5.1.1. Cost of Electricity Generation in ASEAN Countries

When all capacities of wind energy are intentionally removed from the available technologies, three distinct trends emerge compared to the actual BAU case (Table 6). First, more low-cost technologies, such as hydropower, are used across many countries from 2026 to 2040. Second, renewable energy technologies, such as geothermal energy for Indonesia and the Philippines, are dispatched. Along with early utilisation of geothermal energy, more biofuel energy is utilised in Singapore. The Philippines appears to tap into biofuel energy as well. Third, more carbon-intensive and costly carbon-generation technologies, such as coal with carbon capture and storage and gas with carbon capture and storage, appear to be dispatched later in 2036 and 2040.


**Table 6.** Cost of Meeting Electricity Demand in the ASEAN Region (\$ billion).

BAU = business as usual. Source: Authors.

When ASEAN countries utilise wind energy, however, the cost of meeting electricity demand in the region is lowered by about 0.7 percent. The share of wind energy, out of the total installed generation capacity in the ASEAN region, is about 0.8 percent. The cost of wind energy is almost the same as the share of installed generation capacity. Figure 2 presents the cost of meeting electricity demand in ASEAN countries.

The total cost of meeting the demand for electricity in the ASEAN region is \$421.05 billion if no wind energy is utilised at all, i.e., the counterfactual BAU scenario. Under the BAU scenario in which the current level of wind energy is assumed, the total cost is \$418.20 billion, about 0.7 percent lower than that of the counterfactual BAU scenario. The total cost of the counterfactual BAU scenario is \$421.05 billion while that of the REmap scenario is \$409.36 billion. The difference between the counterfactual scenario and the REmap scenario is 2.8 percent, which is more than three times the difference between the cost of the counterfactual scenario and BAU scenario, if the capacity of wind energy assumed under the REmap scenario of IRENA and ACE [7] is to be fully utilised from 2025.

**Figure 2.** Total Cost of Meeting the Demand for Electricity in ASEAN. (\$ billion). BAU = business as usual. Source: Authors.

## 5.1.2. Carbon Emissions

The difference in carbon emissions between the counterfactual scenario and REmap scenario is interesting (Figure 3). The difference in the quantity ranges from 0.62 million tons in 2039 to 29.71 million tons in 2025, mostly because new capacity of wind energy is assumed to be installed in 2025. Excluding this, the next highest difference is achieved in 2028. The amount of carbon emissions under the counterfactual BAU scenario is slightly higher than the REmap scenario in 2038, probably due to the lower capacity of hydro, which is added in 2038.

**Figure 3.** Trajectory of Carbon Emissions under Counterfactual BAU and Remap (million tons). BAU = business as usual. Source: Authors.

Thus, utilising more wind energy could reduce carbon emissions further. The simulation of the REmap scenario shows that a few countries in ASEAN, such as Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand, appear to fully utilise their potential for wind energy. If other countries are able to harness their potential for wind energy, then the reduction in carbon emissions could be even larger.
