NSWMC’s) data, the country is projected to produce more than 20 million cubic meters of waste every year until 2025 [5]. Given this, the sheer size of projected waste means that there are not enough landfills for disposal. As a result, one of the solutions that the DENR is seeking to promote is the implementation of Waste-to-Energy (WtE) technologies to help address the growing waste problem [6]. On 26 November 2019, the DENR issued Administrative Order No. 2019-21 on guidelines for the formation, assessment, and de-commissioning of WtE establishments for the unified management of municipal solid wastes [7].

Interestingly, WtE was only mentioned briefly in the ESWMA as one of the waste minimization techniques that NSWMC, the body tasked with overseeing the implementation of the ESWMA [8], should look into as part of the National Solid Waste Management Framework [9]. Instead, it was the Renewable Energy Act of 2008 (RE Act) that explicitly encouraged the adoption of WtE technologies. The RE Act tasked the Philippine Department of Energy (DOE), in coordination with DENR, to spearhead this initiative [10]. In relation to this, the DOE also remarked that WtE will not only contribute to additional electricity supply, but it will also help increase the renewable energy portfolio in the Philippines [11]. The DOE’s National Renewable Energy Program (NREP) sets a target of at least a 35% share of renewable energies in power generation, and it also aspires to increase the share to at least 50% by 2040 [12]. To help realize these goals, the DOE issued Department Circular No. DC2022-02-0002 on 17 February 2022, which created a policy program for the enhancement of Biomass WtE development [13].

From both regional and global standpoints, WtE’s role in the interplay between waste and energy is consistently recognized. On the one hand, taking into account global gross domestic product growth and population growth, global waste generation is projected to reach 2.59 billion tonnes by 2030, and this value is expected to increase to 3.40 billion tonnes by 2050 [14]. Similarly, Southeast Asian countries have been experiencing the twin dilemmas of population growth and urbanization and their consequential effects on the acceleration of annual waste generation [15,16,17,18,19]. On the other hand, global population growth coupled with increasing waste generation is also correlated with an increase in energy demand [20]. This hunger for energy demand exacerbates the following effects on the current utilization of fossil fuels: “global climate change; world energy conflicts; and energy source shortages” [21]. WtE weaves through these concerns as it is not solely about waste management but also contributes to energy supply security with its enticing potential of harnessing renewable energy resources from waste [22], such as biomass resources [23,24]. With this, the concerns associated with fossil fuels are resolved by a green and sustainable alternative in the form of WtE. In this context, waste transforms into a sustainable renewable energy resource instead of being treated as a source of concern [25]. Ultimately, WtE plays a vital role not only in sustainable waste management [26] but also in sustainable and renewable energy.

To date, thirteen (13) WtE plants ranging from 100 kW to 12 MW in capacity are currently registered with the DOE under the RE Act, six of which are currently in operational status [27]. Given the impending problem of waste, the government’s goal of achieving renewable energy targets, and the current count of WtE facilities, there is a need to identify policy gaps and concerns in order to help foster the growth of WtE in the country. With WtE as a potential solution, this paper explores the salient policies, including conflicts and concerns in policy, in the Philippines involving WtE. While the discussion is mainly centered around waste and energy policies, it is recognized that there are other pertinent policies, such as those involving climate change or air quality, which ultimately make WtE a multi-purpose solution [25]. The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 provides a brief overview of WtE technologies recognized in the Philippines. Section 3 tackles the methodology employed in the discussion of policies regulating WtE in the Philippines. Consequently, Section 4 provides a discussion on relevant government policies, whether in the executive, legislative, or judiciary departments, that affect WtE. Building on this, Section 5 involves a discussion of the relevant policy gaps and concerns. Finally, with the government’s goals of waste management and power generation via renewable energy in mind, Section 6 showcases policy recommendations that may help address opposing policy views and concerns in order to leverage the use of WtE technologies in the market with the aim of having sustainable waste and energy policies.

2. Waste-to-Energy Technology

2.1. Waste-to-Energy in the Philippines

WtE refers to the recovery of energy from waste materials into useable heat, electricity, or fuel [28]. In the Philippine setting, this definition is encompassed by the general term “Resource Recovery”, which refers to the “collection, extraction or recovery of recyclable materials from the waste stream for the purpose of recycling, generating energy or producing a product suitable for beneficial use” [29]. Recovery, in terms of the waste management hierarchy (Figure 1) established by the ESWMA, is least preferred compared to waste minimization alternatives such as avoidance, reduction, reuse, and recycling. Otherwise stated, waste recovery is targeted at wastes that are not addressed by the more preferred options. Despite its position in the list of preferred waste management options, WtE is necessary for a plethora of reasons. As discussed above, WtE will not only help stem the increasing waste generation problem, but it will also boost the country’s renewable energy portfolio. A corollary to the waste issue is the land constraint problem with regard to sanitary landfill locations; having a limited or finite volume of land for waste disposal will naturally lead to environmental health concerns [20]. As the country seeks to further develop its economy, urbanization coupled with increased waste generation will necessarily follow. Ultimately, WtE is seen as a solution that can address multiple problems.

The WtE process starts with the waste used as feedstock. Depending on the waste composition and moisture content of the feedstock [31], a certain type of WtE technology may be better suited to consume it compared to others. Examples of waste conversion methods are: (i) Anaerobic digestion; (ii) landfilling; (iii) gasification; (iv) pyrolysis; and (v) incineration (Figure 2). These methods produce and extract different byproducts, which are then utilized to ultimately yield energy. In the Philippines, the WtE technologies declared to be employed by existing and registered WtE projects with the DOE include: (i) Anaerobic digestion/bio-methanation; (ii) landfill methane recovery; (iii) gasification; (iv) refuse-derived fuel (RDF) production/thermolysis (briquette); and (v) direct combustion [27]. As of August 2022, thirteen WtE projects are registered pursuant to the RE Act, as shown in

Table 1. Registered WtE projects under the DOE in the Philippines.

RE Developer	Technology	Installed Capacity	Location
Pangea Green Energy Philippines, Inc.	Landfill Methane Recovery	1.5 MW	Quezon City, Metro Manila
Montalban Methane Power Corporation	Landfill Methane Recovery	8.19 MW	Rodriguez, Rizal
Green Alternative Technology Specialist, Inc.	RDF Production	350 MT/day RDF	Rodriguez, Rizal
FDR Integrated Resource Recovery Management, Inc.	RDF Production	300 MT/day RDF	Naga City, Cebu
FDR Integrated Resource Recovery Management, Inc.	Dry Anaerobic Digestion	624 kW	Naga City, Cebu
Waste and Resource Management, Inc.	Gasification	100 kW	Trece Martirez, Cavite
Satrap Power Corporation	Gasification	10 MW (3 MW WtE)	Santa, Ilocos Sur
Satrap Power Corporation	Gasification	3.78 MW	Bacnotan, La Union
Green Atom Renewable Energy Corporation	CDS Combustion System	12 MW	Mabalacat, Pampanga
W2W Angeles City, Inc.	Integrated System (Anaerobic Digestion and Gasification)	11.1 MW	Angeles City, Pampanga
Vistagreen Corporation	Thermolysis (Briquette)	30 MT/day MSW Briquette	Porac, Pampanga
PNOC-Renewables Corporation	Biomethanation and Direct Combustion	6.597 MW	Baguio City, Benguet
Trustpower Corporation	Anaerobic Digestion	5.082 MW	Mabalacat, Pampanga
Montalban Methane Power Corporation	Landfill Methane Recovery	8.19 MW	Rodriguez, Rizal

.

2.2. Feasibility of Waste-to-Energy Technologies

The feasibility of WtE projects is usually determined by using different valuation models. Among these are the conventional investment valuation techniques, such as returns on investment (ROI), net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR), payback period (PBP), and life cycle analysis (LCA) [32,33,34]. Moreover, techniques like LCA, multicriteria analysis, and the multistep approach, feasibility studies are extended by combining economic analyses with socio-technical and environmental considerations [35,36].

Paramount to any WtE techno-economic analysis is the estimation of the potential electricity generation of the WtE plant. The electrical power potential EPP_MSW (kWh) can be estimated using Equation (1), where W_MSW is the weight of the municipal solid waste in tonnes, LHV_MSW is the net lower heating value of the MSW in MJ/kg, and $\eta$ is the conversion efficiency (20–40%.) of a WtE plant [33].

$$EP{P}_{MSW}=LH{V}_{MSW}\times \frac{1000 \mathrm{kg}}{1 \mathrm{tonne}}\times \frac{W_{MSW}}{24 \mathrm{h}}\times \frac{1 \mathrm{kWh}}{3.6 \mathrm{MJ}}\times \eta$$

(1)

In 2020, the capital region of Metro Manila reported 10 kilotonnes per day of waste generation, and it was estimated that the nationwide waste generation during the same year was 59 kilotonnes per day [5]. In relation to this, by setting a conservative value for LHV_MSW of 6.8 MJ/kg to reflect the highly unsegregated MSW and $\eta of 35\%$, the potential electric power potential of Metro Manila and the country can be calculated as 235,764 MW and 1,391,007 MW, respectively. This is more than enough to meet the additional WtE target capacity of 30 MW as prescribed by the DOE’s Green Energy Auction Program (GEAP) [37].

Furthermore, an initial feasibility assessment of a WtE plant can be done by calculating the NPV and IRR of the project. The NPV indicates the present value of all cash inflows subtracted from the present value of all cash outflows during the project’s lifetime. Meanwhile, the IRR is the value used to estimate the profitability of the investments [32]. It is important to note that the revenues of a WtE plant come from the tipping fees (TF), which are paid by the waste producer; electricity sales; sales of energy in other forms such as syngas and biogas; and other forms of by-products such as compost or ash. Meanwhile, the operating expenses (OPEX) must include the fixed and variable costs of the project. The equations for NPV and IRR are shown below:

$$NPV={{\displaystyle \sum }}_{i=1 }^t\frac{\frac{(EE{P}_{MSW, annual}\times PE)+\left(MS{W}_{annual}\times TF\right)}{\mathrm{year}}-\frac{OPEX}{\mathrm{year}}}{{\left(1+r\right)}^t}-IC$$

(2)

$$0=NPV={{\displaystyle \sum }}_{i=1}^t\frac{\frac{(EE{P}_{MSW, annual}\times PE)+\left(MS{W}_{annual}\times TF\right)}{\mathrm{year}}-\frac{OPEX}{\mathrm{year}}}{{\left(1+IRR\right)}^t}-IC$$

(3)

In Equation (2), EEP_MSW,annual is the estimated energy potential of the plant for a year in kWh/yr. The price of electricity (PE) is in USD/kWh, and the tipping fee is in USD/tonne. The MSW_annual is the amount of secured municipal solid waste for each year in tonnes/year. The investment cost is the amount of capital for the WtE technology in USD. Lastly, r is the discount rate, and t is the project lifetime.

A positive NPV and an IRR value higher than the discount rate both guarantee the WtE project’s feasibility and profitability. Hence, the price of electricity and the tipping fee both have a big impact on the revenue of the WtE plant, as seen in Equation (2). The investment cost of a WtE plant is high in comparison to other generators with a similar capacity, so differentiated electricity pricing for WtE is recommended. Furthermore, more robust studies identifying the optimal electricity price and tipping fee for different WtE technologies at different capacities must be explored since it is not the focus of this policy study.

3. Materials and Methods

In order to systematically review and identify policies pertinent to WtE, this paper employed a two-pronged approach: a review of past, present, and proposed government policies on WtE and the conduct of interviews with government officials. From these approaches, policy concerns and gaps are identified. Figure 3 shows a flowchart of the methodology and analysis employed in this paper.

3.1. Chronological Review of Government Policies

The state of WtE in the country is best understood under the legal frameworks and policies that affect it. Thus, a traversal of the relevant government policies across the executive, legislative, and judicial departments is necessary. To facilitate the discussion, the policies are segregated into five timeframes: (i). Policies prior to the ESWMA; (ii). ESWMA; (iii). Policies post-ESWMA and prior to the RE Act; (iv). RE Act; and (v). Policies post-RE Act. The ESWMA and RE Act are chosen as reference points in dividing the timeline (Figure 4) of the policies primarily because the ESWMA and the RE Act represent comprehensive legal frameworks pertaining to waste and renewable energy, respectively; by extension, they affect WtE. More importantly, and as discussed in Section 4, these two legislative acts are the key drivers in the promotion of WtE technology in the Philippines. At this point, it is pertinent to note that there is currently no law embodying a WtE regulatory framework in the country. While there are executive issuances related to WtE, there is a glaring void with respect to laws that comprehensively deal with such technology. In any case, the results and discussions of this paper are derived primarily from this method.

3.2. Interviews with the Government and Private Sector

To complement the review made, discussions with government officials from the DOE, the government agency tasked with leading the adoption of WtE, and the private sector as well were conducted to capture not only the current goals of the government with WtE but also the planned and future policies these two sectors have in mind for WtE. As regards the private sector, a representative from the recycling industry, who is also a member of the NSWMC, was identified. While the interviews conducted may clarify some of the policy gaps and concerns identified in the review of WtE policies, the results and discussions of this paper are derived primarily from the review itself. The interviews will provide guidance, particularly in the recommendation of policies for WtE.

4. Philippine Waste-to-Energy Policies

4.1. Prefatory Discussion on Policies Related to WtE

4.1.1. The Definition of Waste

Before delving into the chronological exploration of WtE government policies, it is important to qualify the proper definition of waste, as this would be critical in contextualizing the intent of WtE policies. However, as gleaned from the ESWMA, there is no specific definition of waste. Instead, it is categorized and individually defined in the ESWMA into the following: agricultural waste; bulky waste; hazardous waste; municipal waste; solid waste; special waste; and yard waste [38]. However, in recent years, the NSWMC, with the help of the Japanese government, created the Waste Analysis and Characterization Study (WACS) guide, which simplified and segregated waste into four major groups [39], as seen in the enumeration below (Figure 5). Consequently, the NSWMC issued a resolution [40] adopting the WACS guidelines as a basis for the development of ten-year solid waste management plans by local government units (LGUs).

a.

Biodegradable waste—This type of waste generally refers to solid wastes that can be decomposed by microorganisms into humus-like products. Biodegradable waste comprises nearly half of municipal solid waste. Examples of this type include kitchen/food waste, garden waste, agricultural waste, and livestock waste;

b.

Recyclable waste—This primarily refers to waste materials that can be diverted and used for other purposes. Examples of this type of waste are paper, plastics, glass, and metals;

c.

Special waste—These are wastes that must be collected with care and treated and disposed of properly. The three major types of special waste are: (i) Hazardous waste; (ii) healthcare waste; and (iii) bulky waste. Hazardous waste refers to by-products, side-products, process residues, spent reaction media, contaminated plant or equipment, or other substances from manufacturing operations, as well as consumer discards of manufactured products that present unreasonable risk and/or injury to health, safety, and the environment. Healthcare waste refers to waste disposed of by hospitals, clinics, and other health institutions. Lastly, bulky wastes are materials that cannot be placed in separate containers due to their size, shape, or other properties;

d.

Residual waste—This shall refer to any material generated after the implementation of the three Rs (Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle) of the waste management hierarchy. This type of waste is subdivided into two categories: (i) Residuals that have the potential to be recycled but are not currently saleable in local junk shops; and (ii) residuals that are for disposal in sanitary landfills [41].

Collectively, these four types of waste make up municipal solid waste. As will be discussed later on, this categorization of waste will aid in the discussion of waste with respect to its consideration as a renewable energy resource.

4.1.2. Constitutional Provisions Related to WtE

Hidden behind the policies that are discussed in the succeeding sections is the 1987 Philippine Constitution. In relation to the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, the Supreme Court of the Philippines remarked that “if a law or contract violates any norm of the constitution, that law or contract whether promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or entered into by private persons for private purposes is null and void and without any force and effect. Since the Constitution is the fundamental paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute and contract” [42]. Otherwise stated, the policies discussed in this paper are inherently bound by the Constitution. Consequently, these policies must not contravene any provision of the Constitution. In relation to WtE and its policies,

Table 2. Constitutional provisions that affect WtE policies.

Constitutional Provision	Protected Right	Salient Points for WtE
The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them [43]	Right to Health	The Constitution recognizes a right to health and that it is a fundamental right [44]
The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature [45].	Right to a Balanced and Healthful Ecology	The Constitution stressed the importance of protecting the environment [46]. Moreover, in relation to the right to health, the Supreme Court recognized the “right to a balanced and healthful ecology” and the “correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment” [47].

lists the pertinent Constitutional provisions.

Thus, in going over the government policies related to WtE, these policies must, at all times, conform to the constitutionally protected rights of health and a healthy environment.

4.2. Chronological Review of Government Policies

4.2.1. Policies Prior to the ESWMA

At this juncture, WtE, as a technology, is yet to be contemplated by legislators. However, a piecewise observation of policies related to waste shows (

Table 3. Salient points related to the WtE of government policies prior to ESWMA.

Government Policy	Year of Enactment	Salient Points for WtE
Penalties for improper disposal of garbage	1975	It is the duty of natural persons, regardless if citizen or resident, and juridical entities to keep the environment clean [48].
Philippine Environmental Policy	1977	This policy highlights the need to maintain a healthy environment notwithstanding increasing urbanization and development of the country [49].
Philippine Environmental Code	1977	Achieve and maintain acceptable air quality; Prevent injury and/or damage to plant and animal life and property while developing the country’s social and economic status [50].
Establishment of an Environmental Impact Statement System	1978	Recognizes the balance between socio-economic growth and environmental protection; Projects involving environmentally critical areas require a compliance certificate from the President [51].
Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Wastes Control Act	1990	Oversees the importation, processing, distribution, sale, production, utilization, and disposal of chemical substances that pose beyond reasonable risks and injury to the environment [52].
Local Government Code	1991	Introduced the devolution of various powers and authorities to the local government units which include the solid waste management and disposal [53].
Department of Energy Act	1992	The department is mandated to spearhead programs in energy without sacrificing ecological concerns [54].
Philippine Clean Air Act	1999	Incineration is banned [55].

) that the government was already aware of the dichotomy between socio-economic progress and environmental health. As a result, several legislative acts were enacted to stem or regulate the immediate byproduct or indicator of progress, waste. While these acts mainly sought to regulate different aspects of waste management, it can be recognized that the underlying and primary goal is to preserve the environmental or ecological health of the country. In the same manner, policies related to energy, particularly the creation of the DOE, also echo the same sentiment: progressive steps in energy production and sufficiency must not be at the expense of neglecting ecological concerns. In effect, assuming the existence of a virtual hierarchical schema, waste and energy policy goals are both secondary to the primary goal of securing the health of people and the environment. By extension, the government is upholding the people’s constitutional rights to health as well as to a balanced and healthful ecology [43,45]. As regards executing waste management policies, the Local Government Code already devolved the goals or services of waste management to the various LGUs. On the other hand, energy-related policies are spearheaded by the DOE.

4.2.2. The Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 [2]

In line with ensuring the protection of public health and the environment, the ESWMA was enacted. In contrast to the piecewise waste-related government policies that were enacted before it (Table 3), the ESWMA serves as a comprehensive and systematic ecological solid waste management program [56]. This program covers waste management activities starting from segregation at the source up until the disposal of solid waste. More importantly, activities should not harm the environment [57].

Figure 1 captures how the ESWMA is envisioned to operate. In terms of priority, the preferred waste minimization activities are avoidance and the 3 R’s of waste management: reduction, reuse, and recycling. However, in relation to WtE, it is pertinent to note the rank of the option of recovery. In the ESWMA, the term “recovery” primarily pertains to resource recovery activities, provided that such facilities exclude incineration [58]. Interestingly, recovery in the ESWMA seems to limit the type of waste input—that is, recyclable materials—that may be used to generate energy. More importantly, the technology that may be used for WtE appears to exclude incineration-based technologies.

In any case, the legislative concept of WtE was first introduced in the ESWMA, albeit as one of the environmentally sound techniques of waste minimization. In fact, the ESWMA placed emphasis on the minimization of waste, as reflected in the list of preferred options shown in Figure 1. Also, a mandatory solid waste diversion program was provided by the ESWMA, wherein each LGU should divert at least 25%, with a corresponding increase every three years, of all solid waste from waste disposal facilities [59]. With this directive, it is clear that waste going into disposal sites should be reduced. In relation to WtE, the volume of waste that enters the recovery portion primarily depends on the effectiveness of the preferred waste minimization techniques.

The success of the ESWMA is closely connected to the role of the LGUs in relation to the devolution of functions brought about by the Local Government Code. With respect to WtE and recovery activities in general, the barangays, municipalities, and cities are directly responsible, but the indirect responsibilities of the households and provincial government are not to be underestimated, for the success of WtE lies with the effectiveness of waste avoidance, reduction, reuse, and recycling.

While the ESWMA provided for a comprehensive waste management structure, WtE was only briefly mentioned as one of the considerations that the NSWMC must look into in the creation of a National Solid Waste Management Framework. Specifically, the NSWMC must consider “practical applications of environmentally sound techniques of waste minimization such as, but not limited to, resource conservation, segregation at source, recycling, resource recovery, including WtE generation, re-use and composting” [60].

4.2.3. Policies Post-ESWMA and Prior to the RE Act

As regards energy policy, this period is highlighted by the restructuring of the electric power industry (

Table 4. Salient points related to the WtE of government policies post-ESWMA and pre-RE Act.

Government Policy	Year of Enactment	Salient Points for WtE
Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA)	2001	Promotes the use of all forms of renewable energy, indigenous and new, with the goal of reducing reliance on imported energy sources; In line with this, EPIRA mandates the DOE to further investments from the private sector and drive the development of renewable energy sources [61].
Philippine Clean Air Act as interpreted in MMDA v. JANCOM	2002	Section 20 of the Clean Air Act contains no strict prohibition on incineration for waste disposal. However, the emission of toxic and poisonous fumes are prohibited [62].
Philippine Clean Water Act	2004	Wastewater charges are imposed on polluters with the end goal of ensuring water quality. Thus, waste minimization and waste treatment technologies are encouraged [63].
Biofuels Act	2007	Develop renewable energy sources such as biomass to further promote biofuels while reducing dependence on imported fuels. In any case, public health and the environment must be protected [64].

). Aside from opening and unbundling the energy industry to competition, the government has been promoting and encouraging the influx of renewable energy into the power supply mix. Resorting to renewable energy will not only reduce the country’s dependence on conventional power plants, but it will also introduce an alternative power supply that is environmentally friendly.

On the other hand, as regards waste, a critical court judgment related to waste policy was promulgated during this period. The Supreme Court of the Philippines in MMDA v. JANCOM [62] stated that incineration is not absolutely prohibited. In relation to the Clean Air Act, incineration procedures that emit poisonous and toxic fumes are prohibited. Consequently, this court decision implies that incineration-based WtEs are legally allowed to operate, thereby strengthening the country’s drive to promote WtE. Notwithstanding the interpretation of the Supreme Court, it is still unclear at this time whether incineration is indeed acceptable given the absence of standards to determine if the incinerators are emitting poisonous and toxic fumes [65]. To add to the confusion, and as elucidated in the discussion of the ESWMA, one of the main policies of the country pursuant to the ESWMA is the formulation and adoption of the best environmental practices in ecological waste management, excluding incineration. In sum, it appears that both the Clean Air Act and the ESWMA expressly prohibit incineration, but the Supreme Court provided for an exception. Given this legal tension, it is understandable why investors may be apprehensive about developing WtE projects, as evidenced by the few incineration-based WtE projects.

4.2.4. The Renewable Energy Act of 2008 [66]

The RE Act institutionalized the government’s drive to adopt renewable energy in the country for both on-grid and off-grid applications. In line with this, the concepts of the Feed-In Tariff (FIT) as well as several tax incentives [67] were introduced to entice investors and help accelerate investment in the development of emerging renewable energy resources. In addition, for on-grid renewable energy development, the government is mandating all energy industry stakeholders to contribute to the growth of renewable energy by setting a minimum percentage of generation, as determined by the National Renewable Energy Board (NREB), from eligible renewable energy resources [68].

Interestingly, the RE Act is the first legislative act that explicitly advocates for the adoption of WtE, unlike the ESWMA, where it was merely cited as an example of a waste minimization technique. In solidifying this declaration, the RE Act mandated the DOE and the DENR to guarantee compliance with the directive set by the law [10]. Though this provision in the RE Act reflects the government’s stance on WtE, it does not indicate whether or not waste is indeed a renewable energy resource. The RE Act merely states that WtE technologies shall refer to systems that “convert biodegradable materials such as, but not limited to, animal manure or agricultural waste, into useful energy through processes such as anaerobic digestion, fermentation and gasification”. At this point, it is unclear whether waste is a renewable energy resource, as there is no explicit declaration. Moreover, despite the promotion of WtE under the RE Act, there is likewise no declaration that it is also a renewable energy technology or system, regardless of the type of waste feedstock used. These declarations are critical since, with respect to the definition of WtE under the RE Act, waste feedstock appears to be limited only to the biodegradable type; it does not include recyclable, residual, or special wastes. This implies that WtE is partially a renewable energy technology, depending on the type of waste feedstock used.

More importantly, regardless of whether waste is partially or entirely a renewable energy resource, the promotion of WtE under this legislation appears to inadvertently encourage waste generation, more so if waste is considered a renewable energy resource. In this regard, there may be a need to harmonize the objectives of the RE Act with those of the ESWMA’s goals of waste management and minimization. In any case, the objectives of waste and energy policies must yield to the primary goal of securing the public’s health and environment.

4.2.5. Policies Post-RE Act

In recent years, the government’s drive to adopt WtE has accelerated, with both DOE and DENR issuing department circulars providing guidelines for the operation of such facilities. Moreover, several franchises or charters of both private and public organizations are now embedded with provisions promoting the use of WtEs (

Table 5. Salient points related to WtE of government policies post-RE Act.

Government Policy	Year of Enactment	Salient Points for WtE
National Solid Waste Management Commission (NSWMC) Guidelines Governing WtE facilities	2016	Provides a framework in the evaluation of WtE technologies throughout its life cycle [71].
Energy Virtual One-Stop Shop Act	2019	Provides a portal for coordinated submission, and processing of documents, as well as application for permits and certifications for power generation, transmission, and distribution projects [72].
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Guidelines Governing WtE facilities	2019	Provides a framework in the evaluation of WtE technologies throughout its life cycle [41].
Maynilad Water Services, Inc. Franchise	2021	The franchise grantee shall promote water conservation and avoid water wastage. It may adopt waste-to-energy in its operations [73].
Manila Water Company, Inc. Franchise	2021	The franchise grantee shall promote water conservation and avoid water wastage. It may adopt waste-to-energy in its operations [74].
Revised Charter of the City of Baguio	2021	The City Solid and Liquid Wastes Management Officer shall consider waste-to-energy technologies in the generation of renewable energy [75].
DOE Policies on Biomass WtE facilities	2022	Promote Biomass WtE technologies as baseload renewable energy by developing policies and programs to improve the capabilities of the electric industry [76].
Metropolitan Davao Development Authority (MDDA) Act	2022	One of the services of MDDA is to establish and operate a sanitary landfill and related activities, such as WtE technologies and implementing other possible programs determined to reduce, reuse and recycle solid waste [77].

). Despite these recent government activities, there appear to be gaps and inconsistencies with how WtE is envisioned to be. Notwithstanding the explicit mandate of the RE Act to adopt WtE technologies, there has been no declaration stating that waste is a renewable energy resource or that WtE is indeed a renewable energy technology. Interestingly, DOE has regarded municipal solid waste as a renewable energy resource as its infinite production is brought about by the growing consumption of an increasing population [69]. However, DOE recently issued a departmental circular that promulgated WtE guidelines that were specific to Biomass WtEs only [13]. At this point, the concept of waste being entirely renewable is still unclear. On the other hand, the DENR issued general WtE guidelines that would apply to any type of WtE technology. It is indicated therein that WtE facilities shall only accept source segregated biodegradables or residual wastes [70], which appears to contravene the limitation of waste type to biodegradable waste as indicated in the RE Act. While these executive issuances promote WtE, there are misconceptions and clarifications that need to be addressed.

4.3. Interviews with the Government and Private Sector in Relation to WtE

Considering several uncertainties in WtE policies, interviews were conducted with key sectors, specifically the DOE and the private sector. The perspective of DOE, being the lead agency [78] for the implementation of the RE Act and the adoption of WtE technology (in coordination with DENR) [10], is crucial in clarifying some of the uncertainties in the current government policies. In particular, the Biomass Energy Management Division (BEMD) of the DOE’s Renewable Energy Management Bureau (DOE-REMB) shared its view on WtE. In addition, the perspective of the private sector was also taken into account in order to identify challenges and possible improvements in the current government policy framework involving WtE. In this regard, the viewpoint of Mr. Crispian Lao, the Vice Chairman of the NSWMC, who is also the private sector representative for the recycling industry [79], was considered (

Table 6. Details of the interview agenda and interviewees.

Sector	Representative	Interview Agenda
Department of Energy	Renewable Energy Management Bureau—Biomass Energy Management Division	a. Identifying the problem. i. Energy supply/security; ii. Renewable energy portfolio. iii. Waste issues. b. Waste-to-Energy (WtE) as a solution i. Potential energy from waste. ii. Recognized/Approved WtE technologies. c. WtE Policies i. Existing government policies (i.e., executive, legislative, judiciary) which regulate WtE. d. WtE Policy Concerns i. Waste as a renewable resource. ii. WtE as a renewable resource technology. iii. WtE’s role in waste management. e. Moving Forward i. Future government policies (particularly, DOE’s)
Private Sector	NSWMC Vice Chairman who is also the representative from the recycling industry	a. Lifecycle of a WtE facility i. Feasibility/planning for a WtE facility ii. Operating a WtE facility b. Moving Forward i. Future government policies ii. Sustainability of WtE

).

At the onset, DOE clarified that while WtE seeks to address the waste management problem, the agency recognizes WtE’s other benefit, which is the provision of an additional source of power supply. In relation to the latter benefit, not only will WtE provide additional supply, but it is also envisioned to strengthen the country’s reliance on RE sources. In fact, the inclusion of more WtE projects will contribute to achieving the country’s goal of a RE share of 35% by 2030 [12]. From an electrification standpoint, RE sources such as biomass and WtE are seeing wide-scale usage in the government’s rural electrification efforts and should form part of the country’s plans and priorities for a sustainable energy future. In the interview, DOE, based on an ongoing study that it initiated, showcased that there is a potential power capacity of up to 358 MW from the wastes of 33 highly urbanized cities and 552 MW from 246 existing sanitary landfills (SLFs) in the Philippines. Given the discussion above, DOE made it clear that it considers municipal solid waste (MSW) an RE resource. Consequently, it considers WtE an RE technology as well. DOE argues that MSW production will continue to increase as the human population continues to grow and consume goods and amenities. Thus, MSW complies with the definition of a RE resource under the RE Act. Recall, however, that MSW encompasses all four types of waste. In effect, MSW is considered a renewable energy resource from DOE’s perspective.

With respect to the conflict of objectives between the ESWMA and the RE Act in relation to WtE, DOE maintains that it is not promoting waste generation but rather the conversion of waste generated into useful energy. Thus, WtE should not be construed as competition but as a complementary technology capable of treating MSW fractions that cannot be reduced and/or that remain even after recycling. The DOE also made it clear that it is technology-neutral and that it encourages the development of WtE technologies, provided that toxic emissions coming from WtE plants should be properly addressed through state-of-the-art emission control and capture technologies with continuous emission monitoring systems. Upon compliance, WtE projects employing various technologies to process municipal solid waste may be registered with the DOE under the RE Act.

On the other hand, the interview with the private sector is geared towards understanding the difficulties encountered during the lifecycle of a WtE facility. Prior to this discussion, it was clarified by the interviewee that there seems to be a misconception about the idea that WtE promotes the production of waste. To explain this, it must be noted that WtE is not after the entire waste pie. There will still be waste that will have to be disposed of in landfills since it may no longer be reduced, reused, or recycled. Thus, in relation to the concept of circular economy (Figure 6), WtE primarily targets the waste that will have to be disposed of at landfills, such as residual waste.

WtE does not undermine the waste management hierarchy, as viable waste will still be reduced, reused, and recycled. In fact, it is complementary to waste management as it turns useless waste into a potential energy source. This potential is magnified when waste is considered a renewable resource brought about by the continuous increase in both human population and consumption.

In considering the development of any WtE facility, emphasis is placed, among others, on three things: (i) Waste feedstock volume; (ii) waste feedstock quality; and (iii) the heat value of the waste to meet the intended technology of the WtE facility. This enumeration highlights the need for the security of waste feedstock and the enforcement of proper segregation at the source. On the one hand, the security of waste feedstock partly relies on the assurance of the LGUs to surrender their waste to WtE developers. This means that any changes in the political scenery of any LGU must not compromise its assurance of the provision of waste to the developer. On the other hand, assuming that the WtE developer is assured of its feedstock, there must be strong enforcement of the mandatory segregation of solid wastes at source pursuant to the ESWMA in order to ensure the quality of the waste feedstock. In sum, ensuring the security of segregated waste will assist the prospective WtE developer.

5. Results and Discussion

Notwithstanding the interviews made, two key policy issues and concerns are identified in chronologically going through the existing government policies:

i.

Waste as a renewable resource for energy;

ii.

WtE’s place in the waste management hierarchy.

5.1. Waste as a Renewable Resource for Energy

5.1.1. Inconsistencies in the Treatment of Waste as a Renewable Resource

To recall, waste, pursuant to the WACS guide, is categorized into four groups. Now, in relation to DOE’s department circular [13] on Biomass WtE, the waste feedstock contemplated therein can only pertain to biodegradable waste. Under the RE Act, biomass resources refer to non-fossilized, biodegradable organic materials [81]. In the same law, renewable energy resources are considered to be inherently unlimited in quantity, as they do not have an upper limit in terms of the total quantity that can be used. The biomass resource is one of several renewable energy resources enumerated therein [82]. Thus, Biomass WtE—by extension, WtEs involving biodegradable waste feedstock—is to be considered a renewable energy technology. Consequently, biomass and biodegradable waste are renewable energy resources.

In contrast, DENR Admin. Order No. 2019-21 states that WtE facilities can accept, other than biodegradable waste, residual waste as well. In this case, residual waste may not be considered a renewable energy resource as it is not aligned with the latter’s definition in the RE Act. Given that the thrust of the ESWMA is to minimize waste with the end goal of reducing the volume of waste going into sanitary landfills (i.e., residual waste), the concept of residual waste having a rapid renewal rate for it to be considered a renewable resource runs counter to the government’s hierarchical policy on waste. From this perspective, waste may be considered a renewable energy resource only in cases where the waste feedstock being utilized is biodegradable waste, notwithstanding the comments [69] made by DOE that waste or municipal solid waste is renewable.

These executive issuances, coupled with the interviews conducted, convey an inconsistency with respect to the viability of waste as a renewable energy resource. This inconsistency is highlighted (

Table 7. Inconsistency in the treatment of waste as a renewable energy resource across references.

Category of Waste	DOE Circular No. DC2022-02-0002 (2022)	DENR Administrative Order No. 2019-21 (2019)	Interview with DOE-REMB (2022)
Biodegradable	Considers biomass waste as a renewable energy resource.	Accepts biodegradable waste as an input to WtE. Considered a renewable energy resource in relation to the RE Act.	Municipal solid waste is considered a renewable energy resource
Recyclable	Not mentioned in the DOE circular.	Not mentioned in the administrative order
Special
Residual		Accepts residual waste as an input to WtE.

) in the discussion of WtE’s role in the waste management hierarchy.

5.1.2. Proposed Bills on Waste-to-Energy

In recent years, the Philippine Congress has proposed several bills that aim to regulate and promote the utilization of WtE technologies.

Table 8. Some proposed bills from the 18th and 19th Philippine Congress that affect WtE.

Congress	Term of Congress	Bill Number	Bill Title
19th Congress	2022 to 2025	House Bill No. 27	An act establishing a national energy policy and regulatory framework for facilities utilizing Waste-to-Energy technologies [83]
		House Bill No. 958	An act allowing the use of Waste to Energy technology in electricity, fuel and heat generation, and for other purposes [84]
		House Bill No. 1498	An act establishing the use of ecological Waste-to-Energy management system, amending for the purpose the Clean Air Act, and for other purposes [85]
		House Bill No. 2001	An act allowing the use of Waste to Energy technology in electricity, fuel, and heat generation [86]
		Senate Bill No. 151	An act establishing a national energy policy and regulatory framework for facilities utilizing Waste-To-Energy technologies [87]
		Senate Bill No. 2267	An act establishing a national energy policy and regulatory framework for facilities utilizing Waste-To-Energy technologies [88]
18th Congress	2019 to 2022	House Bill No. 7829	An act regulating the use of treatment technology for municipal and hazardous wastes, repealing for the purpose Sec. 20 of the Clean Air Act [89]
		Senate Bill No. 1789	An act establishing a national energy policy and regulatory framework for facilities utilizing Waste-to-Energy technologies [90]

shows a brief description of some of these bills.

The salient points that can be gleaned from the individual bills are compiled below:

• Constitutional right—The WtE framework is anchored on the Constitution, wherein the State shall “protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature” [45];
• WtE as a renewable energy technology—In some bills, the WtE technology is explicitly classified as another kind of renewable energy technology. Note, however, that the term “waste” was still not qualified. Further, in House Bill No. 2001 of the 19th Congress, among other similar bills in the 19th Congress, WtE technologies employing incineration shall be allowed. In effect, the lingering tension over the acceptability and legality of incineration is now directly addressed;
• Incineration is not banned—Incineration is acceptable as long as it does not emit poisonous and toxic fumes and conforms to the existing environment and health laws. This declaration crystallizes the interpretation of the Supreme Court in MMDA v. JANCOM [62];
• Role of LGUs—LGUs shall create a comprehensive solid waste management plan that will streamline the establishment of WtE. Clustering of LGUs for the purpose of providing sufficient waste feedstock is also recognized. Clustering also recognizes the private sector’s concern for the security of waste feedstock;
• Tax Incentives—WtE operators are entitled to receive tax holidays and incentives.

Despite the noble intentions of the proposed bills, the fundamental question of whether or not waste is a renewable resource was still not addressed. Some of the bills sought to declare WtE a renewable energy technology, but this does not preclude the WtE operator from using non-renewable waste as feedstock. This inconsistency will only muddle the conversation revolving around the merits and demerits of WtE. In any case, what is consistent across the bills is the assurance that all WtE facilities shall abide by the prevalent environmental and health laws, which, as discussed in the previous section, are of primary importance relative to waste and energy issues.

5.1.3. Effect of Treating Waste as a Renewable Resource

There are several implications in treating waste as a renewable energy resource:

1.

It brings WtE within the scope of the RE Act—Waste as a renewable energy resource will bring it under the umbrella of the RE Act. Consequently, WtE, the technology utilizing waste, may be validly considered a renewable energy technology or system [91], regardless of the type of waste feedstock used. Ultimately, from the government’s perspective, this will also accelerate the country’s goal of increasing the renewable energy share in the power generation mix;

2.

Incentives await all stakeholders in the energy sector—Currently, DOE Department Circular No. DC2022-02-0002, the circular promoting biomass WtE facilities, is understandably limited to biomass waste feedstock given that only biomass is explicitly considered to be a renewable energy resource. However, if all waste types are considered renewable resources, then the benefits accorded in this circular may be assumed to apply to all WtE operators. Again, it was clarified in the interview with DOE that as long as operators comply with the relevant health and environmental standards, they are provided benefits regardless of the type of waste feedstock used. The aforementioned benefits also indirectly affect and benefit other stakeholders in the electric power industry. Such benefits include:

a.

General fiscal incentives for WtE developers such as income tax holidays, duty-free importation of RE machinery, equipment and materials, special realty tax rates on equipment and machinery, net operating loss carry-over, corporate tax rate, accelerated depreciation, zero percent value-added tax rate, cash incentive for renewable energy developers for missionary electrification, tax exemption of carbon credits, and tax credit on domestic capital equipment and services [92];

b.

Compliance with Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) and participation in the Renewable Energy Market (REM)—The RE Act mandates that participating power industry players source a part of their generation requirement from renewable energy reserves based on a percentage that is set by the National Renewable Energy Board [93]. RPS refers to a market-based policy that requires electricity suppliers to source an agreed-upon portion of their energy supply from eligible RE resources [94]. In support of this, a renewable energy certificate shall be issued to participants procuring energy from WtE facilities in compliance with their RPS obligations [95]. To facilitate compliance with the RPS and the trading of RE certificates, the REM was also created [96]. Given this, utilities are incentivized to procure energy from WtE developers;

c.

Power Supply Agreements (PSA) with eligible WtE facilities—The term of a PSA entered into between a WtE facility and distribution utility is recommended to be a minimum of twenty years [97]. The duration ensures fiscal and energy stability for both the WtE developer and the utility;

d.

Exemption from the Competitive Selection Process (CSP)—To an extent, WtE facilities shall be exempted from the conduct of the CSP [97]. CSP is a process done to select electric power suppliers for a given distribution facility via transparent and competitive bidding or through an alternative mode of procurement taken by a utility to secure the supply of electricity [98]. On the one hand, a CSP ensures fair and reasonable charges to consumers given its transparency and competition. On the other hand, in relation to WtE, an exemption from the CSP will accelerate the procurement and utilization of renewable energy resources.

3.

Maximizing potential energy from waste—In the Philippines, more than half of the municipal solid waste is comprised of biodegradables, accounting for 52.31%, while the shares of recyclable, residual, and special wastes are 27.78%, 17.98%, and 1.93%, respectively [99]. As biomass resources are primarily composed of biodegradable waste, the current DOE framework may limit potential WtE investors to utilizing only half of the potential waste energy input. Redefining waste as a whole as a renewable energy resource will allow the country to tap into unrealized potential energy.

5.2. WtE’s Role in Waste Management

The discussion on the country’s stance as regards waste as a renewable resource directly affects WtE’s role in the waste management hierarchy. To recall, the ESWMA, with DENR at the helm, recognizes WtE as a waste minimization technique and resource recovery tool [9]. However, the RE Act encourages the adoption of WtE technologies, albeit limited to biomass or biodegradable waste input. On the one hand, the ESWMA encourages the reduction of waste; on the other hand, the RE Act appears to encourage the production of waste to sustain the operations of WtE facilities. Are the goals of the two legislative acts in conflict with each other? Key points that need to be deliberated upon are the following:

• Considering waste as a renewable energy resource—Expanding the types of waste that may be considered renewable energy resources serves only to exacerbate the seemingly conflicting goals of the ESWMA and the RE Act. While the inclusion of all waste types allows the country to access an untapped potential of renewable energy, the role of WtE in the waste management hierarchy must not be overlooked. Notably, as highlighted in the interviews conducted, the interviewees agree that there is no conflict between the promotion of WtE under the RE Act and the ESWMA in relation to the concept of circular economy. Further, the interviews show that both laws are complementary to each other with respect to WtE, given that WtE specifically targets waste that may no longer be reduced, reused, or recycled. If this is the case, the renewability of waste feedstock is predicated on the effectiveness of preferred waste management options (i.e., avoidance, reduce, reuse, and recycle).
  The recognition of the waste management hierarchy under the ESWMA inherently limits the type of waste (i.e., residual waste) that may be considered waste feedstock for WtE facilities. As a result, the potential renewable energy output coming from waste is not maximized. Note that if waste is considered a renewable energy resource, the utilization of all waste types may accelerate the country’s goal of reaching its renewable energy percentage target;
• Expanding the playing field for WtE operators—As discussed in the previous section, WtE operators, or specifically Biomass WtE operators, enjoy substantial benefits (i.e., fiscal incentives) under the RE Act. Under DOE Department Circular No. DC2022-02-0002, not only will Biomass WtE investors thrive, but they will also support the government in its goal of increasing the generation share of renewable energy. If WtE is considered a proverbial “two birds with one stone” solution as it minimizes waste while producing energy, then a WtE registered under the DOE framework is an improvement upon this as it also provides additional renewable energy shares to the generation market. However, for the remaining half of the composition of solid wastes—that is, recyclable, residual, and special wastes—there is no incentive to utilize these as feedstock as they are not explicitly included in the DOE circular. This results in an unrealized volume of untapped energy. Interestingly, DENR explicitly allows residual waste as waste feedstock for WtE [7];
• Waste reduction vs. waste production—It is recognized that WtE undoubtedly provides a solution for both waste and energy issues in the country. However, there is a need to align, modify, or create a regulatory framework for WtE that not only clarifies the country’s perception of waste but also harmonizes the playing field for WtE regardless of the waste feedstock being utilized in relation to the waste management hierarchy under ESWMA (Figure 7).

6. Conclusions and Policy Implications

A survey of the relevant laws, executive issuances, and jurisprudence related to WtE shows that there are two key gaps and concerns in existing policies, as identified in the previous section. While the interview conducted with DOE clarified the government’s stance on waste’s treatment as a renewable resource, the current laws, as they are presently articulated, are introducing misconceptions and uncertainties that only serve to fuel legitimate concerns for WtE. On the other hand, the private sector was able to pinpoint the twin issues of security and segregation of waste as key factors that affect the viability of WtE. Of course, the fiscal incentives provided by the RE Act also play a major role in the viability of WtE. To address these concerns, several policies are recommended. Moreover, several prospective areas of research are also recommended, which can yield additional policy concerns or further enhance the policy recommendations below.

6.1. Policy Recommendations

6.1.1. Explicit Declaration of Waste as a Renewable Resource

To recall, there is no explicit declaration of waste being renewable in the RE Act. Interestingly, the recent DOE Circular No. DC2022-02-0002 qualified the lead agency’s promotion of WtE to Biomass WtEs only. However, in the interview with DOE, it was clarified that municipal solid waste is indeed a renewable resource and that WtE is a renewable energy technology. Understandably, the primary concern pertains to the reason why the DOE circular limited its promotion to Biomass WtEs only. In any case, this policy concern may be simply solved with an explicit legislative declaration that waste is renewable. Given that MSW production will continue to increase as the human population continues to grow and consume goods and amenities, MSW complies with the definition of an RE resource under the RE Act.

6.1.2. Clarify WtE’s Role in the Waste Management Hierarchy

As a consequence of waste being a renewable resource, there is a need to clarify WtE’s role in the waste management hierarchy. To accomplish this, the type of waste that may be used as feedstock for WtEs should be identified. Note that DOE Circular No. DC2022-02-0002 promotes biomass, which, by implication, refers to the biodegradable group of waste pursuant to the WACS. However, DENR Administrative Order No. 2019-21 [7] allows both biodegradables and residual wastes as inputs for WtE. To ensure that WtE does not disrupt the waste management hierarchy and the concept of a circular economy, legislation must harmonize these executive issuances. As elucidated in the interview with the private sector, WtE is targeted to utilize residual waste, or waste that has already passed through the upper stages of the waste management hierarchy (i.e., reduce, reuse, and recycle). The clarification of WtE’s role will dispel any notion of WtE disrupting the established waste management hierarchy. More importantly, this removes the misconception that WtE is promoting the production of waste as opposed to being a technology that complements the current waste management hierarchy.

6.1.3. Remove Waste and WtE from the Ambit of Renewable Energy

Alternatively, given the negative connotation brought about by the implicit association of waste and WtE with renewable energy, it is recommended to remove both from the ambit of the RE Act. Instead of trying to fit waste into the definition of a renewable resource and convince the public that waste is indeed renewable, a simple solution is to disassociate it completely. Considering that there are Congress bills currently laying down the WtE framework, it is the perfect opportunity to accommodate such a solution. However, it is recognized that this solution consequently deprives WtE developers of the fiscal incentives provided by the RE Act. Given this, the fiscal incentives provided by the RE Act should also be copied or transferred into the pending Congress bills as well. In effect, what is being created is a special legislation for WtEs only containing the benefits currently provided for renewable energy developers without the headache of trying to justify waste as a renewable resource. While this recommendation may be a possible solution, its negative effect on the country’s target of RE share must also be evaluated.

6.2. Prospective Areas for Research

The current paper highlights the legal framework that is currently regulating WtE in the Philippines. By conducting interviews and reviews of existing policies, the paper effectively employed a “qualitative” approach in identifying policy gaps and recommendations. To achieve a holistic analysis on WtE policies, a “quantitative” approach is recommended. Thus, to improve and ensure the sustainability of WtE, it is recommended that calculation-based methods be employed in the assessment of its industrial viability—specifically, on WtE’s fiscal and environmental aspects. A comprehensive and robust fiscal analysis is needed to address the concerns of prospective investors, while an environmental assessment emphasizes the Philippine citizens’ protected right to health and a balanced and healthy ecology. With this type of approach, additional policies may be derived to reinforce or recalibrate the recommended policies in this paper.