Untitled

FOREWORD
The 2011 Household Energy Consumption Survey (HECS) is a nationwide survey of

households, which is a joint undertaking of the Department of Energy (DOE) and National
Statistics Office (NSO). This is the fourth in a series of HECS conducted by the office since
1989. The second and third surveys were conducted in 1995 and 2004, respectively. The 2011
HECS is a stand-alone survey with a sample size of 25,000 households.
The primary goal of the survey is to generate comprehensive and reliable data/information on
household energy consumption, and analyze end-use energy consumption and preferences in
the residential sector.
This report will provide information about the energy consumption patterns in Filipino
households, as well as socio-economic conditions affecting energy use. It will also present the
survey results regarding the fuel/energy mix of the residential sector based on its energy
consumption, the most energy consuming appliances, devices and equipment used for
household activities, the conservation techniques in the residential sector vis-à-vis government
programs for implementation of energy consumption regulation for household appliances and
equipment, and awareness and/or perception of the household on major energy issues (i.e.
nuclear energy) and developments (energy labeling program, renewable energy, natural gas) in
the energy sector. These data are useful for planning, monitoring and evaluating energy
consumption in the household sector.
We gratefully acknowledge the commitment and dedication of the NSO staff, the DOE team and
all our field personnel who worked together to carry out the survey. Without them, this survey
would not have been a success. We also thank the government and non-government agencies
for the support extended for the implementation of the 2011 HECS.
TO ALL OF THEM, OUR HEARTFELT GRATITUDE!
CARMELITA N. ERICTA CARLOS JERICHO L. PETILLA

Administrator Secretary
National Statistics Office Department of Energy
Table of Contents
Page No.
Foreword ii
List of Tables vi
List of Figures viii
Highlights of Findings xi
Chapter 1 - Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Objectives of the Survey 1
1.3 Survey Questionnaires 2
1.4 Survey Design and Implementation 3
1.5 Response Rate 3
1.6 Plans for Pretest 4
1.7 Pretest Operation 5
1.8 Training and Field Work 5
1.9 Field Enumeration 5
1.10 Data Processing 6
1.11 Definition of Terms 6
Chapter 2 - Profile of Households 12
2.1 Number and Regional Distribution of Households 12

2.2 Age and Sex of Household Heads 12
2.3 Average Monthly Income 14
Chapter 3 – Energy Consumption Pattern 16
3.1 Types of Fuel Used by Households 16

3.1.1 Fuel Used for Lighting 16
3.1.2 Fuel Used for Cooking 17
3.1.3 Fuel Used for Transportation 17
3.2 Electricity 17
3.2.1 Uses of Electricity 18
3.2.2 Types of Lamp Used by Households 19
3.2.3 Household Electric Appliances for Household Recreation 20
3.2.4 Household Electric Appliances for Cooking 21
3.2.5 Sources of Electricity 22
3.3 Petroleum Products 23

3.3.1 Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) 23
3.3.2 Kerosene 25
3.3.3 Gasoline 26
3.3.4 Diesel 26
2011 Household Energy Consumption Survey Page iii

3.4 Renewable Energy Sources 27
3.4.1 Fuelwood 27
3.4.2 Charcoal 28
3.4.3 Biomass Residues 29
Chapter 4 – Households Practicing Energy Mix and Fuel Switching 31
4.1 Energy Mix for Lighting 31

4.2 Energy Mix for Cooking 31
4.3 Fuel Switching for Cooking 33
Chapter 5 – Awareness, Practices and Perception of Households on 35

Energy Issues and Developments
5.1 Awareness on Energy Issues 35

5.1.1 Labeling Program 35
5.1.2 Natural Gas 36
5.1.4 Nuclear Energy 38
5.1.5 Renewable Energy 39
5.2 Households Practices To Reduce Energy Consumption 40
5.3 Perceptions on the Use of Common Household Energy Sources 42

5.3.1 Electricity 42
5.3.3 Kerosene 43
5.3.4 Fuelwood 44
5.4 Problems Encountered in Fuel Supply System 44

5.4.1 Electricity 45
5.4.3 Kerosene 46
Chapter 6 – Policy Implications and Recommendations 47
6.1 Electricity 47
6.2 Downstream Oil and Natural Gas 50
6.3 Renewable Energy 53
6.4 Energy Efficiency and Conservation 55
6.5 Nuclear Energy 57
Appendices
A - 2003 New Master Sample Survey Design 59

1. Sampling Design 59
2. Estimation Procedures 62
B - Appendix Tables 67
Appendix Table 1 – Households Using Electricity and Average 67
2011 Household Energy Consumption Survey Page iv

Consumption of Electricity During the Six Months Prior to Survey, by
End-Use and Type of Appliance Used, Philippines: 2011
Appendix Table 2 – Households Using Electricity, by End-Use, Type of 68

Appliance Used and Average Monthly Income, Philippines: 2011
Appendix Table 3 – Households Using Petroleum Products, by Type of 70

Fuel, End-Use and Average Monthly Income, Philippines: 2011
Appendix Table 4 – Households Using Petroleum Products, by Type of 71

Fuel, End-Use and Type of Equipment/Vehicle Used , Philippines: 2011
Appendix Table 5 – Average Consumption of Petroleum Products 73

During the Six Months Prior to the Survey, by Type of Fuel and End-
Use, Philippines: 2011
Appendix Table 6 – Households Using LPG and Kerosene, by Source 74

and Mode of Acquisition and Average Monthly Income, Philippines:
2011
Appendix Table 7 – Households Using Renewable Energy Sources, by 75

Average Monthly Income, Type of Fuel and End-Use Philippines: 2011
Appendix Table 8 – Households Using Renewable Energy Sources, by 76

Type of Fuel, Mode of Acquisition and Average Monthly Income,
Philippines: 2011
Appendix Table 9 – Average Consumption of Renewable Energy 77

Sources, During the Six Months Prior to the Survey, by Type of Fuel
and Mode of Acquisition, Philippines: 2011
Appendix Table 10 – Household Practices to Reduce Fuel Consumption 78

Philippines: 2011
C - HECS Questionnaire
D – 2011 HECS Project Staff and Technical Working Group (TWG)
2011 Household Energy Consumption Survey Page v

LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
Title
No. No.
1.1 Total Sample Households Responding and Eligible Households and 4

Response Rate by Region: 2011
2.1 Distribution of Households by Sex of Household Head and Region, 13

Philippines: 2011
2.2 Distribution of Households by Age of Household Head and Region, 13

Philippines: 2011
2.3 Distribution of Households by Age of Household Head and Sex, 14

Philippines: 2011
2.4 Distribution of Households by Average Monthly Income and Region, 15

Philippines: 2011
3.1 Households Using Electricity by End-Use and Average Monthly 18

Income, Philippines: 2011
3.2 Average Consumption of Electricity Per Household During the Six 19

Months Prior to Survey by End-Use, Philippines: 2011
3.3 Average Consumption of Electricity Per Households During the Six 20

Months Prior to Survey by Type of Lamp Used, Philippines: 2011

Months Prior to Survey by Type of Electric Appliance Used for
Recreation, Philippines: 2011

Months Prior to Survey by Type of Electric Appliance Used for
Cooking, Philippines: 2011
3.6 Households Using Electricity by Source of Electricity and Average 22

Monthly Income, Philippines: 2011
4.1 Households Practicing Energy Mix for Lighting by Combination of Fuel 31

and Average Monthly Income, Philippines: 2011
4.2 Households Practicing Energy Mix for Cooking by Combination of Fuel 33

Mix and Average Monthly Income, Philippines: 2011
4.3 Households Using Any Cooking Fuel During the Six Months Prior to 33
Survey by Type of Primary Cooking Fuel, Philippines: March to
August 2011
2011 Household Energy Consumption Survey Page vi

4.4 Households Who Switched Their Primary Cooking Fuel During the Six 34
Months Prior to Survey by Main Reasons for Switching and Average
5.1 Households by Awareness of the Energy Labeling Program for 36

Appliances and Lighting, and Average Monthly Income, Philippines:
2011
5.2 Households by Awareness on Natural Gas as Fuel by Average 37

5.3 Percent of Households Practicing Safety Measures in Buying and 38

Handling LPG, Philippines: 2011
5.4 Households by Awareness on Nuclear Energy and Average Monthly 39

Income, Philippines: 2011
6.1 Percentage of Households (HHs) Using Electricity and Share to the Total 48
Electricity Consumption by Average Monthly Income Class: 2011
6.2 Number of Households Using Electricity Acquired from Utilities and Electric 49
Cooperatives by Average Monthly Income Class: 2011
2011 Household Energy Consumption Survey Page vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
Title
No No.
2.1 Distribution of Households by Region, Philippines: 2011 12
2.2 Households by Age of Household Head, Philippines: 2011 12
2.3 Households by Average Monthly Income During the Six Months Prior to 14
Survey, Philippines: 2011
3.1 Types of Fuel Used by Households, Philippines: 2011 16
3.2 Types of Fuel Used by Households for Lighting, Philippines: 2011 16
3.3 Types of Fuel Used by Households for Cooking, Philippines: 2011 17
3.4 Types of Fuel Used by Households for their Vehicle, Philippines: 17

2011
3.5 Households Using Electricity by End-Use, Philippines: 2011 18
3.6 Types of Lamp Used by Households, Philippines: 2011 19
3.7 Types of Electric Appliance Used for Recreation by Households 20

Philippines: 2011
3.8 Types of Electric Appliance Used for Cooking by Households 21

Philippines: 2011
3.9 Types of Petroleum Products Used by Households, Philippines: 23

2011
3.10 Households Using LPG for Cooking by Type of Equipment Used, 23

Philippines: 2011
3.11 Mode of Acquisition of LPG, Philippines: 2011 24
3.12 Source of LPG, Philippines: 2011 24
3.13 Distance of Household Residence from their Usual Source of LPG, 24

Philippines: 2011
3.14 Households Using Kerosene by Type of End-Use, Philippines: 2011 25
3.15 Mode of Acquisition of Kerosene, Philippines: 2011 25
2011 Household Energy Consumption Survey Page viii

3.16 Distance of Household Residence from their Usual Source of 25
Kerosene, Philippines: 2011
3.17 Households Using Gasoline for Transportation by Type of Vehicle 26

Used, Philippines: 2011
3.18 Households Using Diesel by End-Use, Philippines: 2011 26
3.19 Renewable Energy Sources by Type, Philippines: 2011 27
3.20 Households Using Fuelwood by End-Use, Philippines: 2011 27
3.21 Households Using Fuelwood by Income Class, Philippines: 2011 27
3.22 Mode of Acquisition of Fuelwood, Philippines: 2011 28
3.23 Households Using Charcoal by End-Use, Philippines: 2011 28
3.24 Households Using Charcoal by Income Class, Philippines: 2011 28
3.25 Mode of Acquisition of Charcoal, Philippines: 2011 29
3.26 Households Using Biomass Residues by End-Use, Philippines: 2011 29
3.27 Households Using Biomass Residues by Income Class, Philippines: 29

2011
3.28 Mode of Acquisition of Biomass Residues, Philippines: 2011 30
4.1 Combination of Fuel Used by Households for Cooking, Philippines: 2011 32
4.2 Main Reason of Households for Switching their Primary Cooking 34

Fuel, Philippines: 2011
5.1 Awareness of Households on Natural Gas as Fuel by Usage, 36

Philippines: 2011
5.2 Awareness of Households on Substandard or Dilapidated LPG in the 37

Market by Average Monthly Income, Philippines: 2011
5.3 Percent of Households Who Knew the Usage of Nuclear Energy, 38

Philippines: 2011
5.4 Level of Awareness of Households on Renewable Energy, 39

Philippines: 2011
5.5 Level of Awareness of Households on Renewable Energy by 39

Average Monthly Income, Philippines: 2011
5.6 Awareness of Households on Renewable Energy Act of 2008, 40

Philippines: 2011
2011 Household Energy Consumption Survey Page ix

5.7 Awareness of Households on Renewable Energy Act of 2008, by 40
Average Monthly Income, Philippines: 2011
5.8 Measures Undertaken by Households to Reduce their Consumption of 41

Energy for Lighting by Type, Philippines: 2011
5.9 Households Practices to Reduce their Consumption of Energy for 41

Cooking by Type, Philippines: 2011
5.10 Perceptions of Households on the Use of Electricity, Philippines: 42

2011
5.11 Perceptions of Households on the Use of LPG, Philippines: 2011 43
5.12 Perceptions of Households on the Use of Kerosene, Philippines: 43

2011
5.13 Perceptions of Households on the Use of Fuelwood, Philippines: 44

2011
5.14 Percentage Who Encountered Problems in Fuel Supply Among 44

Households Using Electricity, LPG and Kerosene, Philippines: 2011
5.15 Problems on Supply of Electricity Encountered by Households by 45

Type, Philippines: 2011
5.16 Problems on Supply of LPG Encountered by Households, by Type, 45

Philippines: 2011
5.17 Problems on Supply of Kerosene Encountered by Households by 46

Type, Philippines: 2011
6.1 Comparison of Households Who Used Electricity for Lighting by Type of 56

Lamp Used, in Percent, 2004 vs 2011
6.2 Percentage of Households by Willingness to Support Nuclear Energy, by 58

Region: 2011
2011 Household Energy Consumption Survey Page x

HIGHLIGHTS OF FINDINGS
The 2011 Household Energy Consumption Survey (HECS) is a joint undertaking of the
Department of Energy (DOE) and National Statistics Office (NSO). This is the fourth in a series
of HECS previously conducted in 1989, 1995 and 2004. It gathers data on household energy
consumption, application and other relevant factors affecting such consumption. The survey
period spanned six (6) months – from March to August 2011.
The primary goal of the 2011 HECS is to generate comprehensive and reliable data and
information on households’ pattern of fuel consumption. The HECS is also designed to
generate extensive information on the household’s fuel and technology preferences, awareness
on energy issues and programs of the government in relation to energy security and efficiency,
and issues and concerns in terms of problems encountered by the households on fuel supply.
The information that can be generated from the survey will serve as reliable indicators to
support essential undertakings such as formulation and implementation of energy policies and
programs, energy related researches, and critical decision makings, intended to influence
households’ living condition in a positive outcome.
SOURCES OF ENERGY
Electricity remained as the most common energy source of households, as 18.3 million out of
21.1 million (87.2 percent) households have access to electricity. This remains close to the level
of 87.6 percent recorded in 2004 survey.
Fuelwood ranked second to electricity, used by almost 12 million households (54.2 percent) out
of the total number of households in 2011. This proportion was slightly lower than the 55.1
percent recorded in 2004. Other renewable energy sources, such as charcoal and biomass
residues, recorded increases in the household users between the two (2) surveys.
On the other hand, kerosene and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) posted the biggest decline in
terms of number of household users. Between 2004 and 2011, one (1) in every ten (10)
households refrained from using LPG, while there was a 22 percentage reduction of kerosene
users during the same period. However, there were more households that used gasoline and
diesel in 2011 than six (6) years before.
FUEL USES
Electricity
Electricity was primarily used for lighting purposes as reported by almost all households (99.9
percent) during the survey period of March to August 2011. Majority of households likewise
used electricity for their electrical appliances for recreational purposes (88.8 percent) and space
cooling (72.9 percent).
2011 Household Energy Consumption Survey Page xi

In the six (6) months prior to the survey, the average household electricity consumption was 649
kWh, out of which 31.1 percent was consumed for space cooling (air conditioner/electric fans),
25.1 percent for refrigeration (ref/freezers) and 17.6 percent for recreation (TVs/DVD, etc).
Petroleum Products
LPG was the most utilized fuel among petroleum products with 8.6 million household users, and
was consumed particularly for cooking and food preparation and heating water for bathing. For
this purpose, a household consumed an average of 7.5 kilograms of LPG per month.
Meanwhile, kerosene was used mostly for lighting (88.2 percent) and fire starting (28.1 percent).
Average consumption of kerosene was 2.5 liters per month.
In terms of volume of consumption, households consumed more gasoline and diesel than LPG
and kerosene. The average monthly consumption per household of gasoline and diesel, used
predominantly for transportation, stood at 56 liters and 121 liters, respectively.
Renewable Energy
Majority of the households reported using biomass fuels such as fuelwood, charcoal and
residues for cooking. Fuelwood continues to be the popular choice among the three (3), as one
(1) in every two (2) households used it for cooking and food preparation. Other uses of fuelwood
were heating water for bathing and space warming, while charcoal and biomass residues were
also used for ironing.
On the average, a household consumed 183 kilograms of fuelwood, 29 kilograms of charcoal

and 61 kilograms of biomass residues per month, regardless of end-use purposes.
FUEL SOURCE AND MODE OF ACQUISITION

Out of the 18.3 million households that used electricity, a combined 85 percent sourced their
supply from electric utilities and cooperatives.
Retail LPG outlets were the most usual source of LPG, as reported by 59.8 percent of
household using this fuel. Similarly, sari-sari stores or general merchandisers provided the
requirement of about 81.1 household users of kerosene.
Meanwhile, fuelwood and biomass residues, owing to their abundance, were generally self-
collected or gathered by households, while charcoal is usually purchased.
ENERGY MIX AND FUEL SWITCHING

Electricity and kerosene was the popular fuel combination for lighting that was used by 3.7
million households, regardless of income class. On the other hand, one (1) in every two (2)
households made use of more than one (1) type of fuel for cooking. The common pairing of fuel
for cooking was that of fuelwood and biomass residues (20.5 percent), which was prevalent
among households that earn less than 10,000 per month. On the other hand, LPG and
electricity was the preferred fuel combination for households with higher average income
(30,000 and above).
2011 Household Energy Consumption Survey Page xii

Few households changed their cooking fuel, with about 2.5 percent of LPG users from March to
August 2011 switching to electricity after this period. Fuelwood continued to be the primary
choice as cooking fuel during the six-month reference period.
AWARENESS, PRACTICES AND PERCEPTION OF HOUSEHOLDS ON

ENERGY ISSUES AND DEVELOPMENTS
About 26 percent of the 21.1 million households were aware of the energy labeling program for
appliances and lighting fixtures, and majority of them applied this knowledge when purchasing
the equipment.
Awareness on natural gas was reported by 3.7 million households, with 82.7 percent being
cognizant of its use for transportation.
One (1) in every two (2) households were aware of substandard or dilapidated LPG circulating
in the market, and thus practiced safety handling and buying of LPG tanks.
7.1 million households, representing 32.6 percent, had knowledge about nuclear energy.
Majority of them were aware that it can be used for power generation.
Awareness about renewable energy, particularly that of the RE Law (RA 9513), was relatively
dismal. Majority of households remain unaware of the government’s undertaking related to
renewable energy despite the passage of the law in 2008.
On the other hand, a large portion of households (88.5 percent) have carried out measures to
reduce their energy consumption. Most of these households cited that the high cost of fuel
(electricity, LPG, kerosene) is a major factor that prompted them to manage their level of fuel
consumption. Similarly, this is also the major problem hounding majority of households.
2011 Household Energy Consumption Survey Page xiii

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The 2011 Household Energy Consumption Survey (HECS) was a nationwide survey
jointly conducted by the National Statistics Office and the Department of Energy (DOE).
This was the fourth in a series of survey with the last three HECS previously conducted
in 1989, 1995 and 2004. The survey aims to collect data on the energy consumption of
the household.
Between the 2004 and 2011, the HECS Form I or survey questionnaire underwent some
modifications.
1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE SURVEY

The primary objective of the 2011 HECS is to generate comprehensive and reliable
data/information on household energy consumption, and analyze end-use energy
consumption and preferences in the residential sector. The survey results will be used
to formulate and implement policies and programs that aim to improve the quality of life
of the Filipinos. The data collected in 2011 HECS will update the results of the HECS
conducted in 2004.
The specific objectives of the survey are:
1. Provide detailed information on the changing energy consumption patterns in

Filipino households, as well as socio-economic conditions affecting energy use;
2. Establish the fuel/energy mix of the residential sector based on its energy
consumption;
3. Determine the most energy consuming appliances, devices and equipment

used for household activities;
4. Assess the current energy efficiency and conservation techniques in the

residential sector vis-a-vis government programs for implementation of energy
consumption regulation for household appliances and equipment;
5. Measure and analyze the incidence of inter-fuel substitution in the households;

and
6. Determine awareness and/or perception of the household on major energy

issues (i.e. nuclear energy) and developments (energy labeling program,
renewable energy, natural gas) in the energy sector.
1.3 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
2011 Household Energy Consumption Survey Page 1

The HECS Form 1 is a 25-page questionnaire (including the front cover page) used to
gather information on the consumption and utilization of energy sources as well as the
household’s practices and preference for the type of fuel.
The questionnaire was translated into six major dialects, namely, Bicolano, Cebuano,
Hiligaynon, Ilocano, Tagalog and Waray.
The questionnaire has five main parts consisting of the following:
Part I – Geographic Identification and Other Information
A. Geographic Identification
B. Characteristics of the Household Head
Part II – Checklist for Energy Sources
Part III – Details of Energy Sources
A. Electricity
1. Electricity
2. Generators
3. Storage Battery
4. Household Electricity Usage
B. Petroleum Products
1. LPG Usage
2. Gasoline Usage
3. Diesel Usage
4. Usage for Appliance/Equipment
5. Kerosene Usage
C. Transport
D. Renewable Energy Sources and Technologies

1. Fuelwood Usage
2. Charcoal Usage
3. Biomass Residue
4. Biogas
5. Fuels/Other Applicable Technologies
E. Cooking Fuel Switching
F. Household Practices
1. Lighting
2. Cooking
3. Refrigeration
4. Ironing Clothes
5. Space Cooling (Electric Fan)
6. Space Cooling (Air Conditioner)
7. Machine Washing Clothes

Perception on the use of common household energy sources
1. Electricity
2. LPG
3. Kerosene
4. Fuelwood
G. Awareness on Energy Issues

1. Labeling Program
2. Natural Gas Awareness
3. LPG Awareness
4. Nuclear Energy Awareness
5. Renewable Energy Awareness
Part IV – Family Income
Part V – Housing Characteristics
1.4 SURVEY DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
1. Scope and Coverage
The survey covers a nationwide sample of about 25,000 households that is

deemed representative in measuring the levels and pattern of energy
consumption at the national level. The 2011 HECS is a stand-alone survey that
gathers data on household energy use, patterns and preferences.
The reporting unit is the household which means that the statistics emanating
from the survey refer to the characteristics of the household population.
2. Sampling Design
The 2011 HECS adopted the sampling design of the 2003 Master Sample (MS)
for household-based surveys.
A master sample is a sample from which subsamples or list of sample

households can be drawn to serve the needs of various household surveys of
NSO. (Refer to Appendix “A” for more comprehensive discussion on Master
Sample.)
1.5 RESPONSE RATE

The response rate is computed by dividing the total number of responding households
by the total number of eligible households.
For this survey, the sample size is 25,192 households. Of this number, 22,470 were
considered eligible, while a total of 20,591 households or 91.6 percent responded.

TABLE 1.1 Total Sample Households Responding and Eligible Households
and Response Rate by Region: 2011
TOTAL TOTAL RESPONSE

TOTAL
REGION SAMPLE ELIGIBLE RATE
RESPONDING
HOUSEHOLDS HOUSEHOLDS
TOTAL 25,192 20,591 22,470 91.6

National Capital Region 2.919 2,297 2,727 84.0
Cordillera Administrative Region 1.094 861 936 92.0
Region I – Ilocos Region 1,383 1,166 1,204 96.8
Region II – Cagayan Valley 1,156 961 1,011 95.1
Region III – Central Luzon 2,000 1,635 1,771 92.3
Region IVA – CALABARZON 2,548 2,102 2,354 89.3
Region IVB – MIMAROPA 989 822 869 94.6
Region V – Bicol 1,377 1,152 1,249 92.2
Region VI – Western Visayas 1,675 1,428 1,488 96.0
Region VII – Central Visayas 1,697 1,373 1,476 93.0
Region VIII – Eastern Visayas 1,300 1,066 1,161 91.8
Region IX – Zamboanga 888 971 91.5
1,132
Peninsula
Region X – Northern Mindanao 1,154 944 1,040 90.8
Region XI – Davao 1,425 1,205 1,323 91.1
Region XII – SOCCSKSARGEN 1,290 1,016 1,098 92.5
Caraga 1,057 873 936 93.3
2
Region XIV – ARMM 996 802 856 93.7
1.6 PLANS FOR PRETEST

The activities to be performed and accomplished were set up and arranged by both the
NSO-Income and Employment Statistics Division (IESD) staff and the DOE Team.
These include the selection of Pretest areas, conduct of workshop to finalize the survey
questionnaire and enumerator’s manual, briefing of enumerators before going to their
respective areas and post-pretest activity or debriefing. The schedule of the pretest was
set on March 22 to 25, 2011.
A one-day workshop was held at the DOE Audio-Visual Room (AVR) on March 9, 2011.
The workshop covered the review of the questionnaire and Enumerators Manual,
discussions of the field operation procedures for the pretest, and served as briefing for
those who were involved in the pretest.

1.7 PRETEST OPERATION
A Pretest was conducted in preparation for 2011 HECS to test the effectiveness of the
survey instrument as to the appropriateness of the question wording, the skipping
pattern and familiarization with the flow of the questions, the length of the time in the
conduct of the interview for the questionnaire. It also aimed to determine the workload
and mandays, establish the appropriate operational procedures for this undertaking, and
assess problems, issues and concerns that may arise during the actual survey.
Two pretest areas were selected in the province of Pangasinan. For the urban area,
Barangay Nancamaliran West in Urdaneta City was enumerated on March 23, 2011,
while for the rural area, Barangay Hacienda in the Municipality of Bugallion was
enumerated on March 24, 2011.
After the Pretest, the questionnaires were processed both by NSO and DOE technical
personnel. The team came up with summary results that served as input in the
finalization of the HECS Form 1 questionnaire.
1.8 TRAINING AND FIELD WORK

Three levels of training were conducted for the conduct of the 2011 HECS, as
follows:
a. Task Force Training - August 15-19, 2011 at Torre de Venezia Suites,

Timog Avenue, Quezon City
The participants in the training were representatives from the NSO Central
Office and the DOE, as well as from the Regional and Provincial Statistics
Offices per region.
b. Second Level Training - September 5-8, 2011 at the Regional Offices
This training was attended by the Regional Director, RS, PSOs, PSs or their
designated alternates. The selected NSO and DOE personnel who attended
the Task Force Training served as the trainers/lecturers in this training.
c. Third Level Training - September 12-15, 2011 at the Provincial Offices
This training was attended by hired Enumerators, District Statistical Officers

(DSOs) or Statistical Coordination Officers (SCOs), who acted as interviewers.
Selected NSO and DOE staff were the resource persons in this level of
training.
Each training included the discussions on the survey concepts and definitions
of the items in the questionnaires, and field operation procedures.
1.9 FIELD ENUMERATION
The field enumeration was undertaken from September 16 to October 8, 2011, twenty
(20) days including Saturdays.

1.10 DATA PROCESSING
Data processing involved two stages, the manual and machine processing. These are
crucial activity in the verification of the questionnaires. A Field Processing Manual was
prepared for processing. The Manual contained the detailed instructions and standard
procedures in the processing of data to ensure accurate encoding, completeness and
consistency checking of information in the questionnaires.
The 2011 HECS data processing involved three (3) levels of training, as follows:
a. Task Force Training - September 23, 2011

Central Office Training Room
b. Second Level Training - September 30, 2011

Regional Offices
c. Third Level Training - October 10, 2011

Provincial Offices
Each provincial office has assigned a focal person for this activity. The focal persons
assigned took charge of the data processing. The data processing started 11 October
2011, and ended on November 2011.
a. Manual Processing
Manual processing of the HECS questionnaires was undertaken at the provincial

office. This includes folioing of the questionnaires, completeness and consistency
checking, editing, coding of the appropriate responses and verification of entries.
The accomplished HECS questionnaires were folioed by province. The folio was
arranged consecutively according to the Sample Housing Serial Number (SHSN)
and Household Control Number (HCN) from lowest to highest. The folioed
questionnaires were binded with shoelace and covered with a CONTROL FORM on
top of the folder. The editing of the questionnaires was done after it was folioed.
b. Machine Processing
Machine processing involved all operations that were done with the use of a
computer, that is, from data encoding to tabulation. Computer program in Census
and Survey Processing (CSPro) was prepared by NSO for data entry, consistency
checking and validation of data.
Preliminary and final tabulations were done at the Central Office.
1.11 DEFINITION OF TERMS

Specific concepts, definitions and explanations on energy forms and sources on the
2011 HECS were introduced and recommended by NSO and DOE. This also included
the explanations as guide to everyone involved in the survey.

1. Household
A group of persons, generally but not necessarily bound by ties of kinship, who
sleep in the same dwelling unit and have common arrangements for the
preparation and consumption of food.
The following situations are also considered a household:
1. person who lives alone;

2. a person who rents bed space but makes arrangements for his own food;
and
3. a group of persons who share and take their meals together but live
in separate but adjacent living quarters for convenience.
2. Income
Income refers to monthly earnings in either cash or kind. Monthly cash income
includes wages, salaries, commissions and allowances received by the family
members from employment in cash form and cash receipts from the practice of
profession or trade and other cash receipts such as pensions and remittances
from abroad.
Income in kind refers to the cash value of wages, commissions, allowances which
are received in non- monetary form such as a sack of rice as wages of agricultural
workers, housing and accommodation. It also includes the value of food items
which are produced or harvested and consumed by the family, net share of crops,
fruits and vegetable harvested, the gifts received and imputed value of owner-
occupied house and lot.
3. Income class
Ranges of average monthly income of the households.
4. Reference Period
The reference period covered by the survey is from March to August 2011 unless
another reference period is specified.
5. Respondent
A respondent is any responsible adult household/family member who can provide

reliable answers to the survey questions.
6. Energy
Technically, energy is defined as the “capacity to do work”. It is a fuel source

which runs electrical and non-electrical appliances, vehicles and motor,
equipment, gadgets, devices and other fixtures used by the household either out
of necessity or for its convenience, or for productive undertakings related to
household-operated businesses or activities.

Energy can be generated from and provided by a variety of forms: electricity,
petroleum products, and renewable energy sources (RES). Electricity covers not
only those distributed by utilities but also those produced by generators and
batteries. Petroleum products include kerosene or “ga-as”, LPG or cooking gas,
regular gasoline, premium gasoline, and diesel or “crudo”. Renewable energy
sources include fuelwood, charcoal, biomass residues (such as forest products
residues, wood wastes, agricultural and animal wastes), and others.
7. Energy Sources
6.1 Electricity
This includes electricity from large-to-small power generating plants and

distributed to households by electric utilities or distribution companies such as
Meralco, private utilities and electric cooperatives, as well as electricity
derived from generators, chargeable storage batteries (car or truck batteries).
Storage batteries are considered as electricity source if these generate
electricity for the household and not for transport purposes.
6.2 Petroleum Products
Petroleum Products refer to products formed in the course of refining crude

petroleum through distillation, cracking, solvent refining and chemical
treatment coming out as primary stocks from the refinery such as but not
limited to, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), naphtha, gasoline, solvent,
kerosene, aviation fuels, diesel oils, fuel oils, waxes and petrolatums,
asphalts, bitumens coke and refinery sludges, or such refinery petroleum
fractions which have not undergone any process or treatment as to produce
separate chemically defined compounds in a pure or commercially pure state;
and to which various substances may have been added to render them
suitable to particular uses.
a. Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG)
LPG is either propane or butane, or a mixture of both. It is colorless, as

clear as water in liquid form. It is heavier than air when released in the
atmosphere. These gases occur naturally in crude petroleum or natural
gas.
In the Philippines, it is essentially a mixture of 60% butane and 40%

propane. It is commercially available in steel tanks of different sizes and
capacities and can be secured from major distributors or dealers (LPG)
outlets, LPG retail outlets (gasoline stations and sari-sari stores) or
delivered to the household. The usual sizes of tank for household use
are 2.7 kilograms (kg.), 11.0 kg. and for business use, 50 kg. The familiar
brand names are Gasul, Shellane/Solane, Starflame, M-Gas, and Island
Gas. LPG is generally used for cooking and lighting.
b. Kerosene
Kerosene is locally known as “ga-as”. It is a colorless liquid generally

used for lighting, cooking and fire starting.

c. Diesel
Diesel is commonly known as “crudo”. This fuel maybe used in

households to run generators and normally in transport.
d. Gasoline
Gasoline which is commonly known as “gasolina” is used for transport

and to run generators.
e. Alternative Fuels
Alternative fuels are fuels which are substantially non-petroleum, which is

consumed to provide energy to power an engine and yield energy
security and environmental benefits. These include mixture containing
one or more by volume of alcohol fuel including ethanol and methanol,
biodiesel (coco-biodiesel or coco-methyl ester), and the like.
1 Bioethanol / E10
Ethanol is a renewable, water-free alcohol produced from the

fermentation of sugar or converted starch.
2 Biodiesel
Biodiesel is a renewable and biodegradable diesel fuel extracted from

plant oil.
.
3 Auto-gas
Auto-gas is the use of LPG as automotive fuel. It is considered an

alternative fuel since it is cleaner than conventional automotive fuels.
6.3 Natural Gas
a. Compressed Natural Gas
Natural gas that has been compressed under high pressures, typically
between 2,000 and 3,600 psi, and held in a natural gas transport
container. The gas expands when released for use as a fuel.
b. Liquefied Natural Gas
Liquefied natural gas or LNG is natural gas that has been converted
temporarily into liquid form for ease of storage or transport. Natural gas
is liquefied through the reduction of its temperature to -162°C, thus
reducing its volume by 600 times, allowing its transport by LNG tanker.
6.4 Renewable Energy Sources

Renewable energy source (RE) is an abundant energy source constantly
replenished through natural process such as fuelwood, charcoal, biomass
residues, biogas, wind and solar. It is clean, reliable and sustainable.
Among the more common renewable energy sources are the following:
a. Biomass residues include agricultural or forest products residues such

as bagasse, coconut shell and husk, coconut midrib, rice stalks and hull,
corn stalks and husk.
b. Geothermal is produced through (1) natural recharge, where the water

is replenished by rainfall and the heat is continuously produced inside
the earth; and/or (2) enhanced recharge, where hot water used in the
geothermal process is re-injected into the ground to produce more steam
as well as to provide additional recharge to the convection system.
c. Fuelwood is a piece of wood in the form of twig, branch, split stem

wood or logging and sawmill waste which is burned directly.
d. Charcoal is a wood or plant residue which is burned into a black porous

carbon. Biomass residues like wood chips or coconut shell are burned
and compacted to be formed into charcoal briquettes.
e. Biogas is a gaseous fuel formed when methane-producing bacteria act

on organic matter in the absence of oxygen. It can be generated from
animal manure, human feces, dead plants or animals, and other
materials into which plants and animals have been transformed.
f. Wind energy is created by strong wind flow harnessed by wind turbines

to generate electricity. Wind technologies such as windmill are found in
small-scale applications like water pumping and electrification of
households in remote communities.
g. Solar energy technology can harness the sun’s energy to generate

electricity by means of photovoltaic (PV) cells.
h. Ocean energy is produced by using innovative technologies such as

tidal power, wave power and ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC).
6.5 Nuclear Energy
It is the energy released from the splitting of uranium atoms in a process

called “fission”. Nuclear “fission” is a nuclear reaction in which the nucleus
of an atom splits into smaller parts, producing free neutrons and lighter
nuclei.
8. Types of Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs)
8.1 Integral type of CFL (also known as self-ballasted CFL)
It is called an integral type because the ballast is connected as an integral

part of the lamp unit. Any damage to the components that may alter the
proper operation could terminate the service life of the lamp. CFL of this

type is either bare or capsulated and the ballast use is either choke or
electronic.
7.2 Tube and Electronic Adaptor
This type of CFL comes in two separate units such that it is possible to buy
separately the tube or its adaptor in the different packages. To operate this
type of lamp, one have to buy the complete set of the tube and its adaptor.
When either the tube or adaptor should fail, replacing the failed unit will
make the lamp operational. Generally the tube of this type is identified by
the four pins protruding from the cap.
7.3 Tube Only Type CFL
Tube only type CFL have built-in starter as an integral part of the tube cap.
This type of lamp operates in connection with a choke ballast and lamp
holder. Generally, the tube of this type can be distinguished by the two pin
projecting from the cap.
9. LED (Light-Emitting Diode)
Stands for “Light-Emitting Diode.” An LED is an electronic device that emits light
when an electrical current is passed through it. Early LEDs produced only red
light, but modern LEDS can produce several different colors, including red, green,
and blue (RGB) light. Recent advances in LED technology have made it possible
for LEDs to produce white light as well.
LEDs are commonly used for indicator lights (such as power on/off lights) on
electronic devices. They also have several other applications, including electronic
signs, clock displays, and flashlights. Since LEDs are energy efficient and have a
long lifespan (often more than 100,000 hours), they have begun to replace
traditional light bulbs in several areas. Some examples include street lights, the
red lights on cars, and various types of decorative lighting. One can typically
indentify LEDs by a series of small lights that make up a larger display. For
example, if one look closely at a street light, the person can tell that it is an LED
light if each circle is comprised of a series of dots.
The energy efficient nature of LEDs allows them to produce brighter light than
other types of bulbs while using less energy. For this reason, transitional flat
screen LCD displays have started to be replaced by LED displays, which use
LEDs for the backlight. LED TVs and computer monitors are typically brighter and
thinner than their LCD counterparts.

CHAPTER 2
PROFILE OF HOUSEHOLDS
2.1 NUMBER AND REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS
There were approximately 21.0 FIGURE 2.1 Distribution of Households by Region,

million households in the Philippines: 2011
country in 2011 based on the
results of the 2011 Household 14.0 13.0 13.2
Energy Consumption Survey 12.0 11.0
(HECS). Among the regions,
In Percent
10.0
8.0 7.4
CALABARZON had the largest 8.0
5.6 5.7
number of households 6.0 4.6 4.5 4.8 4.4
3.7 3.3 3.6
comprising 13.2 percent of the 4.0
1.8 2.6 2.9
total households in the country, 2.0
followed closely by the National 0.0
Capital Region (NCR) with 13.0
percent, and Central Luzon
11.0 percent (Figure 2.1). Region
Source: National Statistics Office and Department of Energy
2011 Household Energy Consumption Survey (HECS)
2.2 AGE AND SEX OF HOUSEHOLD HEADS

There were more male-headed
FIGURE 2.2 Households by Age of Household Head,
households than female- Philippines: 2011
headed households in the
country. About eight in every
15-24 1.4
ten (79.6%) households were
Age Group
headed by males while two in 25-34 10.7

ten (20.4%) households were 35-44 23.8
headed by females (Table 2.1). 45-54 27.3
55-64 20.3
The largest percentage, that is,
about 27.3 percent, of the 65 and over 16.5
households were headed by
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
persons belonging to age group
45 to 54 years. The In Percent
households headed by persons Source: National Statistics Office and Department of Energy
35 to 44 years of age 2011 Household Energy Consumption Survey (HECS)
comprised 23.8 percent, while

those headed by persons aged
55 to 64 years made up 20.3
percent (Figure 2.2).

The region with the highest proportion of households headed by males was the
Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) with about nine in ten of its
households (89.6%) having a male head. The NCR had the lowest proportion at 73.4
percent (Table 2.1).
TABLE 2.1 Distribution of Households by Sex of Household Head and Region, Philippines: 2011
Total Households Sex of Household Head

Region
Number
Percent Male Female
(In thousands)
Philippines 20,969 100.0 79.6 20.4
National Capital Region 2,718 100.0 73.4 26.6

Cordillera Administrative Region 376 100.0 78.5 21.5
Region I - Ilocos 1,172 100.0 77.1 22.9
Region II - Cagayan Valley 778 100.0 81.0 19.0
Region III - Central Luzon 2,300 100.0 79.3 20.7
Region IVA - CALABARZON 2,762 100.0 79.1 20.9
Region IVB - MIMAROPA 688 100.0 82.6 17.4
Region V- Bicol 1,189 100.0 79.5 20.5
Region VI - Western Visayas 1,680 100.0 80.8 19.2
Region VII - Central Visayas 1,559 100.0 75.9 24.1
. Region VIII - Eastern Visayas 966 100.0 78.7 21.3
Region IX - Zamboanga Peninsula 757 100.0 84.2 15.8
Region X - Northern Mindanao 945 100.0 80.8 19.2
Region XI - Davao 1,007 100.0 85.2 14.8
Region XII - SOCCSKSARGEN 926 100.0 85.3 14.7
Caraga 542 100.0 83.7 16.3
Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao 605 100.0 89.6 10.4
Household heads in ARMM were younger than their counterpart in the other regions,
with 16.3 percent of them aged 25 to 34 years and 30.3 percent aged 35 to 44 years.
Those aged 65 and over made up 7.9 percent only while in the other regions, household
heads aged 65 and over comprised from 13.0 (recorded for SOCCSKSARGEN) to 23.3
percent (Ilocos) [Table 2.2].

Headship was predominated by males, in all age groups. Male-headed households
accounted for 89.4 percent of households with heads in the age group 25 to 34 years
and 88.6 percent of households with heads in the age group 35 to 44 years. The
percentage of male heads decreases as the household heads get older. Among
households heads aged 65 years and over, 59.3 percent were males, while 40.7 percent
were females (Table 2.3).
TABLE 2.3 Distribution of Households by Age of Household Head and Sex, Philippines: 2011
All Age Age group

Sex of Household
Groups 15 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 and over
Both Sexes (In thousands) 20,969 303 2,252 4,991 5,722 4,250 3,452
In Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Male 79.6 75.5 89.4 88.6 83.4 75.5 59.3

Female 20.4 24.5 10.6 11.4 16.6 24.5 40.7

2.3 AVERAGE MONTHLY INCOME
Six in every ten (62.5%)

FIGURE 2.3 Households by Average Monthly Income
households earned less than During the Six Months Prior to Survey, Philippines: 2011
10,000 pesos a month on
average, while three in every
100.0
ten (27.9%) earned from
10,000 pesos to less than 80.0
62.5
30,000 pesos a month (Figure 60.0
In Percent
2.3 and Table 2.4). 40.0

27.9
20.0 7.6 1.5 0.5

In all regions, a greater 0.0
proportion of household heads Less than P10,000 to P30,000 to P60,000 to P100,000 and
earned an average monthly P10,000 P29,999 P59,999 P99,999 over
income of less than 10,000 Average Monthly Income
pesos (Table 2.4). The
percentage ranged from 41.5 Source: National Statistics Office and Department of Energy
percent in the NCR to 81.7
percent in Region IX.

TABLE 2.4 Distribution of Households by Average Monthly Income and Region, Philippines: 2011
All Income Classes Average Monthly Income (In Pesos)

Region
Number Less than 10,000 to 30,000 to 60,000 to 100,000
Percent
(In thousands) 10,000 29,999 59,999 99,999 and over
Philippines 20,969 100.0 62.5 27.9 7.6 1.5 0.5
National Capital Region 2,718 100.0 41.5 39.3 14.2 3.3 1.7
Cordillera Administrative Region 376 100.0 54.7 35.9 7.1 1.6 0.7
Region I - Ilocos 1,172 100.0 63.8 28.5 6.2 1.0 0.5
Region II - Cagayan Valley 778 100.0 65.2 27.8 5.8 0.8 0.3
Region III - Central Luzon 2,300 100.0 55.7 33.1 9.1 1.8 0.3
Region IVA - CALABARZON 2,762 100.0 50.6 36.4 11.2 1.4 0.4
Region IVB - MIMAROPA 688 100.0 75.4 19.9 3.8 0.6 0.3
Region V- Bicol 1,189 100.0 75.0 20.7 3.4 0.6 0.2
Region VI - Western Visayas 1,680 100.0 72.2 21.5 4.7 1.0 0.6
Region VII - Central Visayas 1,559 100.0 69.0 23.5 5.7 1.6 0.1
Region VIII - Eastern Visayas 966 100.0 75.0 19.1 4.8 0.9 0.2
Region IX - Zamboanga Peninsula 757 100.0 81.7 15.1 2.8 0.3 0.1
Region X - Northern Mindanao 945 100.0 71.4 22.2 5.0 1.3 0.1
Region XI - Davao 1,007 100.0 71.5 23.1 4.8 0.4 0.2
Region XII - SOCCSKSARGEN 926 100.0 71.0 23.1 5.1 0.7 0.1
Caraga 542 100.0 68.9 24.0 6.2 0.7 0.2
Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao 605 100.0 62.1 23.3 11.2 2.9 0.5

CHAPTER 3
ENERGY CONSUMPTION PATTERN
This chapter presents the results of the 2011 Household Energy Consumption Survey
(HECS) on the energy consumption pattern of the households. It describes the types of
fuel used by households for lighting, cooking and transportation, such as electricity,
petroleum products (LPG, kerosene, gasoline and diesel), and renewable energy
sources (fuelwood, charcoal, and biomass residues). The mode and source of
acquisition of fuels used, and the average consumption by households of these types of
fuel are also included in this report.
3.1 TYPES OF FUEL USED BY HOUSEHOLDS

Based on the results of the
FIGURE 3.1 Types of Fuel Used by Households,
2011 HECS, electricity remains
Philippines: 2011
as the most common source of
100.0 87.2
energy used by households in
80.0
the Philippines. About 87
In Percent
54.2
60.0
percent of 21.1 million 41.2
34.3 36.4
40.0
households used electricity from 23.6 22.3
20.0 4.9
March to August 2011. Aside 0.01
0.0
from electricity, more than 50 Electricity LPG Gasoline Diesel Kerosene Fuelwood Charcoal Biomass Biogas
percent (54.2percent) of the Type of Fuel
Residue
households used fuelwood for Notes: A household may report more than one type of fuel used.
their household activities. The Households reporting the use of gasoline or diesel includes those who used them for
their vehicle.
other types of fuel used by at The reference period is from March to August 2011, that is, 6 months prior to survey.
least one-third of the total
households were LPG
(41.2percent), charcoal
(36.4percent) and kerosene FIGURE 3.2 Types of Fuel Used by Households
(34.3percent) [Figure 3.1]. for Lighting, Philippines: 2011
80.0 74.0
60.0
In Percent
3.1.1 FUEL USED FOR 40.0 30.3

LIGHTING 20.0
0.01 0.4 0.3
In 2011, electricity was mostly 0.0
Electricity Kerosene LPG Gasoline Diesel
used for lighting purposes with Type of Fuel
74 percent of households
Notes: A household may report more than one type of fuel used.
reporting the use of electricity Households reporting the use of gasoline or diesel for lighting includes those
for such purpose. The use of who used them for lighting through power generation
The reference period is from March to August 2011, that is, 6 months prior to
this fuel was commonly survey.
observed in urban areas like in 2011 Household Energy Consumption Survey (HECS)
Metro Manila, and other cities in

the country. This is followed by kerosene which was used for lighting by 30 percent of
households. A minimal proportion of households used LPG, gasoline and diesel for
lighting (Figure 3.2).
3.1.2 FUEL USED FIGURE 3.3 Types of Fuel Used by Households

for Cooking, Philippines: 2011
FOR COOKING
60.0 54.0
For cooking, fuelwood was 50.0 40.5
In Percent
40.0 35.3
most commonly used by
30.0
more than half of households 20.1 17.5
20.0
in the country (54 percent).
10.0 2.1
Next commonly used were 0.01
0.0
LPG (40.5 percent of Fuelwood LPG Charcoal Biomass Electricity Kerosene Biogas
households), charcoal (35.3 residues
Type of Fuel
percent) and biomass
residues (20.1 percent) Notes: A household may report more than one type of fuel used.
The reference period is from March to August 2011, that is, 6 months prior to survey.
[Figure 3.3]. Source: National Statistics Office and Department of Energy
3.1.3 FUEL USED FOR TRANSPORTATION

During the survey, FIGURE 3.4 Types of Fuel Used by Households
households were asked to for their Vehicle, Philippines: 2011
identify the type of vehicle 100.0 88.4
used by any of its members 80.0
In Percent
for personal transportation. 60.0

40.0
These vehicles can be 15.6
20.0 0.1 0.4
owned by the household, 0.0
owned by the company, Gasoline Diesel Auto-LPG Others
leased or rented. Type of Fuel
Notes: A household may report more than one type of fuel used.
With regard to the types of Vehicles used by households refer to those owned by the household, owned by their
office or company, or rented.
fuel for the vehicles used by Other types of fuel used by households for their vehicles include alcogas and
cocodiesel.
the households, gasoline The reference period is from March to August 2011, that is, 6 months prior to survey.
was the most popular. 2011 Household Energy Consumption Survey (HECS)
Almost nine in ten (88.4

percent) households with vehicles used gasoline. Almost two in ten (15.6percent)
households used diesel (Figure 3.4).
3.2 ELECTRICITY
Among the various types of energy utilized by Filipino households, electricity remained
as the most common energy source in the country. According to the results of 2011

HECS, the number of users of electricity during the reference period March to August
2011 was approximately 18.3 million households or 87.2 percent of the total households
in the country.
3.2.1 USES OF ELECTRICITY

Almost every household, that FIGURE 3.5 Households Using Electricity by End-Use,
is, 99.9 percent of households Philippines: 2011
used electricity primarily for
Lighting
lighting. The other uses of Recreation
electricity reported by the Space Cooling/ Air Conditioning
Other Use
households were for electric
End-Use
Ironing
appliances used for their Refrigeration
Laundry
recreation with 88.8 percent of
Cooking/Food Preparation
households using electricity for Computer Activity
such purpose, for space Water Heating
Water Pumping
cooling or air conditioning
(72.9 percent), for other 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
electric appliances (64.1 In Percent
Notes: A household may report more than one end-use of electricity.
percent), for ironing (48.6 The reference period is from March to August 2011, that is, 6 months prior to survey.
percent), refrigeration (41.6 2011 Household Energy Consumption Survey (HECS)
percent), and laundry (30.7

percent) [Table 3.1 and Figure 3.5].
One in every five (21.2 percent) households using electricity reported that it was being
used for cooking and food preparation, while 15.7 percent used it for computer activity,
and 4.6 percent for water heating.
In all income groups, households used electricity primarily for lighting. It was also
commonly used for recreation and space cooling (Table 3.1).
TABLE 3.1 Households Using Electricity by End-Use and Average Monthly Income,
Philippines: 2011
Average Monthly Income (In Pesos)

All Income
End-Use Less than 10,000 to 30,000 to 60,000 to 100,000
Class
10.000 29,999 59,999 99,999 and over
Households Using Electricity (In thousands) 18,282 10,645 5,692 1,537 305 102
In Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Lighting 99.9 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Cooking/Food Preparation 21.2 10.9 29.3 51.3 64.9 64.7
Water Heating 4.6 1.7 6.3 12.5 23.6 26.5
Recreation 88.8 83.0 96.1 98.9 98.0 100.0
Refrigeration 41.6 22.4 61.9 86.8 89.8 98.0
Space Cooling/Air Conditioning 72.9 61.0 87.2 95.7 95.1 99.0
Ironing 48.6 31.5 68.1 85.2 82.6 94.1
Laundry 30.7 15.5 46.1 67.8 70.8 81.4
Water Pumping 3.5 1.3 4.6 11.1 17.0 20.6
Computer Activity 15.7 3.6 23.8 54.4 69.5 80.4
Other Appliances 64.1 54.4 76.6 81.6 76.7 76.5
Note : A household may report more than one type of end-use


In terms of the average
consumption of electricity, the
largest usage was for water
pumping registering an average
consumption of 623 KwH during
the six-month reference period,
or about 104 KwH monthly,
followed by water heating (484
KwH during the six-month
reference period), refrigeration
(390 KwH), space cooling or air
conditioning (277 KwH),
recreation (129 KwH), and
cooking or food preparation (108
KwH). For lighting, on average,
each household consumed 60
KwH during the six months or 10
KwH per month (Table 3.2).
3.2.2 TYPES OF LAMP USED BY HOUSEHOLDS

Of the 18.3 million households FIGURE 3.6 Types of Lamp Used by Households,
who used electricity for lighting, Philippines: 2011
88.7 percent used compact 100.0 88.7
fluorescent lamps, 47.3 percent 80.0
In Percent
used linear fluorescent lamps 60.0 47.3

and 13.6 percent, incandescent 40.0
lamps. A very small percentage 13.6
20.0 5.3
used circular fluorescent lamps 0.9 1.1
0.0
(5.3 percent) and LED lights (0.9 Incandescent Compact Linear Circular LED Lights Others
percent) [Figure 3.6]. Lamps Flourescent Flourescent Flourescent
Lamps Lamps Lamps
Type of Lamp
In terms of consumption, on
average, a household consumed Notes: A household may report more than one type of lamp used.
The reference period is from March to August 2011, that is, 6 months prior to survey.
60 KwH for lighting during the Source: National Statistics Office and Department of Energy
six-month period prior to survey.
Households using incandescent
lamp for lighting consumed 42
KwH of electricity, on average,
during the same reference
period (Table 3.3).

TABLE 3.3 Average Consumption of Electricity Per Household
During the Six Months Prior to Survey by Type of Lamp Used,
Philippines: 2011
Average Consumption
Type of Lamp Per Household
(In KwH)
Households Using Electricity for Lighting 60
Incandescent Lamp 42
Compact Flourescent Lamp 37
Linear Flourescent Lamp 40
Circular Flourescent Lamp 38
LED Lights 14
Others 20
Note : A household may report more than one type of lamp.
3.2.3 HOUSEHOLD ELECTRIC APPLIANCES FOR HOUSEHOLD

RECREATION
FIGURE 3.7 Types of Electric Appliance Used
A total of 16.2 million households for Recreation by Households, Philippines: 2011
or nine of every ten households
93.2
used electricity to operate 100.0
80.0
electric appliances for household
In Percent
60.0
recreation. Among these electric 40.0 27.9 22.5
appliances, colored TV set was 20.0 12.6 8.4 5.7 2.8
the most commonly used with 0.0
Colored VHS, Stereo Radio Casette Karaoke Others
93.2 percent of households who TV Laser Disc, or
used electricity for recreation DVD or Musicmate
VCD
reporting its usage. This was Type of Electric Appliance
followed by VHS, laser disc, Notes: A household may report more than one type of electric appliance used.
Others include B/W TV and video games.
DVD or VCD players (27.9 The reference period is from March to August 2011, that is, 6 months
prior to survey.
percent), stereo audio system Source: National Statistics Office and Department of Energy
(22.5 percent), and radio (12.6
percent) [Figure 3.7].
The average electricity consumption for household recreation was estimated at 129 kWh
per household. Among the household electric appliances used for recreation, the
karaoke or musicmate sound system emerged on top with its usage estimated at an
average of 114 kWh during the six-month reference period, followed by colored TV with
103 kWh (Table 3.4).

During the Six Months Prior to Survey by Type of Electric Appliance
Used for Recreation, Philippines: 2011
Average Consumption
Type of Electric Appliance Per Household
(In KwH)
Households Using Electricity for Recreation 129

Radio 35
Casette 25
Stereo 75
B/W TV 32
Colored TV 103
VHS, Laser Disc, DVD or VCD 3
Karaoke or Musicmate 114
Video Games 13
Others 56
Note : A household may report more than one type of electric appliance.
3.2.4 HOUSEHOLD ELECTRIC APPLIANCES FOR COOKING
Of the 3.9 million households who

FIGURE 3.8 Types of Electric Appliance Used
used electricity for cooking and
For Cooking by Households, Philippines: 2011
food preparation, 85.7 percent
100.0 85.7
used electricity for their rice
80.0
In Percent
cooker. The other electric cooking

60.0
equipment reportedly used by 40.0
households were microwave oven 20.0 11.4 10.0 8.4 4.5 3.9 2.7 5.1
(11.4percent), oven toaster 0.0
(10.0percent), blender Rice Microwave Oven Blender Bread Electric Turbo Others
(8.4percent), and bread toaster Cooker Oven Toaster Toaster Stove Broiler
(4.5percent) [Figure 3.8]. Type of Electric Appliance

Notes: A household may report more than one type of electric appliance used.
Others include coffee maker, electric oven and mixer.
The reference period is from March to August 2011, that is, 6 months prior to
survey.
The average household consumption for food preparation was estimated at 108 KwH.
With an average consumption of 291 KwH, electric stove had the highest average
electricity consumption among the electric cooking equipment during the six-month
reference period, followed by electric oven with 174 KwH (Table 3.5).

During the Six Months Prior to Survey by Type of Electric Appliance
Used for Cooking, Philippines: 2011
Average Consumption Per

Type of Electric Appliance
Household
(In KwH)
Households Using Electricity for Cooking 108
Electric Stove 291

Electric Oven 174
Rice Cooker 95
Turbo Broiler 16
Bread Toaster 38
Oven Toaster 22
Microwave Oven 48
Blender 5
Mixer 14
Coffee Maker 43
Others 141
Note : A household may report more than one type of electric appliance.
3.2.5 SOURCES OF ELECTRICITY

About half or 51.3 percent of the 18.3 million households using electricity reportedly
sourced electric power supply from electric cooperatives. Other reported major sources
of electricity were electric utility companies (33.6 percent) and a neighboring household
(13.8 percent). Electric utility companies supplied electricity to a bigger proportion of
households belonging to the upper income brackets or those receiving a monthly income
of 30,000 to 59,999 pesos (58.2 percent) and 60,000 pesos or more (61.7 percent) than
to households in low-income brackets [Table 3.6].
TABLE 3.6 Households Using Electricity by Source of Electricity and Average Monthly Income, Philippines: 2011

All Income
Source of Electricity Less than 10,000 to 30,000 to 60,000 and
Class
10,000 29,999 59,999 over
Households Using Electricity (In thousands) 18,282 10,645 5,692 1,537 407
In Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Utilities 33.6 24.0 42.9 58.2 61.7

Electric Cooperatives 51.3 54.7 48.5 41.3 38.3
Neighboring Household 13.8 19.7 7.6 - -
Industry or Business 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 -
Community-based Generators 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.1 -
Generator (owned) 0.7 0.4 0.8 1.9 4.4
Storage Batteries 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.5 0.4
Note: A household may report more than one source of electricity.


3.3 PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
According to the survey, there were FIGURE 3.9 Types of Petroleum Products Used
by Households, Philippines: 2011
approximately 16.3 million
households using petroleum
60.0 53.0
products from March to August
44.2
2011. Of these households, 53.0
In Percent
40.0 30.4
percent were using LPG, 44.2
percent were using kerosene, 30.4
20.0
percent were using gasoline and 6.3 6.3
percent, diesel. A negligible 0.2
0.0
proportion of the households (0.2 LPG Kerosene Gasoline Diesel Other types of
percent) reported using other Type of Fuel fuel for
transportation
petroleum products such as alcogas
and cocodiesel, particularly for Note: A household may report more than one type of fuel.
transportation (Figure 3.9). 2011 Household Energy Consumption Survey (HECS)
3.3.1 LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS (LPG)

LPG was mainly used for cooking or heating water for bathing according to almost 100
percent of the 8.6 million households reporting the use of such fuel (Appendix Table 3).
On average, each household using

LPG consumed 45 kilograms of this
FIGURE 3.10 Households Using LPG for Cooking
fuel in six months for cooking or 7.5 by Type of Equipment Used, Philippines: 2011
kilograms per month. This translates
into an average consumption of 100.0 87.8
about one 11-kilogram tank of LPG 80.0
In Percent
in one and a half month (Appendix

60.0
Table 5). For every ten households
using LPG for cooking, nine used a 40.0
counter top gas range (87.8 20.0 11.4

1.5
percent), and one used a range 0.0
burner (11.4 percent) [Figure 3.10
Counter top gas range Range burner Others
and Appendix Table 4]. LPG was
also used for transportation, lighting Type of Equipment Used for Cooking
Note: A household may report more than one type of equipment used for cooking.
and other purposes as reported by Source: National Statistics Office and Department of Energy
0.1 percent or one in every 1,000
households reporting the use of this
fuel (Appendix Table 3).
The average consumption of LPG used for transportation was about 15 kilograms for six
months or 2.5 kilograms per month, per household (Appendix Table 5).

FIGURE 3.11 Mode of Acquisition of LPG,
More than half (54.9 percent) of Philippines: 2011
the households using LPG
usually purchased or picked-up
their tanks from its usual
Picked up from
source. The rest of the store, dealer or
45.1 gasoline station
households had their tanks
54.9 Delivered
delivered to their residence
(45.1 percent) [Figure 3.11].

FIGURE 3.12 Source of LPG, Philippines: 2011

According to the survey, the most usual
source of LPG among households using it
70.0 59.8
60.0
was a retail outlet as reported by three in
50.0 every five (59.8 percent) of these
In Percent
40.0 35.5
households, followed by an exclusive
30.0
20.0
LPG dealer with more than one-third
10.0 4.5 (35.5 percent) of these households
0.2
0.0 reporting such source (Figure 3.12).
Exclusive LPG Retail Outlet Gasoline Others
dealer Station
Source of LPG
FIGURE 3.13 Distance of Household Residence

For most of the households using from their Usual Source of LPG, Philippines: 2011
LPG, the distance of their residence
from the usual source of LPG is 60.0 52.6
50.0
within one kilometer, that is, less
In Percent
40.0 28.9
than 250 meters as reported by 52.6 30.0
percent of the households using 20.0 12.5
6.0
LPG, or from 250 meters to one 10.0
kilometer as reported by 28.9 0.0
percent [Figure 3.13]. Less than 250 meters >1 kilometer >5
250 meters to 1 kilometer to 5 kilometers kilometers
Distance from Usual Source of LPG


3.3.2 KEROSENE
Lighting was the major use of kerosene FIGURE 3.14 Households Using Kerosene
as reported by nine in every ten by Type of End-Use, Philippines: 2011
households using this fuel (88.2 100.0 88.2
percent of the 7.2 million households) 80.0
In Percent
[Figure 3.14]. Of the households using 60.0
kerosene for lighting, 50 percent used 40.0 28.1
it for kingki and 47.8 percent used it for 20.0 6.3
wick lamps (Appendix Table 4). 0.0
Lighting Fire starting and other Cooking or heating water
uses for bathing
Using kerosene for fire starting and for
End-Use
other purposes was reported by 28.1
Note: A household may report more than one type of end-use.
percent of households using it. Six Source: National Statistics Office and Department of Energy
percent used it for cooking or heating
water for bathing. The average
consumption of kerosene per FIGURE 3.15 Mode of Acquisition of Kerosene,
household was 15 liters for six months Philippines: 2011
or 2.5 liters per month (Appendix Table
0.7 18.2
5).
Gasoline station
Eight in ten (81.1 percent) households

Sari-sari store or
using kerosene purchased it from sari- general merchandise
sari stores or general merchandise 81.1 Others
stores. Among households with an
average monthly income of less than
10,000 pesos, 83.0 percent usually
bought kerosene from a sari-sari store. Note: Others include kerosene peddlers.
For 18.2 percent of households using Source: National Statistics Office and Department of Energy
kerosene, a gasoline station was the
usual source of this fuel. Less than
FIGURE 3.16 Distance of Household Residence
one percent (0.6 percent) of the
from their Usual Source of Kerosene, Philippines: 2011
households using kerosene purchased
the fuel from peddlers (Figure 3.15). 70.0 60.8
60.0
50.0
In Percent
Three in five households (60.8 percent) 40.0

using kerosene reported that their 30.0 20.6
20.0 9.7 8.2
usual source was less than 250 meters 10.0
from their residence, while one in five 0.0
households (20.6 percent) said their Less than 250 meters >1 kilometer >5
250 meters to 1 kilometer to 5 kilometers kilometers
source was from 250 meters to one
kilometer away from their residence Distance from Usual Source of Kerosene
[Figure 3.16]. Source: National Statistics Office and Department of Energy

3.3.3 GASOLINE
Ninety-nine percent of the estimated
FIGURE 3.17 Households Using Gasoline
5.0 million households using for Transportation by Type of Vehicle Used,
gasoline used it for transportation Philippines: 2011
(Appendix Table 3). Eight in every 100.0
80.2
ten (80.2 percent) of these 80.0
In Percent
households used it for their 60.0
motorcycle or tricycle, while one in 40.0
every ten used it for their 20.0 12.0 10.0
3.3 1.4
automobile (12.0 percent) or utility
0.0
vehicle (10.0 percent) [Figure 3.17]. Motorcycle/ Automobile Utility vehicle Motorboat Others
The vehicles reported may be Tricycle
Type of Vehicle
owned by the households, owned
Note: A household may report more than one type of vehicle.
by the company where a member of Source: National Statistics Office and Department of Energy
the household worked, leased, or
rented.
About two percent of the households used gasoline for power generation and for other
purposes (Appendix Table 3). Regardless of end-use, on average, a household would
consume about 333 liters of gasoline in six months or 56 liters of gasoline per month, or
two liters per day (Appendix Table 5).
3.3.4 DIESEL FIGURE 3.18 Households Using Diesel

by End-Use, Philippines: 2011
Eighty-four percent of the estimated
1.0 million households using diesel
used it for transportation. Diesel 100.0 83.5
was also used for power generation 80.0
In Percent
according to 5.8 percent of the 60.0

households using it, and for other
purposes, as reported by 13.5 40.0
13.5
percent of these households (Figure 20.0 5.8
3.18). Regardless of end-use, the 0.0
average consumption per Transportation Power generation Other uses
household using diesel was 725 End-Use
liters for six months, or 121 liters
Note: A household may report more than one type of end-use
per month or four liters per day Source: National Statistics Office and Department of Energy
(Appendix Table 5).

3.4 RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES
There were approximately 16.8
FIGURE 3.19 Renewable Energy Sources by Type,
million households using Philippines: 2011
renewable energy sources
according to the survey. The 80.0 67.4
most common renewable energy
source was fuelwood or firewood 60.0
In Percent
45.3
locally known as kahoy na
40.0 27.8
panggatong were used by about
11.4 million households or 67.4 20.0
percent of the total households
using renewable energy sources 0.0
using it. The next most common Fuelwood Charcoal Biomass Residue
was charcoal (45.3percent) and Type of Fuel
the least was biomass residue
Note: A household may report more than one type of fuel
(27.8percent) such as Source: National Statistics Office and Department of Energy
woodwaste or saw-dust from 2011 Household Energy Consumption Survey (HECS)
wood, coconut husks, shell and

midribs from coconut, corncob or
busal ng mais from corn, rice hull or FIGURE 3.20 Households Using Fuelwood
ipa from rice, straw or uhay, by End-Use, Philippines: 2011
sugarcane and kawayan from
99.8
bamboo (Figure 3.19). 100.0
80.0
In Percent
3.4.1 FUELWOOD 60.0

37.0
40.0
20.0
Fuelwood was mainly used for 0.7
0.0
cooking and food preparation as
Cooking/Food Water heating for Space warming and
reported by 99.8 percent of an preparation bathing other uses
estimated 11.4 million households
using it. The next most common use End-Use
Note: A household may report more than one type of end-use
of fuelwood was for heating or boiling Source: National Statistics Office and Department of Energy
water for bathing (37.0 percent)
(Figure 3.20). Regardless of income
class, fuelwood was commonly used FIGURE 3.21 Households Using Fuelwood
for cooking and heating water for by Income Class, Philippines: 2011
bathing. 100.0
76.6
80.0
About three-fourths (76.6 percent) of
In percent
households using fuelwood had an 60.0
average monthly income of less 40.0

than 10,000 pesos. By comparison, 19.5
20.0
only 0.5 percent of households 3.4 0.5
0.0
using it had an average monthly Less than 100,00 to 30,000 to 60,000 and over
income of at least 60,000 pesos 10,000 29,999 59,999
(Figure 3.21). Income class
Note: A household may report usage of more than one type of fuel .
2011 Household Energy Consumption Survey

Eight in every ten households
FIGURE 3.22 Mode of Acquisition of Fuelwood,
Philippines: 2011 (79.3 percent) using fuelwood
collected or gathered their
fuelwood by themselves, while
100.0
79.3 15.3 percent purchased it
80.0 (Figure 3.22). The same trend
In Percent
60.0 was observed across income

40.0 classes where majority of
15.3
20.0 3.7 1.7 fuelwood users obtained their
0.0 supply of fuelwood through self-
Purchased Self-collected or Both purchased and Others gathering activities (Appendix
gathered self-collected or Table 8).
gathered
Mode of Acquisition
An average consumption of 1.1
Note: thousand kilograms of fuelwood
A household may report more than one type of mode of acquisition.
for six months or about 183
kilograms per month was

reported by the 11.4 million households using fuelwood (Appendix Table 9).
3.4.2 CHARCOAL FIGURE 3.23 Households Using Charcoal

by End-Use, Philippines: 2011
Charcoal was also most commonly 97.0

used for cooking and food preparation 100.0
as reported by 97 percent of an 80.0
In Percent
estimated 7.6 million households 60.0

using charcoal (Figure 3.23). 40.0 30.7
20.0 8.5
Households using it for heating water 0.6
for bathing accounted for 30.7 0.0
percent, while those using it for Cooking/Food Water Heating for Ironing Other Uses
ironing made up 8.5 percent. (Figure Preparation Bathing
3.23). End-Use
More than half (56.5percent) of the
households using charcoal had an FIGURE 3.24 Households Using Charcoal
average monthly income of less than by Income Class, Philippines: 2011
10,000 pesos, as compared to 2.1 100.0
percent for households with an
80.0
average monthly income of at least
56.5
In percent
60,000 pesos (Figure 3.24). Most of 60.0

the households, regardless of income 33.4
40.0
class, used charcoal for cooking and
food preparation, and heating water 20.0 8.0
for bathing. 2.1
0.0
Less than 100,00 to 30,000 to 60,000 and
10,000 29,999 59,999 over
Income class
Note: A household may report usage of more than one type of fuel.

FIGURE 3.25 Mode of Acquisition of Charcoal,
Most of the households Philippines: 2011
(92.2percent of the households
that used charcoal) purchased 100.0 92.2
the charcoal they were using 80.0
In Percent
(Figure 3.25).
60.0
40.0
A household using charcoal
20.0 6.6
consumed an average of 176 0.5 0.8
kilograms of charcoal for six 0.0
Purchased Self-collected or Both purchased and Others
months or about 29 kilograms per
gathered self-collected or
month (Appendix Table 9). gathered
Mode of Acquisition

3.4.3 BIOMASS RESIDUES

FIGURE 3.26 Households Using Biomass Residues
Among the estimated 4.7 million by End-Use, Philippines: 2011
households using biomass
residues, nine in every ten said 100.0 90.1
that they used this type of
renewable energy source for 80.0
In Perceent
cooking and food preparation 60.0

(Figure 3.26).
40.0
27.6
Meanwhile, about 27 percent of 20.0 13.8
the households using biomass 1.2
residues used it to boil or heat 0.0
Cooking/Food Water Heating for Ironing Other Uses
water for bathing while only 1.2 Preparation Bathing
percent used it for ironing. End-Use
FIGURE 3.27 Households Using Biomass Residues

Eight in every ten households by Income Class, Philippines: 2011
(82.3percent) using biomass
100.0
residues had an average monthly 82.3
income of less than 10,000 pesos 80.0
(Figure 3.27). In contrast, the
In percent
households with average monthly 60.0

income of 60,000 pesos and 40.0
more accounted for a very nil
proportion of 0.1 percent. Most of 15.5
20.0
the households used their 2.0 0.1
0.0
biomass residues in cooking and Less than 100,00 to 30,000 to 60,000 and over
food preparation, and heating 10,000 29,999 59,999
water for bathing, regardless of Income class
income class (Appendix Table 7).
Note: A household may report usage of more than one type of fuel.

Households using biomass FIGURE 3.28 Mode of Acquisition of Biomass Residues,
residues usually collected or Philippines: 2011
gathered this type of fuel by
themselves (Figure 3.28). The
100.0 87.6
same trend was observed
across income classes wherein 80.0
In Percent
majority of biomass residue 60.0
users collected or gathered the 40.0
fuel that they used (Appendix 20.0 8.8 2.7
0.8
Table 8). 0.0
Purchased Self-collected or Both purchased Others
Households using biomass gathered and self-collected
residues reported an average or gathered
household consumption of 367 Mode of Acquisition
kilograms for six months or 61 Note: A household may report more than one type of end-use.
kilograms in a month (Appendix 2011 Household Energy Consumption Survey (HECS)
Table 9).

CHAPTER 4
HOUSEHOLDS PRACTICING ENERGY MIX

AND FUEL SWITCHING
This chapter discusses the use of more than one type of fuel by the households for
lighting or for cooking, referred to as “energy or fuel mix” for lighting or for cooking. This
chapter also presents the survey findings on switching by households of their primary
cooking fuel, the most frequently used cooking fuel during the six-month reference
period, and the reasons cited by households for switching cooking fuels.
4.1 ENERGY MIX FOR LIGHTING

Of the 21.1 million households estimated in 2011 HECS, 3.7 million households or 17.0
percent practiced fuel or energy mix for lighting. Almost all households practicing energy
mix for lighting were using both electricity and kerosene. This finding is true for all
income classes (Table 4.1).
TABLE 4.1 Households Practicing Energy Mix for Lighting by Combination of Fuel
and Average Monthly Income, Philippines: 2011

All Income
Combination of Fuel Less than 10,000 to 30,000 to 60,000 and
Class
10,000 29,999 59,999 over
Households Practicing Energy Mix for Lighting (In thousands) 3,654 2,843 723 73 14
In Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Electricity and Kerosene 99.9 99.9 99.9 100.0 94.5

Electricity and LPG 0.1 0.1 0.2 - 5.5
LPG and Kerosene * - 0.1 - -
Note: * Less than 0.1 percent

4.2 ENERGY MIX FOR COOKING

More than half (56.0 percent) or 11.7 million of households used more than one type of
fuel for cooking. One in every five households (20.5 percent) using more than one type
of fuel for cooking were using the combination of fuelwood and biomass residues most
frequently during the six months prior to the survey, that is, on March to August 2011.
For some other households practicing fuel mix for cooking, the combinations of cooking
fuels used were LPG and charcoal (13.8 percent of households practicing cooking fuel
mix), LPG and electricity (12.5 percent), fuelwood and charcoal (12.2 percent), LPG and
fuelwood (8.5 percent) LPG, electricity and charcoal (7.9percent), and LPG, fuelwood
and charcoal (3.5percent) [Table 4.2 and Figure 4.1].

FIGURE 4.1 Combination of Fuel Used by Households for Cooking, Philippines: 2011
25.0 20.5
20.0
In Percent 13.8 12.5 12.2
15.0
8.5 7.9 6.8
10.0
3.5 3.1 2.3 1.9
5.0 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.2 1.1
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Combination of Fuel
1- Fuelwood and Biomass Residues 7- LPG, Fuelwood and Charcoal 13- Electricity, Fuelwood and Charcoal
2- LPG and Charcoal 8- Fuelwood, Charcoal and Biomass Residues 14- LPG, Fuelwood and Biomass
3- LPG and Electricity 9- Electricity and Charcoal residues
4- Fuelwood and Charcoal 10- Electricity and Fuelwood
15- Charcoal and Biomass residues
5- LPG and Fuelwood 11- LPG, Electricity and Fuelwood
6- LPG, Electricity and Charcoal 12- LPG, Electricity, Fuelwood and Charcoal 16- Others
Note: The reference period is from March to August 2011, that is, 6 months prior to survey.
The most popular combination of fuel used for cooking differed by income group. For
households with an average monthly income of less than 10,000 pesos and who
practiced energy mix for cooking, the most common fuel combination was fuelwood and
biomass residues with one-third (33.3 percent) of them using such combination of fuel,
followed by fuelwood and charcoal (17.4 percent). For more affluent households, the
most popular cooking fuel mix was LPG and electricity, followed by LPG, electricity and
charcoal. The survey findings revealed that four in ten (43.5 percent) households
practicing fuel mix for cooking and whose average monthly income is at least 60,000
pesos used LPG and electricity for cooking, and 27.3 percent of them combined LPG,
electricity and charcoal (Table 4.2).

TABLE 4.2 Households Practicing Energy Mix for Cooking, by Combination of Fuel and Average Monthly Income,
Philippines: 2011

All Income
Combination of Fuel Less than 10,000 to 30,000 to 60,000
Class
10,000 29,999 59,999 and over
Households Practicing Energy Mix for Cooking (In thousands) 11,667 6,363 3,817 1,170 317
Fuelwood and Biomass Residues 20.5 33.3 6.7 1.8 -

LPG and Charcoal 13.8 9.9 20.7 14.1 9.9
LPG and Electricity 12.5 3.8 17.3 35.8 43.5
Fuelwood and Charcoal 12.2 17.4 7.3 2.8 1.7
LPG and Fuelwood 8.5 8.1 10.1 6.1 3.9
LPG, Electricity and Charcoal 7.9 2.8 11.3 18.9 27.3
LPG, Fuelwood and Charcoal 3.5 2.7 4.7 4.6 1.5
Fuelwood, Charcoal and Biomass Residues 3.1 4.6 1.7 0.4 -
Electricity and Charcoal 2.3 2.3 2.7 1.4 -
Electricity and Fuelwood 1.9 2.1 1.8 0.8 0.8
LPG, Electricity and Fuelwood 1.7 1.0 2.2 3.6 4.0
LPG, Electricity, Fuelwood and Charcoal 1.6 0.8 2.5 2.5 4.1
Electricity, Fuelwood and Charcoal 1.5 1.7 1.5 0.6 0.3
LPG, Fuelwood and Biomass Residues 1.2 1.1 1.5 0.6 -
Charcoal and Biomass Residues 1.1 1.5 0.8 0.1 -
Other Combination 6.8 6.9 7.4 5.8 3.1

4.3 FUEL SWITCHING FOR COOKING

Part of the information gathered in the survey are the primary and secondary cooking
fuel used most frequently by the households at any time from March to August 2011,
and during the month of August 2011.
Table 4.3 shows that very few households switched to another cooking fuel during the
six-month reference period. For instance, of the households who used LPG most of the
time during March to August 2011, 2.5 percent switched to electricity as their primary
cooking fuel in August 2011, and 1.0 percent switched to charcoal. Users of kerosene
were the least likely to switch to another cooking fuel.
During the six-month reference period, the most commonly used fuel for cooking was
fuelwood with 43.4 percent of households citing it as their primary cooking fuel, followed
by LPG (34.6 percent).
TABLE 4.3 Households Using Any Cooking Fuel During the Six Months Prior to Survey
by Type of Primary Cooking Fuel, Philippines: March to August 2011
Total Primary Cooking Fuel in August 2011

Primary Cooking Fuel in March to August 2011
Households Electricity LPG Kerosene Fuelwood Charcoal Others
Households Using Any Cooking Fuel (In thousands) 20,848 271 7,215 270 9,075 2,876 1,141
In Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Electricity 1.3 96.1 * - * 0.1 -

LPG 34.6 2.5 98.9 0.4 0.5 1 -
Kerosene 1.3 - * 99.2 * - -
Fuelwood 43.4 0.3 0.5 - 98.7 1.3 1.5
Charcoal 13.9 1.2 0.5 0.4 0.5 97.6 0.3
Others 5.5 - * - 0.3 * 98.2
Notes: Primary cooking fuel refers to the most frequently used fuel for cooking during the reference period.
* Less than 0.1 percent

A total of 306 thousand households, or 1.5 percent of the 20.8 million households, who
reported that at least one of their member cooked at any time during the reference
period, switched their primary cooking fuel. The top two reasons for switching the
primary cooking fuel were: new fuel being more available (39.2 percent) and increase
in the price of primary cooking fuel previously used (28.7 percent). This is true
regardless of the household income. The other reasons cited by the households were:
new fuel being more convenient to use (11.4 percent), change in household income
(10.9 percent), and change of residence (1.8 percent) [Table 4.4 and Figure 4.2].
FIGURE 4.2 Main Reason of Households for Switching

Their Primary Cooking Fuel, Philippines: 2011
39.2
40.0
28.7
30.0
In percent
20.0
11.4 10.9
8.0
10.0
1.8
0.0
New fuel is Previous fuel New fuel is Change in Moved to Others
more increased more income another
available price convenient place
to use
Main Reason for Switching
Note: The reference period is from March to August 2011, that is, 6 months prior to survey.
TABLE 4.4 Households Who Switched Their Primary Cooking Fuel During the Six Months Prior to Survey,
by Main Reason for Switching and Average Monthly Income, Philippines: 2011

All Income
Main Reason for Switching their Primary Cooking Fuel Less than 10,000 to 30,000 to 60,000 and
Cass
10,000 29,999 59,999 over
Households Who Switched Their Primary Cooking Fuel (In thousands) 306 192 85 25 3
In Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Moved to another place 1.8 1.6 0.9 7.4 -

Previous fuel increased price 28.7 27.6 33.9 20.7 24.3
Change in income 10.9 11.7 9.3 7.4 25.5
New fuel is more available 39.2 42.4 33 36.6 32.3
New fuel is more convenient to use 11.4 10.7 10.1 23.3 -
Others 8.0 6.0 13.0 4.6 17.9
Note: Primary cooking fuel refers to the most frequently used fuel for cooking during the reference period.
Source : National Statistics Office and Department of Energy

CHAPTER 5
AWARENESS, PRACTICES AND PERCEPTION OF

HOUSEHOLDS ON ENERGY ISSUES AND
DEVELOPMENTS
This chapter provides information on the awareness of households on different energy

issues as well as their practices to reduce energy consumption for lighting, cooking,
refrigeration, ironing of clothes, space cooling, and/or machine washing of clothes. This
also discusses the problems encountered by the households in their fuel supply system
and their perception on the use and acquisition of various types of fuel.
5.1 AWARENESS ON ENERGY ISSUES
5.1.1 LABELING PROGRAM
The results of the 2011 HECS show that 26.2 percent of the households were aware of
the Energy Labeling Program of the government for appliances and lighting, while 73.8
percent were not aware of this (Table 5.1). The majority of the households who were
aware of this program considered the energy label when buying appliances and lighting
products. Such households comprised 20.7 percent of the total households while those
who did not consider the energy label made up 4.5 percent.
The households with higher monthly income tend to be more aware of the labeling
program. Approximately 72.0 percent of the households whose average monthly income
was 100,000 pesos and over were aware of the labeling program, and 67.6 percent
considered energy label when buying appliances and lighting products. By comparison,
among households with an average monthly income of less than 10,000 pesos, 16.3
percent were aware of the labeling program and 12.2 percent considered the energy
label when buying appliances and lighting products.
(L-R) Sample of Energy Labels for refrigerators and freezers, room air conditioners and compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs)

Table 5.1 Households by Awareness of the Energy Labeling Program for Appliances and Lighting, and Average
Awareness on Government's Lighting and All Income Average Monthly Income (In Pesos)
Appliances Labeling Program Class Less than 10,000 to 30,000 to 60,000 to 100,000
10,000 29,999 59,999 99,999 and over
Total Households (In thousands) 20,969 13,109 5,858 1,595 305 102
In Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Aware 26.2 16.3 38.6 54.4 56.3 71.8

Who considered labeling
program in purchasing
appliance or lighting system 20.7 12.2 31 44.5 47.5 67.6
Who did not consider labeling
program in purchasing
appliance or lighting system 4.5 3.1 6.6 8.3 6.9 4.9
Not Aware 73.8 83.7 61.4 45.6 43.7 28.2

5.1.2 NATURAL GAS

According to the survey, one in every five (17.5 percent or 3.7 million) households was
aware or had knowledge on natural gas as fuel, while the rest (82.5 percent or 17.3
million) still had no idea on this (Table 5.2 and Figure 5.1).
FIGURE 5.1 Awareness of Households on Natural Gas

as Fuel by Usage, Philippines: 2011 Of those who were aware
90.0 82.7
of the natural gas as fuel,
80.0 75.1 82.7 percent knew that it is
70.0 63.8 being used for transport,
60.0 53.6
75.1 percent said that it
In Percent
50.0
40.0
can be used for power
30.0 generation, 63.8 percent
20.0 were aware that it can be
10.0 used for cooking, while
0.0
about 54.0 percent had an
Transport Power Cooking Heating/cooling
generation idea that it can also be
Usage of Natural Gas as Fuel
used for heating or cooling
(Figure 5.1).
Note : A household may report more than one type of usage of natural gas.
Six in ten households with an average monthly income of at least 100,000 pesos were
aware of natural gas as fuel, while among households with an average monthly income
of less than 10,000 pesos, those who were aware of it made up 10.9 percent (Table 5.2).

Table 5.2 Households by Awareness on Natural Gas as Fuel by Average Monthly Income,
Philippines: 2011

Awareness on Natural Gas All Income
Less than 10,000 to 30,000 to 60,000 to 100,000
as Fuel Class
10,000 29,999 59,999 99,999 and over
Total Households 20,969 13,109 5,858 1,595 305 102

(In thousands)
In Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Aware 17.5 10.9 24.9 36.0 43.7 60.2

Not Aware 82.5 89.1 75.1 64.0 56.3 39.8


On the awareness of the presence of substandard or dilapidated LPG in markets, about
half (50.2 percent) of the households reported that they were aware of substandard or
dilapidated LPG circulating in the market.
Awareness about substandard
FIGURE 5.2 Awareness of Households on Substandard LPG circulation in the market
or Dilapidated LPG in the Market by Average Monthly was highest among
Income, Philippines: 2011 households with an average
Not Aware Aware monthly income of 100,000
3.7
100.0%
21 18.7
pesos or more with 96.3
80.0% 30.8 percent of them saying that
62.9 they are aware of this
60.0%
96.3
occurrence. The level of
40.0%
69.2
79.0 81.3 awareness drops as the
20.0% average monthly income of the
37.1
household decreases. The
0.0% level of awareness was lowest
Less than 10,000 to 30,000 to 60,000 to 100,000 and among households with an
10,000 29,999 59,999 99,999 over
average monthly income of
Average Monthly Income less than 10,000 pesos with
2011 Household Energy Consumption Survey (HECS) 37.1 percent of them reporting
that they are aware of
substandard LPG in markets (Figure 5.2).
On the knowledge about the safety practices in buying and handling LPG, one in every
two (48.9 percent) households had such knowledge. Of these households, 77.6 percent
checked if the LPG seal is intact before buying, 75.1 percent placed the LPG in a well-
ventilated area, 73.3 percent placed the LPG far from electrical outlet and 73.2 percent
checked LPG cylinder for rust dent or signs of corrosion before buying. A smaller
percentage of them cleaned the LPG hose (65.2 percent), checked the LPG hose,

regulator or valve for gas leakage using the “soap suds test” (54.3 percent), or checked
the weight of the LPG they bought (43.5 percent).
TABLE 5.3 Percent of Households Practicing Safety Measures in Buying

and Handling LPG, Philippines: 2011
Percent of
Safety Measures in Buying and Handling LPG
Households
Checking the weight of the LPG bought 43.5

Checking if the LPG seal is intact before buying 77.6
Checking the LPG cylinder for rust dent or signs of corrosion before
buying 73.2
Checking the bottom part of the LPG cylinder for any sign of rust dent or
signs of corrosion 62.4
Cleaning the LPG hose 65.2
Checking the LPG hose, regulator or valve for gas leakage using the
"soap suds test' 54.3
Placing the LPG in a well-ventilated place 75.1
Placing the LPG far from electrical outlet (at least 1 meter away) 73.3
Notes: A household may report more than one type of safety measure
5.1.4 NUCLEAR ENERGY
FIGURE 5.3 Percent of Households Who Knew the Regarding awareness of

Usage of Nuclear Energy, Philippines: 2011 nuclear energy, merely one out
100.0
85.4 of three (32.6 percent)
80.0 households was aware of
nuclear energy. The majority
60.0 (67.4 percent) of the
In Percent
47.4
households were not aware of
40.0
nuclear energy. Of the
20.0 households who were aware of
the nuclear energy, 85.4
0.0 percent were conscious that it
Power generation Non-power application can be used for power
Usage of Nuclear Energy generation, while 47.4 percent
Notes: A household may report more than one type of usage of nuclear energy knew that it can be utilized for
2011 Household Energy Consumption Survey (HECS) non-power application.
The awareness on nuclear energy was highest among the households in the highest
income group (100,000 pesos and over), which comprised 79.1 percent of the
households. By comparison, awareness on the nuclear energy and its usage was
lowest among households with an average monthly income of less than 10,000 pesos
(22.3 percent) (Table 5.4).

Table 5.4 Households by Awareness on Nuclear Energy and Average Monthly Income,
Philippines: 2011

Awareness on Nuclear All Income
Less than 10,000 to 30,000 to 60,000 to 100,000
Energy Class
10,000 29,999 59,999 99,999 and over
Total Households 20,969 13,109 5,858 1,595 305 102

(In thousands)
In Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Aware 32.6 22.3 45.8 59.7 63.9 79.1

Not Aware 67.4 77.7 54.2 40.3 36.1 20.9

.
5.1.5 RENEWABLE ENERGY
In the survey, households were FIGURE 5.4 Level of Awareness of Households

asked if they were aware that on Renewable Energy, Philippines: 2011
energy coming from the
biomass/biofuels, geothermal Fully Aware
stream, sun, bodies of water, and Partially Aware 10.3
wind are called renewable energy
(RE). Half (50.8 percent) of the Not Aware
50.8
households replied that they were
not aware. About two-fifths (38.9
percent) said that they were 38.9
partially aware and one in every
ten households (10.3 percent)
answered that it was fully aware.
Households with higher income

FIGURE 5.5 Level of Awareness of Households on
tend to have a higher level of Renewable Energy by Average Monthly income,
awareness that energy coming Philippines: 2011
Fully Aware Partially Aware
from biomass/biofuels, 100
geothermal stream, sun, bodies 30.7 30.6
16.4
80 39.2
of water, and wind are called 59.1
In Percent
34.3
60
renewable energy. 37.9
42.2
40 45.3
20 35.7 49.3
27.1 31.6
5.2 15.5
0
Less than 10,000 to 30,000 to 60,000 to 100,000 and
10,000 29,999 59,999 99,999 over
Average Monthly Income

Households were also asked FIGURE 5.6 Awareness of Households on Renewable
about their awareness on the Energy Act of 2008, Philippines: 2011
Renewable Energy Act of 2008
(RA 9513) enacted by the Aware
government to promote the
Not aware 8.0
development and utilization of
renewable energy. Only 8.0
percent of the households
reported that they are aware of 92.0
the said act.

The majority of the households,

FIGURE 5.7 Awareness of Households on Renewable
regardless of income, were not Energy Act of 2008 by Average Monthly Income,
aware of the Renewable Energy Philippines: 2011
Act of 2008 (RA 9513) (Figure Aware Not aware
5.7). As to be expected, the 100
percentage of those who were 80

aware of RA 9513 was highest 67.2
60 80.3 78.4
In Percent
95.4 88.7
among well-off households with 40
32.8 percent of them reporting
20 32.8
awareness of this energy act. 4.6 11.3 19.7 21.6
0
Less than 10,000 to 30,000 to 60,000 to 100,000 and
10,000 29,999 59,999 99,999 over
5.2 HOUSEHOLDS PRACTICES TO REDUCE ENERGY

CONSUMPTION
Out of the total number of households who used any fuel, 88.5 percent or 18.5 million
households reported that they undertook measures to reduce energy consumption for
lighting, cooking, refrigeration, ironing of clothes, space cooling, and/or machine washing
of clothes (Appendix Table 10).
The most common practice to reduce energy consumption in lighting was switching off
the lights when not needed, which was reported by 90.9 percent of households. Using
of natural lighting when necessary was also being performed by 85.4 percent of
households, while about three-fourths (75.3 percent) of the households opted to switch
to more energy efficient lighting as their way of conserving energy. About two-thirds
(66.6 percent) of the households cited keeping lamps and lighting fixtures clean as their
measure to reduce energy consumption (Figure 5.8).

FIGURE 5.8 Measures Undertaken by Households to Reduce
their Consumption of Energy for Lighting by Type,
Philippines: 2011
100.0 90.9 85.4
75.3
80.0 66.6
In percent
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.4
0.0
Switched off Used natural Switched to Kept lamps and Other lighting
lights when not lighting when more energy lighting fixtures household
needed necessary efficient clean practices
lighting
Type of household practices
Note: A household may report more than one measure to reduce fuel consumption
To reduce energy consumption in cooking, 20.6 percent of the households revealed that
they keep the pots and pans covered when cooking. Other ways of saving energy when
cooking that were cited include reducing heat when the water/food had boiled with 19.9
percent of households practicing it, preparing food before turning on the stove (19.5
percent), re-heating cooked food only when necessary (18.7 percent), and thawing
frozen food thoroughly before cooking (17.0 percent). (Figure 5.8).
In using refrigeration devices, about 38.0 percent of households opened

refrigerator/freezer doors only when necessary and avoided prolonged opening, 37.4
percent of households placed foods in the refrigerator/freezer only when necessary, 36.9
percent defrost their unit when needed, while 36.6 percent placed their unit in a cool
well-ventilated area to reduce energy consumption.
FIGURE 5.9 Household Practices to Reduce their Consumption of Energy for

Cooking by Type, Philippines: 2011
Covered pots and pans when cooking 20.6
Type of househol practices to reduce
Reduced heat when the water/food had boiled 19.9

fuel consumption for cooking
Prepared food before turning on the stove 19.5

Re-heated cooked foods only when necessary 18.7
Thawed frozen food thoroughly before cooking 17.0
Matched the size of the pan or pot with the heating element 16.7
Made use of more efficient stove or appliances 16.4
Kept range top burners and heat reflectors clean 16.3
Used heat-retaining cooking pots and pans 14.5
Other cooking household practices 0.3
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

Note: A household may report more than one measure to reduce fuel consumption In percent

About 40.7 percent of the households reported that they used “wash and wear” clothes,
40.2 percent avoided ironing just one piece of clothing, and 35.5 percent revealed that
they ironed heavier materials first and reduced heat to press lighter materials as their
ways to reduce energy consumption in ironing clothes (Appendix Table 10).
Regarding space cooling, the most common way to save energy was to turn off the fan
when not in use as reported by 67.2 percent of the households. Others said that they
set fan to “low” when it was comfortable enough (63.6 percent), while 53.5 percent
locked the oscillator when the electric fan was needed in one direction only.
For machine washing of clothes, among the measures that were stated by the
households include washing clothes only until one had full load instead of several small
loads (27.6 percent), following washing instructions of the machine or garment (26.9
percent), and soaking garments in detergents before loading in the washing machine
(23.3 percent). About 18.2 percent of households also avoid using spin dryer to save on
energy.
5.3 PERCEPTIONS ON THE USE OF COMMON HOUSEHOLD

ENERGY SOURCES
In the 2011 HECS, households were asked about their perception on the use of common
household energy sources, specifically electricity, LPG, kerosene and fuelwood. This
section presents the findings regarding such perceptions.
5.3.1 ELECTRICITY
Out of 18.5 million
households who FIGURE 5.10 Perception of Households on the Use of
undertook measures to Electricity, Philippines: 2011
reduce energy Agree Disagree Don't know
consumption, 91.9 100.0 2.9
7.7 7.2 5.2
percent said that 19.9 9.3
80.0
electricity is expensive,
In percent
83.6 percent reported 60.0

83.6 91.9
that electricity installation 40.0 72.4
charge is expensive, and 20.0
72.4 percent said that 0.0
applying for an electricity Applying for an electricity The electricity installation Electricity is expensive
installation is difficult installation is difficult charge is expensive
(Figure 5.10). Perceptions on the use of electricity
Note: A household may report more than one use of fuel.


Regarding their perception
on LPG, about three- FIGURE 5.11 Perception of Households on the Use
fourths (76.9 percent) of of LPG, Philippines: 2011
them agreed that LPG is Agree Disagree
expensive, and 63.8 100.0
20.3 17.3 20.7
percent said that its 80.0 5.8
21.4 25.5 23.4
cylinder and ancillary 12.8
In percent
60.0
equipment is expensive. A 56.4 51.7 62.4 46.6
40.0
much smaller percentage 76.9
63.8
of them agreed that other 20.0
23.3 26.9 27.9
16.8
fuels are better than LPG 0.0
for cooking (27.9 percent), LPG is LPG is LPG is not LPG is not Other fuels LPG cylinder
difficult to get expensive safe convenient to are better and ancilliary
that LPG is not safe (26.9 use than LPG for equipment is
percent), that it is difficult cooking expensive
Perception on the use of LPG
to get (23.3 percent), or it Note: A household may report more than one use of fuel.
is not convenient to use Source: National Statistics Office and Department of Energy
(16.8 percent) (Figure
5.11).
5.3.3 KEROSENE
In terms of their FIGURE 5.12 Perception of Households on the Use
perception on the use of of Kerosene Philippines: 2011
kerosene, 63.3 percent of
the households who Agree Disagree
undertook measures to 100.0
21.8 21.2 22.0 22.1 21.7 28.6
80.0
reduce fuel consumption
In percent
15.5 27.0
60.0 32.4 29.6
perceived the use of 56.1
28.9
40.0
kerosene as expensive. 63.3 51.0 45.5 48.8
20.0 42.6
One-half (51.0 percent) of 22.1
0.0
them said that it is dirty,
Kerosene Kerosene Kerosene Kerosene Kerosene Kerosene
48.8 percent said that it is is difficult to is expensive is dirty is not is not safe equipment
not safe, 45.5 percent get convenient is expensive
to use
reported that it is not Perception of the use of kerosene
convenient to use and
42.6 percent agreed that Source: National Statistics Office and Department of Energy
kerosene equipment is 2011 Household Energy Consumption Survey (HECS)
expensive. Around one-

fifth (22.1 percent) of them
reported that kerosene is
difficult to get (Figure
5.12).

5.3.4 FUELWOOD
Seven in ten households (69.8 percent) who practiced measures to save fuel
consumption said that fuelwood gives hotter flame. Likewise, seven in ten (69.7
percent) stated that it creates better tasting dishes. Almost three-fifths or 58.9 percent of
them agreed that fuelwood is dirty, and 54.6 percent said that fuelwood gathering is a
cause for forest denudation. Forty-two percent said that fuelwood is not convenient to
use, and 36.9 percent stated that there are kitchens that are not appropriate for
fuelwood. More than one-third of the households reported that fuelwood is expensive
(34.5 percent) or difficult to get (34.1 percent) (Figure 5.13).
FIGURE 5.13 Perception of Households on the Use of Fuelwood

Philippines: 2011
Agree Disagree Don't know

100.0
12.5 15.4 10.9 11.5 10.4 10.9 15.0 16.5 16.5
80.0 15.2
30.2 13.8
In percent
47.2 28.9
60.0 53.4 50.1 58.0 52.7
40.0
58.9 69.8 69.7
54.6
20.0 34.1 34.5 36.9 41.9
30.5
0.0
Fuelwood is Fuelwood is Fuelwood is Fuelwood is Other kitchen Fuelwood is Fuelwood Cooking with Fuelwood
difficult to get expensive dirty not safe is not not convenient gives hotter fuelwood gathering is a
appropriate for to use flame creates better cause for forest
fuelwood tasting dishes denudation
Perception on the use of fuelwood

5.4 PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED IN FUEL SUPPLY SYSTEM

Different fuel supply FIGURE 5.14 Percentage Who Encountered Problems in
problems were reported by Fuel Supply Among Households Using Electricity, LPG
the households for or Kerosene, Philippines: 2011
electricity, LPG and
kerosene. Figure 5.14 100 89.6
83.5 83.1
shows the percentage of 80
In percent
households who
60
encountered problems
regarding the supply of 40
these types of fuel.
20
Of the 18.3 million 0

households using Electricity LPG Kerosene
electricity, 89.6 percent Types of fuel
encountered problems Note: A household may report more than one use of fuel.
regarding its supply. By 2011 Household Energy Consumption Survey (HECS)
comparison, of the 8.6

million households using LPG, those who encountered problems on its supply accounted
for 83.5 percent. Out of the 7.2 million households using kerosene, 83.1 percent
encountered supply-related problems (Figure 5.14).
5.4.1 ELECTRICITY
There were approximately
FIGURE 5.15 Problems on Supply of Electricity
16.2 million households Encountered by Households, by Type, Philippines: 2011
using electricity who
encountered supply 100.0
85.9
problems. The most 82.0
common problem 80.0
encountered by these
In percent
60.0
households is the high cost 38.9 38.6
of electricity with 85.9 40.0
percent of them citing such 20.0
problem. Four in every 0.7
five or 82.0 percent of 0.0
these households High Brown-out Fluctuating Low voltage Others
experienced brown-out. rate/cost of voltage
electricity
Fluctuating voltage was
reported by 38.9 percent, Problems encountered
Note: A household may report more than one type of problem encountered.
while low voltage was Source: National Statistics Office and Department of Energy
reported by 38.6 percent
(Figure 5.15).

Of the 7.2 million
FIGURE 5.16 Problems on Supply of LPG Encountered
households using LPG by Households, by Type, Philippines: 2011
who encountered problems
regarding its supply, 97.9 97.9
100.0
percent reported high cost
of LPG as a problem. 80.0
Around one-fifth (19.3
In percent
60.0
percent) of them said that
their LPG tank is 40.0
19.3
underfilled. Moreover, one 20.0 14.3 10.8
in every seven (14.3 1.0
0.0
percent) of them said that Unavailability Inaccessibility High Cost Underfilled Others
LPG is unavailable in their Problems encountered
place, while one in nine
(10.8 percent) said that it is Source: National Statistics Office and Department of Energy
not accessible in their 2011 Household Energy Consumption Survey (HECS)
place (Figure 5.16).

5.4.3 KEROSENE
Out of the 6.0 million households FIGURE 5.17 Problems on Supply of Kerosene
using kerosene who Encountered by Households, by Type, Philippines: 2011
encountered problems regarding 96.8
its supply, its high cost was the 100.0
most common problem they 80.0
encountered, with 96.8 percent
In percent
60.0
of them citing it. Unavailability
of kerosene supply in their area 40.0 33.6
26.2
was reported by 33.6 percent,
20.0
and inaccessibility of kerosene
supply, by 26.2 percent (Figure 0.0
5.17). Unavailability Inaccessibility High Cost
Problems encountered

Chapter 6
POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of conducting the HECS recurrently is to acquire new sets of information on
household energy consumption pattern to be used as an indicator in filling up the data gap of
the residential energy demand as part of the energy data requirements of the DOE. This is just
the basic information that can be extracted from the result of the survey. Other important
information such as household’s fuel and technology preferences, awareness to government
programs and projects, and issues and concerns on the use of fuel for household activities are
predesigned value added application of the survey to assess the impact of government
intervention in the form of programs related to consumer welfare protection and household
energy efficiency. The questionnaire design of the survey can always be improved in consonant
with the current energy emerging issues of the residential sector that can also be gleamed from
survey results. Likewise, the impact of energy policies and programs of the government to
improve the residential sector’s prudent energy utilization can be construed in the results of
2011 HECS, and translated by major sector of energy.
6.1 Electricity
Both the 2004 and 2011 HECS indicated that electricity remained to be the most popular fuel in
the residential sector, with about 87 percent of around 21 million households reported to be
using electricity in 2011. This proportion includes households sourcing their electricity from
distribution utilities, neighboring households, industry or business, community based-
generators, owned generators and storage batteries. Out of the total households that use
electricity, 58 percent belong to the lowest income group, or those who earn an average of
10,000 pesos per month, while accounting for 30 percent of total electricity consumption.
Despite representing the majority (in terms of number of households), the average electricity
consumption of these low-income households is 48 percent less than the average consumption
for all income class (Table 6.1). This can be attributed to the fact that these households were
among the recipients of the consumer cross subsidy called “lifeline rates” users under the
Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA) of 2001 or RA 9136, in which consumers falling
under this category are being subsidized by those consumers with higher consumption of
electricity. Meanwhile, the second lowest average income class of households (P10,000 to
P29,999) has the largest share to total household electricity consumption at 40 percent, and is
27 percent higher as compared to the overall average income of the households. For the
households at the middle income group (P30,000 to P59,999), higher consumption of electricity
can be observed, which is more than two (2) times the overall average income of the
households, notwithstanding their 8 percent share to the total households using electricity.
Meanwhile, for the households within the income bracket of more than 60,000 pesos per month,

their average consumption is almost six (6) times higher than the overall average consumption
of the households. This is primarily due to the higher usage of energy intensive appliances and
greater frequency of use of other appliances which is directly proportionate to their ability and
willingness to pay high cost of energy (i.e. electricity)
Table 6.1. Percentage of Households (HHs) Using Electricity and

Share to the Total Electricity Consumption by Average Monthly
Income Class:2011
Average Monthly % Share of the %Share of the Average
Income of Family Number of HHs Number of HHs Electricity
(in Pesos) Using Electricity, to the Total HHs Consumption of
by Income Electricity HH (Index = 1)
Consumption
All Income Class 100.00 100.00 1.00
Less than 10,000 58.23 30.09 0.52
10,000 to 29,999 31.14 39.45 1.27
30,000 to 59,999 8.41 20.68 2.46
60,000 to 99,999 1.67 6.55 3.93
100,000 and over 0.56 3.23 5.78
Note: Including households connected to the electricity grid, neighboring households,
community-based generators, owned generators, and storage batteries
For those households which acquired their electricity from electric utilities and cooperatives,
there were about 78 percent and 74 percent of the total households which reported that their
problems are high cost of electricity and brown-outs, respectively. There were also reported
problems in electricity service of around 35 percent, which correspond to the low and fluctuating
voltages of the electricity lines. Overall, it was reported that the total number of households
having a problem with electricity service comprised the 90 percent of the total population of
households using electricity served by the electric utilities and cooperatives. This is quite close
to the 88 percent proportion of households that encountered problems in their electricity supply
as reported in the 2004 HECS. The difference is that out of the total number of households
connected to the electric distribution utilities based on the previous survey, there were about 80
percent and 51 percent proportions of households that expressed their problems in using
electricity as high cost of electricity and brown-outs, respectively, and only about 21 to 23
percent households signified that their problems are low and fluctuating voltages of electricity
lines. This can be analyzed in a way that in terms of quality of services and efficiencies, the
electricity system in the country has no further changes over the years.
For the socially responsive energy goal of the energy sector, the target of 90 percent household
electrification in 2017 is underway after almost completion of Rural Electrification Program by
Barangay level last 2012. According to the Philippine Energy Plan (PEP) 2012 to 2030, the

household electrification level of the country stood at 70.2 percent1, which means that out of
20.5 million households, 14.4 million have access to electricity. Meanwhile, data from the 2011
HECS show that the percentage of households connected to the grid is about 74 percent, or
15.5 million households out of the total household population of 21 million (Table 6.2). Despite
the differences in the methodology of the PEP and 2011 HECS 2, the proportion of electrified
households from both sources is close to 70 percent and can be considered as reliable enough.
Table 6.2. Number of Households Using Electricity Acquired from Utilities and
Electric Cooperatives by Average Monthly Income Class
Total Number Number of HHs Percentage of

of Households Using Electricity* (In Households
of Family (in Pesos)
(In millions) Millions) With Electricity
All Income Class 20.97 15.51 73.98

Less than 10,000 13.11 8.37 63.90
10,000 to 29,999 5.85 5.21 88.97
30,000 to 59,999 1.59 1.53 95.88
60,000 to 99,999 0.31 0.31 96.97
100,000 and over 0.10 0.10 97.29
* Including only households connected to the distribution utilities
Meanwhile, 84.9 percent of the households using electricity sourced their electricity from the
electric utilities (33.6 percent) and electric cooperatives (51.3 percent)3. This would mean an
increase of about 16 percent from the 13.3 million households reported by 2004 HECS.
Although the number of households connected to the distribution utilities increased, the
proportion of these households to the total number households using electricity went down from
89.7 percent in the 2004 HECS. On the other hand, the proportion of households with illegal
electricity connections (e.g. sourced their electricity from their neighboring household) dropped
to 13.8 percent in 2011, from 15.5 percent in 2004. It can also be observed that such
households are within the lowest income bracket of less than 30,000 pesos per month. This
implies that there are still a significant number of households that cannot afford to shoulder the
cost of electricity installation, and opted to obtain the supposedly basic electricity services via
unlawful means. On the other hand, the rest of the households (2.2 percent) in the 2011 HECS
sourced the supply of electricity from off-grid, particularly from industry or business, community-
based generators, owned generator and storage batteries.
As the results of the 2011 HECS expressed some important indications on the energy situation
of the residential sector, the government has to continue the implementation of household
1
As of December 30, 2011
2
PEP level is based on physical connection of households to the grid through distribution utilities; 2011 HECS is
based on households that participated in the survey.
3
Chapter 3, Table 3.6

electrification program that should taking into account the ability and willingess of the
consumers to pay the cost of electricity and upfront cost of availing electricity service. In reality,
it cannot be addressed alone by the government since it requires the whole-of-government
approach to attain the 90 percent household electrification level by 2017. The participation of all
stakeholders including private generation companies, distribution utilities and consumers is
necessary to design the whole framework in pursuing the household electrification program.
The households cannot be imposed to connect legally to the distribution utilities if they cannot
afford to pay the cost of electricity, including the upfront cost of electricity service. On the other
hand, the government should focus on the households in the lower income groups in
implementing household electrification program as it was indicated in Table 6.2 that these
groups of households are the least electrified.
The results of the current HECS emphasized that there are still areas in the electricity system of
the country that needs to be improved since over the years, the same problems hinder the
households to connect to the proper electricity services that push them to resort to illegal
connection. Although it was considered a data gap on the part of the current HECS results to
come up with the detailed information in identifying the motives of the households in connecting
to neighboring households, it should be noted that in the future conduct of HECS, this
information should be considered. Succeeding surveys should also need to generate
information on the number of households consuming less than 100 KWh per month by average
income of the family to provide information about the true/actual beneficiaries of lifeline rates,
since this subsidy was intended for lower-income/marginalized consumers. Moreover, the
granting of such subsidy should ideally be based on income rather than consumption, because
there is also a possibility that there are households in the second and middle income groups
which are lifeline beneficiaries. The government must ensure that the beneficiaries of the cross
subsidy are those households within the lower income groups.
6.2 Downstream Oil and Natural Gas
The Downstream Oil Industry continues to face challenges especially in the issue of price
instability. The deregulated environment brought new players in the market which is evident in
the establishment of new and small re-fuelling stations and the accessibility of petroleum
products even in the remote areas of the country. However, the same environment pinned down
the government’s control over consumer welfare and negative impact of unstable price in the
international market. The residential sector, being unprofitable sector and at the end of the
socio-economic line, suffered the toughest impact of oil price volatility.
In relation to the current oil issue, the call for the amendment of the “Downstream Oil Industry
Deregulation Act of 1998” has been brought to the table by various groups for a number of
times; while the government, as a response, is earnestly on the side of revisiting the law. In this
regard, the DOE organized a multi-sectoral independent review committee, the Independent Oil
Price Review Committee (IOPRC), to look further into the issue. It was found out that
deregulation has resulted in the increased responsiveness of local pump prices to world oil
prices now than at any period from the implementation of deregulation law. Based on the theory

and the testimony of market players and DOE, oil pump prices are lower where there are more
retail stations and greater competition leads to lower prices. This is a very important empirical
finding because it means that promotion of more competition is essential to keep prices
relatively low and fair. Although in 2011 HECS, the information for households’ perception on
oil deregulation law is not available, the perspective of households based on the results may
seem to be untoward position in the implementation of the law. In view of the reported problems
of the households in using oil products, around 97 percent of households out of the total number
of households surveyed using oil products considered the high cost of oil products, in particular
that of LPG and kerosene, as a problem. However, such information is not available in the
current survey for gasoline and diesel, which are consumed by the households mostly for
transportation.
Households use various types of petroleum products, such as LPG, gasoline, diesel, and
kerosene. In the 2011 HECS, 16.3 million households were reported to have consumed such oil
products during the survey period of March to August 2011. LPG, with a 53 percent share to
the total number of households using oil products, ranks first as the most preferred fuel used by
the households for their cooking and heating activities. This is especially apparent in urban
areas with rising income levels due to its clean-burning properties and being a quick-cooking
compressed gas with an adjustable heat output. However, the escalating price of LPG appears
to be detrimental to its perceived benefit. This is evident in the result of the 2011 HECS, wherein
the share of the total number of households using LPG from the 2004 HECS results declined by
0.92 percentage point. On the other hand, kerosene, placing second to LPG as the most used
oil products showed an increased on the share of number of households at about 12 percentage
points from 2004 survey results. The use of kerosene remains popular in rural areas, where it is
used by most number of households for lighting as a substitute to electricity. Meanwhile, more
households utilized gasoline for their transportation activities as compared to the results of 2004
HECS, and usage is more prevalent with those that earn an average monthly income of 30,000
and below (89 percent). The notable hike in the proportion of households using gasoline is
attributable to the increasing popularity of motorcycles as the preferred mode of transportation,
particularly for lower income groups. Vehicle registration data from the Land Transportation
Office (LTO)4 shows that new motorcycle registrants has climbed to 1,052,863 units in 2011, 47
percent higher than its level as reported in 2004 of only 495,400 . The affordability of these
vehicles, in terms of easier financing schemes, has also contributed to the swelling number of
motorcycles in circulation.
With LPG being the most prevalent petroleum product among households, the government has
pursued various avenues to promote the safe handling and use of LPG, led by the Department
of Trade and Industry (DTI) and DOE. In relation to such government information, education
and communication (IEC) campaign activity, the results of 2011 HECS indicate that about 50
percent of the households were aware of substandard or dilapidated LPG circulating in the
4
http://www.lto.gov.ph/index.php/publication/statistical-reports; Annual Report 2011 and 2006 (Comparative)
Land Transportation Office

market, and were knowledgeable about safety practices in buying and handling LPG.
Geographically, more than half of the total households in Luzon are on guard against
substandard LPG (57 percent), while close to two out of ten households (27 percent) in the
Visayas and Mindanao areas do the same. As most households buy their LPG tanks from retail
outlets and exclusive LPG dealers5, department circulars (DCs) were issued by the DOE to
ensure safety standards on the supply and distribution of LPG, such as requiring standards
compliance certificate (SCCs) for gasoline stations and bulk suppliers, among others. However,
the results of the 2011 HECS point towards the need for the government to pursue such IEC on
safety handling and use of LPG for greater public awareness and safety, with particular focus in
the Visayas and Mindanao areas.
Meanwhile, to ensure the genuine consumer protection, it is also essential to establish a

regulatory framework for the LPG industry, one which is embodied under the LPG Industry
Regulation and Safety Act of 2011. Under the proposed bill, the DOE shall formulate policies
and regulations for the stockpiling, storage, marketing and distribution of LPG, whether in
cylinders or centralized LPG distribution systems, to ensure environmental and worker safety,
product quality and conformity with consumer welfare standards. Public support towards the
passage of the bill can be strengthened by conducting information campaign. Along this line,
strict monitoring of accredited LPG distributors/resellers shall also be pursued to hinder the
proliferation of substandard LPG tanks.
On the other hand, the government has been actively promoting utilization of other clean energy
options, such as alternative fuels, in its bid to reduce dependency on oil. It has been recognized
that natural gas is an environmentally-friendly and benign fuel, and is being considered as one
alternative energy source. At present, natural gas is being utilized mostly for power generation,
although currently there are a number of compressed natural gas (CNG) buses in commercial
operation plying Manila to Batangas/Laguna route. The expected opening of two CNG daughter
stations of the Philippine National Oil Company Exploration Corporation (PNOC EC) in 2014 will
result to the full operation of 34 units of CNG vehicles. This will inevitably contribute to
increased natural gas consumption in the transport sector. Meanwhile, natural gas-fed power
plants in Batangas province (Ilijan, San Lorenzo and Sta. Rita) play an integral part in supplying
electricity to the entire island of Luzon. The construction of natural gas pipelines, LNG terminals
and storage facilities are also being pushed in the next five (5) to ten (10) years to be able to
accommodate the increasing demand for the fuel6. These anticipated technologies will aid in the
government’s drive to make natural gas an alternative fuel for households, as well as for
commercial establishments and industrial purposes
5
Chapter 3 - Figure 3.12 Source Of LPG, Philippines: 2011
6
The development of natural gas industry remained a priority industry of the energy sector. To further facilitate its
development in the country, the World Bank provided a Technical Assistance in the formulation of a Natural Gas Master Plan.
The Plan will be implemented in three (3) phases. Phases 1 and 2 will be on the establishment of an investment and
transactional framework, respectively, focusing on LNG vis-à-vis power sector requirements. Phase 3 will be a longer term
Master Plan and will focus on the rest of the natural forms and sectors. In terms of pipeline development, PNOC commissioned
the Public Private Partnership (PPP) Center and Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) to conduct a detailed feasibility
study for the 105-km Batangas-Manila (Batman 1) pipeline.

As such, public awareness on natural gas as a fuel in the residential sector is important. The
2011 HECS showed that one in every five households (17.5 percent or 3.7 million) had
knowledge on natural gas as fuel. This is twice the figure derived from the 2004 HECS where in
one in every ten households (10.3 percent or 1.7 million) responded positively regarding
awareness about natural gas. This increased public awareness about the natural gas from 2004
and 2011 HECS results may have been among the crucial factors that contributed to the rapid
expansion of the sector, particularly in infrastructure development. It can be culled from the
survey results that households in the National Capital Region (NCR) and CALABARZON are
relatively agreeable to the possible innovations brought by utilizing natural gas. Strengthening
the public’s existing awareness about natural gas can be achieved through continuous
information campaigns, particularly in areas wherein a large proportion of total household
population remain uninformed. It is crucial to highlight the benefits from the use of this fuel,
which has been taunted as a better alternative to coal and oil, in as much as it emits lower
greenhouse gas (GHG).
6.3 Renewable Energy
The passage of the Renewable Energy (RE) Law of 2008 and the adoption of the National
Renewable Energy Program (NREP) for 2012 to 2030 are among the government’s response to
the growing concern on energy supply security, as well as the adverse effects of energy
production and utilization to the environment. The NREP was formulated and officially launched
on 14 June 2011. It contains the renewed commitment of the government to promote utilization
of RE and aspiration to increase its contribution to power generation and harness its potential
for non-power application. On the other hand, in support of the NREP are the policy
mechanisms under the RE Law of 2008. The DOE and other concerned government agencies
are mandated to formulate the policy mechanisms to fully implement the RE Law that include
the Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), Feed-in Tariff (FiT), Green Energy Option Program
and Net-Metering for Renewable Energy7.
However, even in the advent of more efficient and cleaner fuel, the results of the 2011 HECS
revealed that there are still a lot of household consuming renewable energy sources of fuel,
particularly biomass in the residential sector, due to its availability, accessibility and price
considerations. In fact, the proportion of households using biomass fuels based on the current
survey results were reported as 54, 36 and 22 percent for fuelwood, charcoal and residues,
respectively. These levels are not very far from the proportion of households using biomass
fuels from the data results of 2004 HECS with 55, 34, and 19 percent respectively for the same
biomass fuels. Likewise, fuelwood remained to be the most popular fuel for cooking and food
preparation in the residential sector, and is being used by more than half (54 percent) of the
total number of households, and with this proportion having no significant change over the past
7
Under the RA 9513, the approved FIT rates are P5.90 (hydro), P6.63 (biomass), P8.53 (wind), and P9.68 (solar). In July 2013,
the ERC issued Resolutio No. 9 titled A Resolutio Adopti g the Rules o Net-metering Progra for Re ewable E ergy .

years. The results of both 2004 and 2011 HECS are consistent with the outcome of a research
conducted by the Resource Efficient Agricultural Production (REAP) Canada and the University
of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB)8 - these fuels remain as cheaper fuel alternatives and
viable solutions for households with lower income. These biomass forms have relatively low
efficiency compared to other household fuels and usually utilized by the households through
direct combustion using improvised stove.
It is therefore recommended that these kinds of fuels be coupled with more efficient
technologies, such as innovative biomass cooking and heating stoves to further improve the
efficiency of utilizing biomass fuels. By using more efficient technologies, households can
effectively reduce the volume of their biomass consumption and mitigate health hazard brought
about by exposure to the direct combustion of biomass fuels. These non-power application of
RE for major household activities, such as cooking and food preparation, heating, lighting and
ironing, should be regarded by the government as an area in need of policy interventions, and
as such, be considered upon the updating of the NREP, as well as the RE Act, which has been
focused mainly on RE for power generation.
The results of the survey have indicated that despite the government’s best effort in promoting
renewable energy as an alternative and better source of energy for the last few years, majority
of households are not aware of the basic information on its benefits and applications. Moreover,
the public’s awareness about the existence of the RE Law is insignificant - despite the nearly
three (3) years of implementing the law before the survey was conducted, only about 8 percent
out of the total household population expressed awareness about the law. This proportion is
even at its lowest in the regions with a large rural population, particularly in the Visayas and
Mindanao areas, despite the latter being the site of most hydropower plants. Raising awareness
and appreciation about renewable energy and the RE law entails extensive information
campaigns, focusing primarily on RE’s anticipated benefits (lower GHG emission, sustainability,
cost-effective compared to fossil fuels, etc). However, an appropriate information campaign is
still required from the government in view of the current survey results, and the survey indicates
that the most of the households (75 percent) who are aware of the renewable energy sourced
their information from multimedia.
On the other hand, the results of the 2011 HECS covered particular information on the use of
biomass fuels for major household activities by region. This can be a good reference for the
government in targeting site specific program for the promotion of efficient technologies fueled
by biomass in residential sector. Further, it was suggested that additional information be added
in the succeeding HECS to cover efficient technologies acquired by households by major
activities such as cooking and food preparation, heating, and ironing.
8
Enhancing Household Biomass Energy Use in the Philippines: Excerpt from Chapter 2: Strategies for Enhancing Biomass
Utilization in the Philippines(Samson, Stohl, Elepano, & De Maio) National Research Laboratories Subcontract Number AXE-0-
30001-01

6.4 Energy Efficiency and Conservation
Energy conservation is important to every household since conserving energy means savings
on the cost of living. This practice can also be considered as a way of life for the households
since their natural behavior is commonly the tendency to manage the pattern of consumption of
expensive fuels in using residential appliances, machines and equipment in accordance with
their ability to pay the corresponding operating cost. In relation to this, the government, thru the
DOE, has implemented the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Program (NEECP).
One of the major components of the program is the Energy Labeling and Efficiency Standards,
which specifically targeted energy consuming household. It intends to improve the efficiency
and performance of household appliances, equipment and other energy-consuming devices to
generate energy savings and mitigate the greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation
due to efficient consumption.
The results of the 2011 HECS shows that more households tend to practice energy
conservation compared to the results of 2004 HECS. Particularly, the hike in the number of
households who are aware of the government’s energy labeling program based on the data
results of 2004 (10.3 percent) and 2011 (26.2 percent) HECS indicates the growing appreciation
of the importance and use of energy labels. The actual data on energy savings derived from the
Energy Labeling Program9 - from 805.8 KTOE in 2007 to 2,210.8 KTOE in 2011, translating to
an average annual increase of 29 percent, may also be indicative of the households’ awareness
about this particular government program.
By region, almost four out of ten households (43.3 percent) in the National Capital Region
(NCR) were aware of energy labeling program, while there was only about 13 percent to 17
percent proportion of household’s awareness in major part of Visayas region, particularly from
Central Visayas (Region VII) to Zamboanga Peninsula (Region IX)10. Meanwhile, both the 2004
and 2011 surveys results were consistent in highlighting the positive relationship between
household awareness of the energy labeling program and average monthly income11. This
implies that as the monthly income bracket increases, the proportion of households who are
familiar with the program also increases. As a household acquire more purchasing power, they
tend to upgrade their lifestyle, and thus make use of the energy labeling program to make the
most out of their appliance purchases. The households in higher income groups are also likely
more exposed to multi-media since they can afford to own high-end technologies for information
and communication.
However, much needs to be done to address the significant proportion of households that
remain unaware of energy labeling, as well as energy conservation practices. The government
should pursue intensified IEC campaigns, specifically targeting low-income households,
especially in rural areas. Increasing the presence of energy labeling-related information in multi-
9
As calculated by the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Division (EECD) of the DOE
10
Supplemental Table 37 Number of Households Who are Aware and Not Aware on Energy Labeling Program by Region: 2011
11

media can be pursued, as this has been proven to be the primary source of information based
on the results of the 2011 HECS12. This would also enable information to reach more
audiences/consumers. Another step towards the realization of the goals of energy labeling is to
broaden its coverage to include other household appliances, aside from refrigerators, air
conditioners, and lighting fixtures. Household appliances for water heating and pumping should
be considered, since these technologies contribute substantially to average electricity
consumption based on the results of the 2011 HECS13. On the other hand, the DOE is
developing policy recommendations to include TV in its energy labeling program. With prices of
flat screen technologies falling considerably over the years, the TV sales grow about 2 percent
faster than the growth of the number of households gaining access to electricity. This means
that the average number of TVs per household is also increasing and consequently, electricity
consumption. Inclusion of televisions in the DOE’s energy labeling program will help educate
consumers towards energy efficient TVs thereby curbing electricity consumption.
Meanwhile, as lighting is the most

Figure 6.1 Comparison of Households Who Used
common usage of electricity among the
Electricity for Lighting by Type of Lamp Used, in
Percent, 2004 vs 2011 households, this prompted the
government to launch and promote
energy efficient lighting (EEL) system to
reduce energy consumption and GHG
emissions. Based on the 2011 HECS,
there was a significant drop in usage of
incandescent lamps in the household
sector, from 54.7 percent as reported in
the 2004 HECS to 13.6 percent in 2011.
This was complemented by a 134.7
percent upsurge in the use of compact
fluorescent lamps (CFLs) based on the
2004 and 2011 HECS results (Figur 6.1). Likewise, this can be attributed to the “Palit-Ilaw”
program of the government under the banner of the NEECP, which is supported by the United
Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and Global Environment Facility (GEF). This
encouraged consumers to phase out the usage of incandescent lamps and switch to high
energy CFLs.
Relatedly, the implementation of the National Residential Lighting Program under the Philippine
Energy Efficiency Project (PEEP) is also expected to help in promotion of energy efficiency. It is
is aimed at reducing peak demand by promoting efficient lighting in the residential sector. As of
2013, the DOE has completed the distribution of 3.6 million CFLs through identified
congressional districts and party list representatives and the Department of Social Welfare and
Development (DSWD) offices.
12
Supplemental Table 40: Number of Households by Sources of Information on Energy Labeling and Region: 2011
13

Meanwhile, further data support to measure household awareness about energy efficient
technologies are needed in the succeeding HECS. The installation of natural gas as an
alternative fuel for cooking in households’ vis-à-vis LPG is one example of such technology that
can contribute to reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emission from the residential sector.
Relatedly, the construction of energy-efficient homes/houses should also be pursued, in addition
to the initiative towards energy-efficient buildings under the PEEP. This would entail
enforcement and implementation of mandatory building codes and rating system for residential
homes, as well as production and certification of energy efficient building materials and
components, information campaigns to promote energy efficient house designs and technology.
Categorization of a housing unit into an energy-efficient one can be included in the next HECS
based on accepted criteria.
6.5 Nuclear Energy
The DOE, as the energy policy-making body of the government, explores every viable energy
option to ensure a continuous, adequate and economic supply of energy by keeping all options
open in terms of potential energy sources that could provide sustainability and greater
efficiency, and that includes the possibility of nuclear energy as a long-term option for power
generation. Likewise, the rising cost of electricity, the threat of a power crisis due to unabated
increase in electricity demand and the need to achieve energy security, have prompted the DOE
to explore other viable sources of energy for power generation. With this, the DOE still maintain
its active participation in nuclear power related activities of local and international organization
such as the Inter-Agency Core Group for Nuclear Power Program and International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA), despite the recent events14 that had placed nuclear safety in question.
The DOE Task Force on Nuclear Power Program (DOE-TFPP) and the Inter-Agency Core
Group on Nuclear Energy which was participated by the DOE and other concerned government
agencies has been established to craft the needed policies and interventions towards nuclear
energy. It had also conducted a perception survey on the sidelines of the 2009 Philippine
Energy Plan (PEP) IEC campaign that aims to gauge the public’s appreciation, as well
apprehensions, towards nuclear energy. The result of the sample survey indicates that there is
a largely positive consensus with regards to the use of nuclear energy in the Philippines among
the IEC participants, specifically, nuclear for power generation is being favored due to present
energy crisis as well as escalating electricity prices.
However, on a large-scale coverage, like that of the 2011 HECS, results show that regardless of
whether a household is aware or unaware of nuclear energy, one in every three households
(33.1 percent) expressed their willingness to support nuclear energy as a viable and long-term
option for electricity generation (Figure 6.2). Almost half of the total households (47%) remain
undecided about harnessing nuclear energy, while 20.4 percent are reluctant to back the use of
this energy source for power generation. There are more agreeable households (48%) in
Region X (Northern Mindanao) than any other regions, while there were more unenthusiastic
14
Of particular mention is the Fukushima Nuclear Incident in Japan last March 2011

households (65 percent) in ARMM. On the other hand, bulk of the households (79 percent) that
belong to the highest income group (100,000 pesos and over) were cognizant about nuclear
energy and its uses. However, the proportion of households with knowledge about this particular
energy source drops to 22.3 percent at the lowest income group that earns an average of than
10,000 pesos per month (Table 5.4). National Capital Region (NCR) was the only region where
at least half of the total household population was aware of nuclear energy, while rest of the
regions registered lower proportions. The results imply that income has a positive effect on a
household’s awareness of nuclear energy – since households with higher income tend to have
more access to various sources of information about nuclear energy, particularly those than be
obtained thru the internet/online.
However, there is a need to further improve the

public’s perception about the application of
Figure 6.2 Percentage of Households by Willingness to
Support Nuclear Energy, by Region: 2011
100.0%
nuclear energy, with special focus on safety
requirements and guidelines and
80.0% management of nuclear power plants. It is
60.0% also necessary to broaden the public’s
Unwilling
Undecided acceptance by highlighting the benefits of
40.0% Willing nuclear power plants. Raising widespread
20.0% awareness on the benefits of nuclear energy
can be done through mass and community
0.0%
media, interpersonal channels and information
I
II
III
IX
X
CARAGA
NCR
CAR
IVA
IVB
VI
VII
VIII
XI
XII
ARMM
communication technologies (ICTs).

Notes: Regardless of level of awareness Networking and inter-agency collaboration
among private and government stakeholders is
also necessary. Possible integration of nuclear-related disciplines into the country’s academic
curriculum bodes well for the development of human resources. Advocacy with local
government units (LGUs), legislators and other local and national officials is a requirement to
build up a strong support based for the implementation of nuclear programs. Lastly, the next
round of HECS can be used to gauge whether these approaches have contributed to an
improved awareness and appreciation for nuclear energy at the household-level.

APPENDIX A
2003 NEW MASTER SAMPLE SURVEY DESIGN
1. Sampling Design
The Labor Force Survey, as well as other household-based surveys being conducted
by the National Statistics Office, used the sampling design of the 2003 Master
Sample (MS) starting in July 2003.
1.1 Domain
The 2003 MS considers the country’s 17 administrative regions as defined in

Executive Orders (EO) 36 and 131 as the sampling domains. A domain is
referred to as a subdivision of the country for which estimates with adequate
level of precision are generated. It must be noted that while there is demand
for data at the provincial level (and to some extent municipal and barangay
levels); the provinces were not treated as sampling domains because there
are more than 80 provinces which would entail a large resource requirement.
The following are the 17 administrative regions of the country:
National Capital Region (NCR)

Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR)
I – Ilocos Region
II – Cagayan Valley
III – Central Luzon
IVA – CALABARZON
IVB – MIMAROPA
V – Bicol Region
VI – Western Visayas
VII – Central Visayas
VIII – Eastern Visayas
IX – Zamboanga Peninsula
X – Northern Mindanao
XI – Davao Region
XII – SOCCSKSARGEN
Caraga
Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM)

1.2 Sampling Frame
As in most household surveys, the 2003 MS made use of an area sample design.
For this purpose, the Enumeration Area Reference File (EARF) of the 2000 Census
of Population and Housing (CPH) was utilized as sampling frame. The EARF
contains the number of households by enumeration area (EA) in each barangay.
This frame was used to form the primary sampling units (PSUs). With consideration
of the period for which the 2003 MS will be in use, the PSUs were formed or defined
as a barangay or a combination of barangays with at least 500 households.
1.3 Stratification
The 2003 MS considers the 17 regions of the country as the primary strata. Within
each region, further stratification was performed using geographic groupings such as
provinces, highly urbanized cities (HUCs), and independent component cities (ICCs).
Within each of these substrata formed within regions, the PSUs were further
stratified, to the extent possible, using the proportion of strong houses (PSTRONG),
indicator of engagement in agriculture of the area (AGRI), and a measure of per
capita income (PERCAPITA) as stratification factors.
PSTRONG is defined to be the percentage of occupied housing units that are

classified as made of strong materials for both the roof and outer walls, based on the
data from the 2000 CPH. A roof is considered made of strong material if it is made of
either galvanized iron, aluminum, concrete/clay tile, half galvanized-half concrete, or
asbestos. The outer wall is considered made of strong materials if it is made of
concrete, brick, stone, wood, half concrete-half wood, galvanized iron, asbestos or
glass.
AGRI was determined in the following way: initially, an indicator variable was
computed at the barangay level. That variable has the value one if more than 50
percent of the households in the barangay were engaged in agriculture or fisheries
and zero otherwise, based on the 2000 CPH Barangay Schedule. To obtain a
measure at the PSU level, a weighted average of the barangay indicator variable
was computed for all the barangays within the PSU, weighted by the total number of
households in the barangay. Thus, the value of AGRI at the PSU level lies between
zero and one.
PERCAPITA is defined as the total income of the municipality divided by the total
population in that municipality. Note that the PERCAPITA values of the PSUs are the
same for all PSUs belonging to the same municipality. The data on municipal income
refer to year 2000 and were taken from the Department of Finance. However, if the
2000 municipal income was not reported to the Bureau of Local Government
Finance (BLGF), 2001 income was used. If no 2000 or 2001 municipal income was
reported, the income classification from the BLGF for this municipality was obtained.
Using the data on municipal income, which are presented in income intervals, the

average of the lower and the upper values of the income interval for the municipal
class to which this municipality belongs was determined.
1.4 Sample Selection
The 2003 MS consists of a sample of 2,835 PSUs. The entire MS was divided into
four sub-samples or independent replicates, such as a quarter sample contains one
fourth of the total PSUs; a half sample contains one-half of the four sub-samples or
equivalent to all PSUs in two replicates.
The final number of sample PSUs for each domain was determined by first
classifying PSUs as either self-representing (SR) or non-self-representing (NSR). In
addition, to facilitate the selection of sub-samples, the total number of NSR PSUs in
each region was adjusted to make it a multiple of four.
SR PSU refers to a very large PSU in the region/domain with a selection probability
of approximately one or higher and is outright included in the MS; it is properly
treated as a stratum; also known as certainty PSU. NSR PSU refers to a regular too
small sized PSU in a region or domain; also known as non-certainty PSU. The 2003
MS consists of 330 certainty PSUs and 2,505 non-certainty PSUs.
To have some control over the sub-sample size, the PSUs were selected with
probability proportional to some estimated measure of size. The size measure
refers to the total number of households from the 2000 CPH. Because of the wide
variation in PSU sizes, PSUs with selection probabilities greater than one were
identified and were included in the sample as certainty selections.
At the second stage, enumeration areas (EAs) were selected within sampled PSUs,
and at the third stage, housing units were selected within sampled EAs. Generally,
all households in sampled housing units were enumerated, except for few cases
when the number of households in a housing unit exceeds three. In which case, a
sample of three households in a sampled housing unit was selected at random with
equal probability.
An EA is defined as an area with discernible boundaries within barangays consisting

of about 150 contiguous households. These EAs were identified during the 2000
CPH. A housing unit, on the other hand, is a structurally separate and independent
place of abode which, by the way it has been constructed, converted, or arranged, is
intended for habitation by a household.
1.5 Sample Size
The 2003 MS consists of a sample of 2,835 PSUs of which 330 were certainty PSUs
and 2,505 were non-certainty PSUs. The entire MS was divided into four sub-samples

or independent replicates, such as a quarter sample contains one fourth of the PSUs
found in one replicate, a half sample contains one-half of the PSUs in two replicates.
2. Estimation Procedures
In the 2003 Master Sample Design, the probability that a household is included in the
sample varies across domains or regions. However, the sampling design is epsem
within domain (i.e. equal selection probabilities within region). The initial step in the
construction of weights is to determine the unit’s base weight. This is defined as the
inverse of its selection probabilities. The base weight is further adjusted to take into
account possible non-response and possibly to make the estimates conform to some
known population totals.
A. Base Weights
In general, the base weight assigned to a sampled unit is the inverse of its selection
probability. In particular, the base weight is computed as the inverse of equations 1
Non Self-Representing (NSR) and 2 Self-Representing (SR) below:
ahMhα Mhα Chα

P(hα ) = . . .khα = fd =
nd
(1)
∑α Mhα Mhα Mhα Khα Nd
bhαMhα Chα
P(hα ) = . . khα = fd =
nd
(2)
Mhα Mhα Khα Nd
Where:
h stratum index
 index denoting the PSU
 index denoting the EA
 index denoting the household (HH)
d index denoting the domain/region
nd total sample size allocated to region d
Nd total number of households in region d
f d  nd / Nd overall sampling fraction for region d
M h total number of HHs for the th PSU in stratum h
M h total number of HHs in the th EA from the th PSU in
stratum h
ah total number of sample PSUs from stratum h
total number of sample housing units for each sampled
Ch EA

kh number of sampled households per housing unit with
three as the maximum
K h total number of households residing in a housing unit
bha total number of EAs selected from th PSU
That is, the base weight for NSR and SR samples are equal to equations
(3) and (4), respectively:
w1 = ∑α Mhα . Mhα . Mhα .Khα =

Nd
(3)
ahMhα Mhα Chα khα nd
Mhα
w1 = . Mhα . Khα =
Nd
(4)
bhαMhα Chα khα nd
Note that the last term will equal to 1.0 in cases when all households in the sampled
housing unit are enumerated. That is, when households per housing unit do not
exceed three.
B. Non-response Adjustments
All surveys experience some degree of unit or total non-response in which a sampled
and eligible unit fails to participate in the survey (for example, the unit may refuse to
participate, or may never be at home at the times the interviewer calls). Adjustments
are made to the base weights to compensate for non-response by sampled units
eligible for the survey. In essence the adjustment inflates the base weights of “similar”
responding units to compensate for each non-respondent unit.
The most common form of non-response weighting adjustment is a weighting class

adjustment and that is the type of adjustment being used for surveys based on the
2003 MS. The full sample of responding households and non-responding households
is divided into a number of weighting classes or cells and non-response adjustment
factors are computed for each cell c as
w  w
irc
di
jmc
dj w di (5)
'
w  isc
w w
c
di di
irc irc
'
The denominator of wc is the sum of the weights of responding households (indexed
r) in cell c. The numerator adds together the sum of the weights for responding
households and the sum of the weights for eligible non-responding households
(indexed m for missing) in cell c. Together these two sums in the numerator give the
sum of the weights for the total eligible sample (indexed s) in cell c. Thus, the non-
response weight adjustment is the inverse of the weighted response rate in cell c.
Note that the adjustment is applied with eligible units. Ineligible sampled units (e.g.,

vacant or demolished housing units and units that are out of scope for a given survey)
are excluded.
C. Population Weighting Adjustments
Generally, weighted sample distributions do not conform to known population

distributions (e.g. projected population counts). In particular, sample estimates of
population counts generally fall short of true population counts because of non-
coverage. Further weighting adjustments—termed as population weighting
adjustments—may be made to compensate for non-coverage and to make the survey
estimates based on the adjusted weights estimates consistent with known population
distributions. These weighting adjustments may be made within weighting cells like
the non-response cells described above. In this case, the adjustments are often
termed post stratification adjustments.
For adjusting household level estimates, the reference count of households is

obtained by dividing the total projected population by the average household size.
This is resorted to in the absence of projected number of households.
D. Final Survey Weight
The final survey weight assigned to each responding unit is computed as the product
of the base weight, the non-response adjustment and the population weighting
adjustment, as described above. The final weights should be used in all analyses to
produce valid estimates of population parameters.
For 2011 HECS, the final survey weight is the product of the base weight and the
non-response adjustment multiplied by two since the survey used only half of the MS.
2. Variance Estimation
The calculation of standard errors should take into account the complexity of the
design such as stratification and the unequal selection probabilities. Also, since
sampling was done without replacement within strata, finite population correction (fpc)
factors are appropriate. However, since the sampling fractions in most strata are
small, the fpc terms can be ignored. While there are several ways or procedures of
computing standard errors, one should choose a procedure that in some ways are
considered practical to use given the resources available at NSO.
Consider first estimating the population total for a stratum. Let wh be the final
weight assigned to household  belonging to stratum h and yh is the value

of the variable y for the same household. The sample estimate for stratum h is given
as Yˆh  
   
w  y  . An estimate of its variance is given as
h h
Yˆh 
2
a 1 
 
s 2 Yˆh  h
ah
  h a 
y 
(6)
 h 
where yh   wh yh is the weighted total for psu  in stratum h and ah
  
is the number of sampled PSUs in the stratum. Note that equation (10) involves
computing the totals for each sampled PSU in the stratum and computing the
variances between PSU totals. The estimate of the total for domain d is given as
Yˆd   hd Yˆh . That is, we simply take the sum of the estimates of the strata totals that
fall within the domain d. Since sampling is done independently across strata within
a domain, then the variance of Yˆd can be estimated as s (Yˆd ) 
2
 hd
s 2 (Yˆh ) . This
method of estimating variances has wide applicability and offers flexibility in
computing variances for subclass totals. However, it must be pointed out that all
PSUs must be included in the computation of the variances even if they do not
contribute to the population total (i.e. yh  0 ).
Suppose one would like to estimate the ratio of population totals for the variables y
and x for domain d. Then the estimated ratio is Rˆd  Yˆd / Xˆ d . This form of ratio
estimate is often times referred to as the combined ratio estimator. In this instance,
the Taylor series expansion method (Linearization technique) may be applied in the
estimation of the variance of Rˆ d defined as
  1
    
s 2 Rˆd  2 [s 2 Yˆd  Rˆd2 s 2 Xˆ d  2Rˆ s s 2 Yˆd , Xˆ d ]
Xˆ d
 (7)
where s 2 (Yˆd ) and s 2 ( Xˆ d ) are estimated using the procedure earlier described
and
s(Yˆd , Xˆ d )   hd s(Yˆh , Xˆ h ) (8)
ah  1  Yˆh  Xˆ h 
ˆ ˆ
s Yh , X h 
ah
   yh  a  xh  a  (9)
 h  h 
It must be noted however that equation (11) is a valid approximation if the

quantities, xh in the denominator (which often corresponds to sample sizes per
stratum) are reasonably uniform in size within strata.

The variance estimation procedures described can easily be implemented using a
software package for variance estimation provided that the strata and PSUs are
correctly specified and identified in the data file.

APPENDICES
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX TABLE
APPENDIX TABLE 1 Households Using Electricity and Average Consumption of Electricity
During the Six Months Prior to Survey by End-Use and Type of Appliance Used,
Philippines: 2011
Average Consumption
Percentage to
End-Use/Type of Appliance Used Per Household
Total
(In KwH)
Households Using Electricity (In thousands) 18,282 649
Lighting 18,271 60
Compact Flourescent Lamps 88.7 37
Linear Flourescent Lamps 47.3 40
Incandescent Lamps 13.6 42
Circular Flourescent Lamps 5.3 38
LED Lights 0.9 14
Others 1.1 20
Cooking or Food Preparation 3,884 108

Rice Cooker 85.7 95
Microwave Oven 11.4 48
Oven Toaster 10.0 22
Blender 8.4 5
Bread Toaster 4.5 38
Electric Stove 3.9 291
Turbo Broiler 2.7 16
Coffee Maker 1.7 43
Electric Oven 0.6 174
Mixer 0.6 14
Others 2.3 141
Water Heating 833 484

Electric Thermos or Airpot 35.0 325
Water Heater 25.2 269
Portable Heater 16.8 304
Others 27.8 904
Recreation 16,226 129

Colored TV 93.2 103
VHS, Laser Disc, DVD or VCD 27.9 3
Stereo 22.5 75
Radio 12.6 35
Casette 8.4 25
Karaoke or Musicmate 5.7 114
B/W TV 0.9 32
Video Games 0.3 13
Others 1.6 56
Refrigeration 7,614 390

Refrigerator (Ordinary) 85.8 348
Refrigerator (Frost-free) 13.5 643
Freezer 2.2 220
Others 0.2 111
Space Cooling or Air Conditioning 13,319 277
Electric Fan 99.5 153
Airconditioner 12.9 965
Exhaust Fan 1.1 72
Ironing 8,894 37
Flat Iron 100.0 37
Laundry 5,615 36
Washing Machine 100.0 36
Water Pumping 638 623

Water Pump 100.0 623
Computer Activity 2,867 84
Computer 99.1 82
Computer Printer 12.7 19
Other Appliances 11,715 2

Electric Sewing Machine 0.6 14
Shaver 0.2 1
Hair Dryer 0.8 15
Rechargeable Lamp 2.9 2
Others 98.8 2
Notes : A household may report more than one type of end-use and electric appliance.
Number of households are in thousands.

APPENDIX TABLE 5 Average Consumption of Petroleum Products
During the Six Months Prior to the Survey by Type of Fuel
and End Use, Philippines: 2011
Average Consumption
Type of Fuel/End Use Per Household
(Volume)
LPG (In kilogram) 45

Cooking/Heating water for bathing 45
Transportation 15
Kerosene (In liter) 15
Gasoline (In liter) 331

Transportation 333
Power generation and other uses 52
Diesel (In liter) 725

Transportation 851
Power generation and other uses 78
Note : A household may report more than one type of fuel used.

APPENDIX TABLE 7 Households Using Renewable Energy Sources by Average
Monthly Income, Type of Fuel and End-Use, Philippines: 2011
All Average Monthly Income (In Pesos)

Type of Fuel/End-Use Income Less than 100,00 to 30,000 to 60,000
Class 10,000 29,999 59,999 and over
Households Using Renewable Energy 16,846 11,724 4,074 855 193

(In thousands)
Fuelwood (In thousands) 11,356 8,697 2,216 383 60

Cooking/Food Preparation/Heating water for bathing 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Other Uses 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.7
Charcoal (In thousands) 7,631 4,312 2,546 614 159

Ironing 8.5 10.2 6.7 5.2 5.8
Other Uses 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.3
Biomass Residues (In thousands) 4,682 3,853 728 94 7

Ironing 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.8 *
Other Uses 13.8 14.6 10.5 6.2 27.9
Notes : A household may report more than one type of fuel and end-use.
* - Less than 0.1 percent

APPENDIX TABLE 8 Households Using Renewable Energy Sources by Type of Fuel,
Mode of Acquisition and Average Monthly Income, Philippines: 2011

All Income
Type of Fuel/ Mode of Acqusition Less than 10,000 to 30,000 to 60,000
Class
10,000 29,999 59,999 and over
Households Using Renewable Energy Source 16,846 8,697 2,216 383 60

(In thousands)
Fuelwood (In thousands) 11,356 8,697 2,216 383 60

In Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Purchased 15.3 12.8 22.4 30.0 31.9
Self-collected/gathered 79.3 82.0 71.2 66.3 60.7
Both purchased and self-collected/gathered 3.7 3.7 4.2 1.9 3.9
Others 1.7 1.5 2.3 1.8 3.4
Charcoal (In thousands) 7,631 4,312 2,546 614 159

In Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Purchased 92.2 89.9 94.9 95.4 97.7
Both purchased and self-collected/gathered 0.5 0.7 0.3 - -
Others 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.7 -
Biomass Residues (In thousands) 4,682 3,853 728 94 7

In Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Purchased 8.8 7.1 16.2 25.4 12.2
Both purchased and self-collected/gathered 0.8 0.9 0.4 - -
Others 2.7 2.5 3.8 4.6 -
Note : A household may report usage of more than one type of fuel and end-use.

APPENDIX TABLE 10 Households Practices to Reduce Fuel Consumption, Philippines: 2011
Practices to Reduce Fuel Consumption Percent
Total number of households who used any fuel (In thousands) 20,969
Total number of households who undertook measures to reduce fuel consumption (In thousands) 18,548
In Percent 100.0
Lighting
Switched off lights when not needed 90.9
Used natural lighting when necessary 85.4
Switched to more energy efficient lighting 75.3
Kept lamps and lighting fixtures clean 66.6
Other lighting household practices 0.4
Cooking
Made use of more efficient stove or appliances 16.4
Used heat-retaining cooking pots and pans 14.5
Matched the size of the pan or pot with the heating element 16.7
Kept range top burners and heat reflectors clean 16.3
Covered pots and pans when cooking 20.6
Reduced heat when the water/food had boiled 19.9
Prepared food before turning on the stove 19.5
Thawed frozen food thoroughly before cooking 17.0
Re-heated cooked foods only when necessary 18.7
Other cooking household practices 0.3
Refrigeration
Opened refrigerator/freezer doors only when necessary and avoided prolonged opening 38.3
Placed unit in cool well-ventilated area 36.6
Cooled hot foods to room temperature before storing them in the refrigerator/freezer 36.5
Covered liquids and wiped all moisture from containers before placing them in the refrigerator 33.8
Cleaned condenser coils at least twice a year 25.8
Defrost when needed 36.9
Placed foods in the refrigerator/freezer only when necessary 37.4
Other refrigeration household practices 0.7
Ironing Clothes
Avoided ironing just one piece of clothing 40.2
Ironed heavier materials first and reduced heat to press lighter materials 35.5
Used "wash and wear" clothes 40.7
Other ironing clothes household practices 1.1
Space Cooling
Locked the oscillator when the electric fan was needed in one direction only 53.5
Set fan to "low" when it was comfortable enough 63.6
Turned off fan when not in use 67.2
Set the thermostat to normal or medium setting 8.6
Cleaned equipment regularly 8.0
Kept doors and windows closed when the air conditioner was operating 8.8
Other space cooling household practices 1.1
Machine Washing of Clothes

Washed clothes until you had one full load instead of several small loads 27.6
Followed washing instructions of the machine or garment 26.9
Avoid using spin dryer 18.2
Soaked garments in detergents before loading in the washing machine 23.3
Other machine washing of clothes household practices 0.3
Note: A household may report more than one measure to reduce fuel consumption.

HECS FORM 1 CONFIDENTIALITY
NSCB Approval No.: NSO-1114-01 This survey is authorized by Commonwealth Act 591.
Expires: December 31, 2012 All information obtained will be strictly held confidential.
Republic of the Philippines
NATIONAL STATISTICS OFFICE and DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
2011 HOUSEHOLD ENERGY CONSUMPTION SURVEY

Booklet ___ of ____ booklets
PART I - A. GEOGRAPHIC IDENTIFICATION AND OTHER INFORMATION
GEOGRAPHIC IDENTIFICATION CODES INTERVIEW RECORD

Province _______________________________ Visit Indicator 1 2 3
Mun/City _______________________________
Date of Visit
Barangay _______________________________
Time Began
EA ………………………………………………..….. Time Ended
SHSN ………………………………………………... Result Code*
HCN …………………………………………………..
FINAL RESULT CODE* …………………………
Number of Households in the Housing Unit …………
*RESULT CODES
01 - Completed Interview
Name of Respondent 02 - Refusal
_________________________________________ 03 - No household member at home or
No competent respondent at home at time of visit
Sex ………………….. 1 Male 2 Female 04 - Entire household absent for extended period of time
05 - Vacant housing unit
Relationship to the Household Head
06 - Housing unit destroyed
_________________________________________
07 - Address not a housing unit
Address 08 - Housing unit not found
09 - Critical or flooded area
____________________________________________________ 10 - Others (specify) _________________
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the data gathered in this questionnaire were obtained/reviewed by the undersigned personally and
in accordance with instructions.
______________________________ ______________ ________________________________ ____________
Signature over Printed Name of Date Signature over Printed Name of Date Reviewed
Enumerator Accomplished Supervisor
Enumerator’s Code……. Supervisor’s Code…..
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HOUSEHOLD HEAD
a. Name of Household head f. Have a job/business?

_________________________________________
1 YES 2 NO, GO TO C (TOTAL NUMBER
b. Sex ………… 1 Male 2 Female OF HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS)
c. Age ………………………………………………. g. Occupation

______________________________
d. Marital Status
____________________________________ h. Kind of Business/Industry
______________________________
e. Highest Grade Completed
i. Class of Worker
____________________________________
_______________________________
C. TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS ….. Male … Female …

PART II - CHECKLIST FOR ENERGY SOURCES
During the period March to August 2011, did your household use any of the following energy sources?
1. ELECTRICITY (including electricity from generators and storage batteries)
a. Electric Distribution Utilities/Cooperatives 1 - YES 2 - NO

b. Generators 1 - YES 2 - NO
c. Storage batteries (Ex. Solar PV) 1 - YES 2 - NO
2. PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
a. LPG 1 - YES 2 - NO
b. Gasoline 1 - YES 2 - NO
c. Diesel 1 - YES 2 - NO
d. Kerosene 1 - YES 2 - NO
3. RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES
a. Fuelwood/Firewood 1 - YES 2 - NO
b. Charcoal 1 - YES 2 - NO
c. Biomass residue 1 - YES 2 - NO
d. Biogas 1 - YES 2 - NO
PART III - DETAILS OF ENERGY SOURCES

A
A. ELECTRICITY
A1. ELECTRICITY
A1.1 During the period March to August 2011, did your household use electricity
including electricity from generators and storage batteries?
1 - YES 2 - NO, Go to B (Petroleum Products)
A1.2 Did your household use the following sources of electricity such as . . . ?
a. Utilities 1 - YES 2 - NO a.
b. Electric Cooperatives 1 - YES 2 - NO b.
c. Neighboring household 1 - YES 2 - NO c.
d. Industry/business 1 - YES 2 - NO d.
e. Community-based Generators 1 - YES 2 - NO g.
f. Generator (Owned) 1 - YES 2 - NO e.
g. Storage Batteries (specify) __________________ 1 - YES 2 - NO f.
IF ANY OF A1.2 (a), (b), (c), (d) AND (e) IS YES (CODE 1), GO TO A1.3
FILTER CHECK: IF A1.2 (f) IS YES (CODE 1), GO TO A2 (Generator)
IF A1.2 (g) is YES (CODE 1), GO TO A3 (Storage Battery)
A1.3 Did your household encounter any of the following electricity supply problems?
(This refers to electricity sourced from any of A1.2 (a) to (d))
a. Brown-outs 1 - YES 2 - NO a.
b. High rates/cost of electricity 1 - YES 2 - NO b.
c.
c Low voltage 1 - YES 2 - NO c.
c
d. Fluctuating voltage 1 - YES 2 - NO d.
e. Others (specify) ________________________ 1 - YES 2 - NO e.
A1.4 What was your average monthly electricity consumption?
KILOWATT HOUR (KWH)
A1.5 How much was your average monthly electric bill?
PESOS
- page 2-
A2. GENERATORS
IF A1.2 (f) IS YES (CODE 1), GO TO A2.1

FILTER CHECK FOR GENERATORS:
IF NO (CODE 2), GO TO A3 (Storage Battery)
A2.1 What is the capacity rating of your generator?
a. KILOVOLTS-AMPERES (KVA) a. .
OR
b. KILOWATTS (KW) b. b. .
A2.2 On the average, how long was it used in a day?
HOURS MINUTES
A2.3 On the average, how often was the generator used?
__________ DAY / S IN A __________
A3. STORAGE BATTERY
IF A1.2 (g) IS YES (CODE 1), GO TO A3.1

FILTER CHECK FOR STORAGE BATTERY: IF NO (CODE 2), GO TO A4.1
A3.1 Where do you usually charge your storage battery?
1 - Solar PV charging station

2 - Micro/mini hydro charging station
3 - Wind power charging station
4 - Electricty from the grid
A3.2 On the average, how long did you use the storage battery before it needed to be
recharged? (SPECIFIED IN A3.1)
HOURS MINUTES
A3.3 What is the average charging cost of your storage battery? (SPECIFIED IN A3.1)
PESOS
A4. HOUSEHOLD ELECTRICITY USAGE
A4.1 Did your household use electricity for the following?
a. Lighting 1 - YES 2 - NO
a.
b. Heating water (e.g. for bathing, etc.) 1 - YES 2 - NO
b.
c. Cooking/food preparation 1 - YES 2 - NO
c.
d. Ironing 1 - YES 2 - NO
d.
e. Radio/cassette/stereo listening 1 - YES 2 - NO
e.
f. TV/VCR viewing/recording 1 - YES 2 - NO
f.
g. Refrigeration
R fi ti 1 - YES 2 - NO
g.
h. Airconditioning 1 - YES 2 - NO
h.
i. Electric Fan/Ventilation 1 - YES 2 - NO
i.
j. Water pumping 1 - YES 2 - NO
j.
k. Laundry (includes drying) 1 - YES 2 - NO
k.
l. Computer Activity (includes printing) 1 - YES 2 - NO
l.
m. Others (specify) ______________ 1 - YES 2 - NO
m..
(electric shaver, cellphone charging,
- page 3-
(TO BE FILLED-UP FOR HOUSEHOLDS USING ELECTRICITY FOR LIGHTING)
FILTER CHECKS: IF A4.1 (a) IS YES (CODE 1), ASK A4.2
IF NO (CODE 2), GO TO A4.3
L A4.2 ELECTRICITY USED FOR LIGHTING

I HOUSEHOLD USE ONLY
What How many
N What type of bulb/lamp
was the bulb/lamp How often was the bulb/lamp
E did your household use What was What time of the day was the
wattage did your used for household
for lighting? the average bulb/lamp used?
of the household consumption?
N number of
bulb / use?
O. hours per day
lamp?
(days per week or days per the bulb/lamp
A.M. (range) P.M. (range)
month) was used?
code (watts) Code (hours per day) Code Code

(01) (02) (03) (04) (05) (06) (07) (08) (09) (10) (11) (12)
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Codes for column 02 - Type of Lamp

1 - Incandescent lamp
2 - Linear fluorescent lamp
3 - Circular fluorescent lamp
4 - Compact fluorescent lamp
5 - Led lights
9 - Others, specify
- page 4-
REMARKS:
L
I USAGE FOR HOUSEHOLD OPERATED ACTIVITIES
N
E How often was the bulb/lamp What was the What time of the day was the
used for household-operated average bulb/lamp used?
N activities? number of
O. hours per day
the bulb/lamp
A.M. (range) P.M. (range)
(days per week or days per month) was used?
Code (hours per day) Code Code

(13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20)
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
REMARKS:
- page 5-
(TO BE FILLED-UP FOR HOUSEHOLDS USING ELECTRICITY FOR APPLIANCES/EQUIPMENT)
FILTER CHECK: IF ANY OF A4.1 (b to m) IS YES (CODE 1), GO TO A4.3, IF ALL IS NO (CODE 2), GO TO B (Petroleum Pr
L A4.3 ELECTRICITY FOR APPLIANCES/EQUIPMENT

I
What was the brand What was the unit What was How many How many
N What kind of electrical
name of the electrical capacity/description the wattage electrical years
E appliances/equipment
appliances/equipment? of the electrical of the appliances/ was the
did your household use?
appliances/equipment? electrical equipment appliances/
N (TO BE ASKED FOR
appliances/ did your equipment
REFRIGERATOR, FREEZER,
O. equipment? household used by the
AIRCON AND ELECTRIC FAN
ONLY) use? household?
Code Code
(01) (02) (03) (04) (05) (06) (07) (08) (09)
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
Codes for Column 2 - Kind of Electric Appliances
Cooking/Food Preparation Recreation Other Appliances/Equipment

00 Electric stove (burner) 30 Radio 60 Electric flat iron
01 Electric oven (cu.ft.) 31 Tape recorder (casette) 61 Washing machine(kg/load) -manual
02 Rice cooker (liter) 32 Stereo (component/mini-component/CD) 62 Washing machine(kg/load)-automatic
03 Turbo broiler 33 B/W TV (inches) 63 Water pump(gal./min HP)
04 Bread toaster (2way/4-way) 34 Color TV (inches) - LCD screen 64 Electric sewing machine
05 Oven toaster 35 Color TV (inches) - LED screen 65 Shaver
06 Microwave oven 36 Color TV (inches) - Plasma screen 66 Hair dryer
07 Blender (liter) 37 Color TV (inches) - CRT screen 67 Personal Computer-CRT monitor
08 Mixer 38 VHS/Betamax/laser disc (video 68 Personal Computer-LCD monitor
09 Coffeemaker casette recorder/player&rewinder) 69 Computer Printer
10 Others (specify) _________ 39 Karaoke/Videoke 70 Rechargeable lamp
40 Video games 71 Dishwasher
Water Heating 49 Others (specify) _________ 79 Others (specify) _________
11 Portable Heater
12 Electric thermos/Airpot (liter)
13 Water heater (liter)
19 Others (specify) _________
Space Cooling/Airconditioning
Refrigeration 50 Airconditioner (kJ/hr or HP) 52 Airconditioner (kJ/hr or HP)
21 Refrigerator, ordinary (cu.ft/li) - window type -split type (inverter)
22 Refrigerator, frost-free (cu.ft/li) 51 Airconditioner (kJ/hr or HP) 53 Electric Fan (inches)
23 Freezer (cu.ft) -split type (non-inverter) 54 Exhaust Fan
29 Others (specify) _________ 59 Others (specify) _________
- page 6 -
L
I HOUSEHOLD USE ONLY USAGE FOR HOUSEHOLD-OPERATED ACTIVITIES
N How often was the What was What time of the day How often was the What was What time of the day
E electrical the average was the electrical electrical the average was the electrical
appliances/equipment number of appliances/equipment used? appliances/equipment number of appliances/equipment used?
N used for household hours per used for household- hours per
O. consumption only? day the operated activities? day the
A.M. (range) P.M. (range) A.M. (range) P.M. (range)
appliances/ appliances/
(days per week or days per month) equipment (days per week or days per month) equipment
was used? was used?
Code (hours per day) Code Code Code (hours per day) Code Code
(10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24)
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
Codes for Column 4 - Brand Name/Code
For Aircon For Refrigerator For Electric Fan

11 Carrier 21 Panasonic/National 31 Hanabishi
12 Panasonic/National 22 Condura 32 Panasonic/National
13 Condura 23 Sanyo 33 Nikon
14 Kelvinator 24 General Electric 34 Standard
15 LG 25 Kelvinator 35 3D
16 Samsung 26 Samsung 39 Others (specify) ______
17 Hitachi 27 LG
19 Others (specify) ______ 29 Others (specify) ______
REMARKS:
- page 7-
B. PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
B1 LPG USAGE
B1.1 During the period March to August 2011, did your household use LPG? (This
excludes use for transport)
1 - YES 2 - NO, Go to B2 (Gasoline usage)
B1.2 Did your household use LPG for the following?
a. Cooking 1 - YES 2 - NO a. a.
b. Heating water (e.g for bathing, etc) 1 - YES 2 - NO b. b.
c. Lighting 1 - YES 2 - NO c. c.
B1.3 What is the size of the LPG cylinder you use?

a. 2.7 kg 1 - YES 2 - NO a.
b. 5.5 kg 1 - YES 2 - NO b.
c. 7.0 kg 1 - YES 2 - NO c.
d. 11 kg 1 - YES 2 - NO d.
e. Others, specify _________ 1 - YES 2 - NO e.
B1.4 Do you have spare (filled or empty) cylinder/s?
1 - YES 2 - NO, Go to B1.6
B1.5 How many spare (filled/empty) cylinders do you have?
a. 2.7 kg a.
b. 5.5 kg b.
c. 7.0 kg c
d. 11 kg d.
e. Others, specify _________ e.
B1.6 Where did you usually buy your filled LPG cylinder?
1 - Exclusive LPG dealer

2 - Retail outlet (Sari-sari store/General merchandise)
3 - Gasoline station
4 - Others, specify __________
B1.7 How do you usually buy your LPG?

1 - Picked up from Store/Dealer/Gasoline station
2 - Delivered
B1.8 How far is your house from your usual LPG source?
1 - Less than 250 METERS

2 - 250 METERS to 1 KM
3 - More than 1 KM to 5 KMS.
4 - More than 5 KMS.
B1.9 On the average,

g how often did your
y household buy
y LPG?
______________ TIMES IN A ______________________
B1.10 Based on the last purchase, how much did you pay for your filled LPG
Cylinder?
Size 11
PESOS
B1.11 Did you use your LPG for household-operated activity?

(e.g., carinderia)
1 - YES 2 - NO
- page 8-
B1.12 Did your household encounter any of the following LPG supply
problems?
a. Unavailability 1 - YES 2 - NO a.
b. Inaccessibility 1 - YES 2 - NO b.
c. High cost 1 - YES 2 - NO c.
d. Underfilled 1 - YES 2 - NO d.
e. Others (specify) _______________ 1 - YES 2 - NO e.
B1.13 Please rank the following considerations in buying LPG according to

importance (ASSIGN RANK 1 TO THE MOST IMPORTANT AND SO ON) Rank
a. Good Quality Cylinder a.
b. Right Weight b.
c. Low Price c.
d. Accessibility d.
B2. GASOLINE USAGE

B2.1
1 - YES 2 - NO, Go to B3 (Diesel usage)
B2.2
B2 2 Did your household use gasoline for:
a. Power Generation 1 - YES 2 - NO a.
b. Others (specify) _______________ 1 - YES 2 - NO b.
B2.3 On the average, how often did your household buy gasoline?
______________ TIMES IN A ______________________
B2.4 How much gasoline did your household usuallly buy each time?
LOCAL UNIT ________________________ ________________________
EQUIVALENT IN LITERS __________ . __________
B2.5 How much was the average cost of gasoline per local unit?
(SPECIFIED IN B2.4)
PESOS
B3. DIESEL USAGE

B3.1 During the period March to August 2011, did your household use
diesel? (This excludes use for transport and non-energy uses)
1 - YES 2 - NO, Go to B4 (LPG, Gasoline, or Diesel Usage for
Equipment)
B3.2 Did your household use diesel for

a. Power Generation 1 - YES 2 - NO a.
b. Others (specify) _______________ 1 - YES 2 - NO b.
B3.3 On the average, how often did your household buy diesel?
______________ TIMES IN A ______________________
B3.4 How much diesel did your household usuallly buy each time?
LOCAL UNIT ________________________ ________________________
EQUIVALENT IN LITERS __________ . __________
B3.5 How much was the average cost of diesel per local unit?
(SPECIFIED IN B3.4)
PESOS
- page 9-
(TO BE FILLED-UP FOR HOUSEHOLDS USING LPG, GASOLINE OR DIESEL FOR
APPLIANCE/EQUIPMENT)
B4. LPG, GASOLINE OR DIESEL USAGE FOR APPLIANCE/EQUIPMENT
L FILTER CHECK: IF ANY OF B1.1, B2.1 AND B3.1 IS YES (CODE 1), ASK B4.1
I IF ALL OF B1.1, B2.1 AND B3.1 IS NO (CODE 2), GO TO B5 (Kerosene Usage)
N
E
B4.1 LPG, GASOLINE AND DIESEL USAGE
N How many
What was the use of the
O. What kind of appliance/equipment What was the unit capacity/description appliance/
appliance/equipment?
did your household use which of each appliances/equipment? equipment did
Was it used for cooking,
consumes LPG, gasoline or diesel? your household
lighting, power generation?
use?
What else?
Code Code
(01) (02) (03) (04) (05) (06) (07)
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Codes for Column 2 - Kind of Appliance/Equipment Codes for Column 4 - Types of Usage
1 Counter top gas stove (burner) 1 Cooking

2 Range (burner) 2 Heating Water except for cooking
3 Lamps (LPG tank size) 3 Lighting
4 Generator set, diesel (KVA/KW/HP) 4 Power Generation
5 Generator set, gasoline (KVA/KW/HP) 9 Others (specify) ______________
6 Other equipment using LPG (specify) __________________
7 Other equipment using diesel (specify) __________________
8 Other equipment using gasoline (specify) __________________
- page 10-
L
I HOUSEHOLD USE ONLY USAGE FOR HOUSEHOLD-OPERATED ACTIVITIES
N
E
What was the average What was the average
How often was the How often was the
number of hours per number of hours per
N appliance/equipment used for appliance/equipment used for
day each day each
O. household consumption only? household-operated activities only?
appliance/equipment appliance/equipment
was used? was used?
(days per week or days per month) (days per week or days per month)
(hours per day) (hours per day)
Code Code
(08) (09) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
REMARKS:
- page 11-
B5. KEROSENE USAGE
B5.1 During the period March to August 2011, did your household use kerosene for fuel?
1 - YES 2 - NO, Go to C (Transport)
B5.2 Did your household use kerosene for the following?

a. Cooking 1 - YES 2 - NO a.
b. Heating water (e.g for bathing,etc) 1 - YES 2 - NO b.
c. Lighting 1 - YES 2 - NO c.
d. Fire starting 1 - YES 2 - NO d.
e. Others (specify)___________ 1 - YES 2 - NO e.
f. Non-energy Use (specify) ________________ 1 - YES 2 - NO f.
B5.3 Where did your household usually buy kerosene?

(Encircle code and enter in the box provided)
1 - Gasoline Station
2 - Sari-sari store/General merchandise
3 - Kerosene peddler (Go to B5.5)
9 - Others (specify) ________________
B5.4 How far is your house from your usual kerosene source?
1 - Less than 250 METERS
2 - 250 METERS to 1 KM
3 - More than 1 KM to 5 KMS.
4 - More than 5 KMS.
B5.5 Did you have any problem with your kerosene supply such as
a. Unavailability? 1 - YES 2 - NO a.
b. Inaccessibility? 1 - YES 2 - NO b.
c. High cost? 1 - YES 2 - NO c.
B5.6 On the average, how often did your household buy kerosene?
______________ TIMES IN A ______________________
B5.7 How much kerosene did your household usuallly buy each time?
LOCAL UNIT ________________________
EQUIVALENT IN LITERS .
B5.8 How much was the average cost of kerosene per local unit?
(SPECIFIED IN B5.7)
PESOS
REMARKS
- page 12-
FILTER CHECK: IF B5.1 IS YES (CODE 1), GO TO B5.9, IF NO (CODE 2), GO TO C (TRANSPORT)
L B5.9 KEROSENE USAGE

I USAGE FOR HOUSEHOLD-
N What was the How HOUSEHOLD USE ONLY
use of the OPERATED ACTIVITIES
What kind of many
E appliance / How often was the What was What was
appliance/ appliance
appliance/equipment How often was the
equipment did your equipment? /equip- the average the average
used for household appliance/equipment
N household use Was it used for ment did number of number of
consumption only? used for household-
O. which consumed cooking, water your hours per hours per
operated activities only?
kerosene? heating, house- day each day each
lighting, fire hold use? appliance/ appliance/
starting? (days per week or days per month) equipment (days per week or days per month) equipment
What else? was used? was used?
Code Code Code (hours per day) Code (hours per day)
(01) (02) (03) (04) (05) (06) (07) (08) (09) (10) (11) (12)
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Codes for Column 2 - Kind of Appliance/Equipment Codes for Column 4 - Type of Usage
Cooking/Water Heating Fire starting for the 1 Cooking

Equipment following equipment: 2 Water heating (e.g for bathing,etc)
01 Gravity feed stove 21 Biomass residue stove 3 Lighting
02 Pressure stove 22 Woodstove 4 Fire Starting for equipment Codes 21-23,29
03 Wick stove 23 Charcoal stove 9 Others (specify) ______________
09 Others (specify) __________ 29 Others (specify) ______________
Lighting Appliances
11 Pressure lamp Other Equipment

12 Kingki 99 Others (specify) ______________
13 Wick lamp
19 Others (specify) ______________
- page 13 -
C. TRANSPORT
C1.1 During the period March to August 2011, did you or any member of your household use
any vehicle?
1 - YES 2 - NO, Go to D (Renewable Energy Sources)
C1.2 How many of the vehicles did you use were owned, leased/rented or company vehicles,
etc.?
a. Owned a.
b. Leased/Rented b.
c. Company vehicles c.
d. Others (specify) _______________ d.
C1.3 Where do you buy your Gasoline/Diesel?
a. Gasoline station 1 - YES 2 - NO a.
b. Ambulant peddler (e.g., mobile station, bote-bote) 1 - YES 2 - NO b.
FILTER CHECK: IF C1.1 IS YES (CODE 1), GOTO C1.4, IF NO (CODE 2), GO TO D ( RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES)
C1.4 TYPE OF VEHICLE, FUEL CONSUMPTION AND USAGE

On the average, What was the use of the
What type of fuel was How often did your how many liters vehicle? Was it used in
What type of vehicle/s did your
Vehicle used by the transport household purchase fuel? of fuel did your going to work, school,
household use?
Number vehicle? household business, market /
(times per week or purchase each shopping or
times per month) time? vacation/recreation?
Code (Enter Code) Code (Multiple Response)
(1) ('2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Code for Column 2- Type of Vehicle Codes for Column 8 - Type of Usage
1 Automobile 1 Work (if employed)
2 Utility Vehicle 2 School
3 Motorcycle/Tricycle 3 Business (if self-employed)
4 Motorboat 4 Market/Shopping
5 Yacht
Y ht 5 VVacation/Recreation
ti /R ti
9 Others, (specify) 9 Others, (specify)
Codes for Column 4 - Type of Fuel

1 Regular Gasoline (81)
2 Premium Gasoline (95)
3 Unleaded Gasoline (93)
4 Gasoline with E10
5 Diesel
6 Auto-LPG
9 Others, (specify)
- page 14 -
D. RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES AND TECHNOLOGIES
D1. FUELWOOD USAGE
D1.1 During the period March to August 2011, did your household use fuelwood/
firewood?
1 - YES 2 - NO, Go to D2 (Charcoal Usage)
D1.2 Did your household use fuelwood/firewood for the following?
c. For warming space 1 - YES 2 - NO c.
d. Others (specify) _______________ 1 - YES 2 - NO d.
D1.3 How often did your household consume fuelwood/firewood?
______________ TIMES IN A ______________________
D1.4 How much fuelwood/firewood did your household consume each time?
(SPECIFIED IN D1.3)
LOCAL UNIT __________________________
EQUIVALENT IN KG __________ . ________
D1.5 How much was the average cost of fuelwood/firewood per local unit?
(SPECIFIED IN D1.4)
PESOS
D1.6 How did you obtain the fuelwood/firewood consumed by the household?
1 Purchased (ONLY) GO TO D1.7

2 Self-Collected/Gathered (ONLY) GO TO D1.11
3 Both 1 & 2 GO TO D1.7 & D1.11
4 Others (specify) _______________________ GO TO D2 (Charcoal usage)
IF FUELWOOD WAS PURCHASED
D1.7 How often did you purchase fuelwood/firewood?
______________ TIMES IN A ______________________
D1.8 How much fuelwood did your household usually buy each time?
LOCAL UNIT __________________________
EQUIVALENT IN KG _________ . ________
D1.9 How much did you usually pay each time for ... ?
a. Fuelwood/Firewood a.
b. Labor b.
c. Transport c.
d. Others, (specify) ____________________ d.
D1.10 How did you usually buy it?
1 - Delivered at Home
2 - Picked up from Market/Store
IF FUELWOOD WAS SELF-COLLECTED/GATHERED
D1.11 How often did you collect/gather fuelwood/firewood?
______________ TIMES IN A ______________________
D1.12 How much fuelwood/firewood did the household usually collect/gather each time?
(SPECIFIED IN D1.11)
LOCAL UNIT __________________________
EQUIVALENT IN KG .
- page 15 -
D1.13 Where was the fuelwood usually gathered?
1 Own Land
2 Private Land
3 Government Land
9 Others (specify) _______________
D2. CHARCOAL USAGE
D2.1 During the period March to August 2011, did your household use charcoal?
1 - YES 2 - NO, Go to D3 (Biomass residue usage)
D2.2 Did your household use charcoal for the following? 1 - YES 2 - NO
a. Cooking a.
b. Heating water (e.g for bathing,etc) b.
c. Ironing c.
d. Others (specify) _________________
d.
D2.3 How often did your household consume charcoal?
______________ TIMES IN A ______________________
D2.4 How much charcoal did the household consume each time?
(SPECIFIED IN D2.3)
LOCAL UNIT __________________________
EQUIVALENT IN KG .
D2.5 How much was the average cost of charcoal per local unit?
(SPECIFIED IN D2.4)
PESOS
D2.6 How did you obtain the charcoal consumed by the household?

2 Self-Produced (ONLY) GO TO D2.10
3 Both 1 & 2 GO TO D2.7 & D2.10
4 Others (specify)? ____________ GO TO D3 (Biomass Residue)
IF CHARCOAL WAS PURCHASED
D2.7 How often did you purchase charcoal during the reference period?
______________ TIMES IN A ______________________
D2.8 How much charcoal did your household usually buy each time?
(SPECIFIED IN D2.7)
LOCAL UNIT __________________________
EQUIVALENT IN KG .
D2.9 What was the average cost of charcoal purchased per local unit?
(SPECIFIED IN D2.8)
PESOS
IF CHARCOAL WAS SELF-PRODUCED
D2.10 How often did you produce charcoal?
______________ TIMES IN A ______________________
D2.11 How much charcoal did the household produce each time?
LOCAL UNIT __________________________
EQUIVALENT IN KG .
- page 16 -
(IF CHARCOAL WAS MADE FROM COCONUT SHELL ,
GO TO D3 (Biomass Residue).
D2.12 Where was the fuelwood/firewood made as charcoal usually gathered?
1 Own Land
2 Private Land
3 Government Land
9 Others (specify) _______________
D3. BIOMASS RESIDUE

D3.1 During the period March to August 2011, did your household use biomass residues
from ... ?
1
1 Wood 1 - YES 2 - NO
2
2 Coconut 1 - YES 2 - NO
3 Corn 1 - YES 2 - NO 3
4 Sugarcane 1 - YES 2 - NO 4
5 Rice 1 - YES 2 - NO 5
9 Others (specify) __________ 1 - YES 2 - NO 9
IF ANY OF D3.1 CODES (1) TO (9) IS YES (CODE 1), ASK D3.2
FILTER CHECK:
IF ALL OF D3.1 CODES (1) TO (9) IS NO (CODE 2), GO TO D5.1 (Fuels/ Other Applicable Technologies)
D3.2 Which among the biomass residues (IN D3.1) did you use most often?
1 2 3 4 5 9
D3.3 Did your household use this biomass residue (SPECIFIED IN D3.2) for the
following?
c. Ironing 1 - YES 2 - NO c.
d. Others (specify) 1 - YES 2 - NO d.
D3.4 How often did your household consume biomass residue?
______________ TIMES IN A ______________________
D3.5 How much biomass residue did the household consume each time?
(SPECIFIED IN D3.4)
LOCAL UNIT __________________________
EQUIVALENT IN KG .
D3.6 How much was the average cost of biomass residue per local unit?
(SPECIFIED IN D3.5)
PESOS
D3.7 How did you obtain the biomass residue consumed by the household?

2 Self-Collected/Gathered (ONLY) GO TO D3.11
3 Both 1 & 2 GO TO D3.8 & D3.11
9 Others (specify) _______________ GO TO D4 (Biogas)
IF BIOMASS RESIDUE WAS PURCHASED
D3.8 How often did you purchase the biomass residue?

______________ TIMES IN A ______________________
D3.9 How much biomass residue did the household usually buy each purchase?
(SPECIFIED IN D3.8)
LOCAL UNIT __________________________
EQUIVALENT IN KG .
D3.10 For each purchase, how much did you pay for . . . ?
a. Biomass residues PESOS a. __________________
b. Labor PESOS b. __________________
c. Transport PESOS c. __________________
d. Others, (specify) ____________________ PESOS d. __________________
- page 17 -
IF BIOMASS WAS SELF-COLLECTED/GATHERED
D3.11 How often did you collect/gather biomass residue?
______________ TIMES IN A ______________________
D3.12 How much biomass residue did the household usually gather each time?
LOCAL UNIT __________________________
EQUIVALENT IN KG _____________ . ______________
D3.13 Where did you usually gather biomass residues?

1 Own Land
2 Private Land
3 Government Land
9 Others (specify) _______________
D3.14 If you were to buy the gathered/self-collected biomass residue, how much are
you willing to pay?
PESOS
D4. BIOGAS
D4.1 During the period March to August 2011, did your household use biogas?
1 - YES 2 - NO, Go to D5 (Fuel/technologies)
D4.2 Did your household use biogas for the following?
c. Others (specify) 1 - YES 2 - NO c.
D4.3 How often did your household consume biogas?
______________ TIMES IN A ______________________
IF THE BIOGAS DIGESTER IS OWNED BY THE HOUSEHOLD, GO TO D4.4 & D4.5, OTHERWISE, GO TO D4.6
D4.4 What is the capacity of the digester?
cubic meter
D4.5 How much is the total cost of digester installation? (including equipment and
labor cost)
PESOS
REMARKS
- page 18 -
FUELWOOD, CHARCOAL, BIOMASS RESIDUE AND BIOGAS USAGE
IF ANY OF D1.1, D2.1, D3.1 and D4.1 IS YES (CODE 1), GO TO D4.6
FILTER CHECK:
IF NO (CODE 2), GO TO D (Fuels/Other Applicable Technologies)
D4.6 HOUSEHOLD EQUIPMENT WHICH USE FUELWOOD, CHARCOAL, BIOMASS RESIDUES AND BIOGAS
USAGE FOR HOUSEHOLD-
What kind of What HOUSEHOLD USE ONLY
What was the OPERATED ACTIVITIES
equipment did your type of use of the
household use which fuel was How often was the What was How often was the What was the
equipment?
EQUIP consume used for Was it used for equipment used for the average equipment used for average
MENT/ fuelwood/firewood, the equip- household consumption number of household-operated number of
cooking,
STOVE charcoal, biomass ment? heating water, only? hours per activities only? hours per day
NO. residues and biogas? ironing? day each each
What else? (days per week or equipment (days per week or equipment
days per month) was used? days per month) was used?
Code (Enter code) (Enter code) Code (hours per day) Code (hours per day)
(01) ('02) (03) (04) (05) (06) (07) (08) (09) (10) (11)
Column 2 - Kind of Equipment Column 4 - Type of Fuel Column 5 - Type of Usage

1 Woodstove 5 Charcoal stove 1 Fuel Wood 1 Cooking
2 Wood oven 9 Others (specify) 2 Charcoal 2 Heating water for bathing
3 Biomass stove 3 Biomass Residue 3 Ironing
4 Flat iron (plantsa de uling) 4 Biogas 9 Others (specify) __________
D5. FUELS / OTHER APPLICABLE TECHNOLOGIES

D5.1 During the period March to August 2011, did the household use the following
fuels/technologies?
a. Fuels
1. Coconut Oil 1 - YES 2 - NO 1
2. Kalburo 1 - YES 2 - NO 2
3. Others, specify ___________ 1 - YES 2 - NO 3
b. Technologies
4. Solar Water heater 1 - YES 2 - NO 4
5. Solar dryer 1 - YES 2 - NO 5
6. Solar water pumping 1 - YES 2 - NO 6
7. Wind water pumping 1 - YES 2 - NO 7
8. Others, specify ___________ 1 - YES 2 - NO 8
D5.2 How much was your average monthly consumption on the following from March to
August 2011?
1. Coconut Oil liters __________________
2. Kalburo kilogram __________________
3. Others, specify ___________ kg/L __________________
D5.3 What was the capacity

p y rating
g of the following
g technologies
g you
y used?
a. Hot water using solar water heater liters __________________
b. Material/Product using solar dryer square meter
c. Water using solar water pump watts __________________
d. Water using wind water pump liters/hr __________________
D5.4 On the average, how much of the following do you use in a day?
a. Hot water using solar water heater liters __________________
b. Material/Product using solar dryer square meter __________________
c. Water using solar water pump watts __________________
d. Water using wind water pump liters/hr __________________
- page 19 -
E. COOKING FUEL SWITCHING
E1.1 Did you or any member of your household cook anytime during the reference period?
1 - YES 2 - NO, Go to F (Household Practices)
E1.2 What types/combination of fuel for cooking did you use most frequently in August
2011? (INDICATE THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY FUELS)
1 Electricity
2 LPG a. PRIMARY a.
3 Kerosene
4 Fuelwood b. SECONDARY
5 Charcoal b.
9 Others (specify) _____________
E1.3 What types/combination of fuel(s) for cooking did you use most frequently in March to
August 2011? (INDICATE THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY FUELS)
1 Electricity
2 LPG a. PRIMARY a.
3 Kerosene
4 Fuelwood b. SECONDARY
5 Charcoal b.
FILTER CHECK: IF THE SAME TYPE OF PRIMARY FUEL IN E1.2 AND E1.3, GO TO F (Household Practices)
E1.4 What was your main reason in changing your primary cooking fuel?
1 Moved to another place
2 Change in price
3 Change in income
4 Availability
5 Convenience
9 Others (specify) __________________
E1.5 Without regards to price and availability, which fuel would you prefer most for
cooking?
1 Electricity
2 LPG
3 Kerosene
4 Fuelwood
5 Charcoal
F. HOUSEHOLD PRACTICES
F1.1 During the period March to August 2011, did the household undertake measures to
reduce energy consumption?
1 - YES 2 - NO, Go to G (Awareness on Energy Issues)
Did you practice the following domestic activities on the use of energy? (READ-OUT TO THE RESPONDENT THE VARIOUS
DOMESTIC ACTIVITIES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN UNDERTAKEN BY THE HOUSEHOLD IN 2011)
F1.2 Lighting 1 - YES 2 - NO 3 - NA

a. Switched off lights when not needed a.
b. Switched to more energy efficient lighting b.
c. Kept lamps and lighting fixtures clean c.
d. Used natural lighting when necessary d.
e. Others (specify) ______________________ e.
F1.3 Cooking 1 - YES 2 - NO 3 - NA

a. Made use of more efficient stove or appliances
a.
b. Used heat-retaining cooking pots and pans
b.
(iron, stainless, steel,glass-ceramic)
c. Matched the size of the p
pan or p g element
pot with the heating
c.
d.
d. Kept range top burners and heat reflectors clean
e.
e. Covered pots and pans when cooking
f. Reduced heat when the water/food had boiled f.
g. Prepared food before turning on the stove g.
h. Thawed frozen food thoroughly before cooking h.
i. Re-heated cooked foods only when necessary i.
j. Others (specify) ______________________
j.
- page 20 -
F1.4 Refrigeration 1 - YES 2 - NO 3 - NA
a. Opened refrigerator/freezer doors only when necessary and

avoided prolonged opening
a.
b. Placed unit in cool, well-ventilated area
b.
c. Cooled hot foods to room temperature before storing them in the
refrigerator/freezer c.
d. Covered liquids and wiped all moisture from containers d.

before placing them in the refrigerator
e.
e. Cleaned condenser coils at least twice a year
f.
f. Defrost when needed
g.
g. Placed foods in the refrigerator/freezer only when necessary
h.
h. Others (specify) ______________________
F1.5 Ironing Clothes 1 - YES 2 - NO 3 - NA
a. Avoided ironing just one piece of clothing a.
b. Ironed heavier materials first and reduced heat to press lighter materials b.
c. Used
U d ““wash
h and
d wear”” clothes
l th c.
d. Others (specify) ______________________ d.
F1.6 Space Cooling (Electric Fan) 1 - YES 2 - NO 3 - NA
a. Locked the oscillator when the electric fan was needed in one direction only a.
b. Set fan to “low” when it was comfortable enough b.
c. Turned off fan when not in use c.
F1.7 Space Cooling (Air Conditioner) 1 - YES 2 - NO 3 - NA
a. Set the thermostat to normal or medium setting a.
b. Cleaned equipment regularly b.
c. Kept doors and windows closed when the airconditioner was operating c.
F1.8 Machine Washing Clothes 1 - YES 2 - NO 3 - NA
a. load, instead of several small loads

a Washed clothes until you had one full load
a.
b. Followed washing instructions of the machine or garment
b.
c. Avoided using spin dryer c.
d. Soaked garments in detergents before loading in the washing machine d.
e. Others (specify) ______________________ e.
- page 21 -
What is your perception on the use of common household energy sources?
(READ OUT TO THE RESPONDENT THE USE OF COMMON HOUSEHOLD ENERGY SOURCES)
F1.9 Electricity 1 2 3
AGREE DISAGREE NO OPINION
/DON’T KNOW
a. Applying for an electricity installation is difficult

a.
b. The electricity installation charge is expensive
b.
c. Electricity is expensive
c.
F1.10 LPG 1 2 3
/DON’T KNOW
a. LPG is difficult to get

a.
b. LPG is expensive
b.
c. LPG is not safe
c.
d. LPG is not convenient to use
d.
e. Other fuels are better than LPG for cooking
ff. LPG cylinder and ancilliary equipment is expensive e.
f.
F1.11 Kerosene 1 2 3
/DON’T KNOW
a. Kerosene is difficult to get a.
b. Kerosene is expensive b.
c. Kerosene is dirty c.
d. Kerosene is not convenient to use d.
e. Kerosene is not safe e.
f. Kerosene equipment is expensive f.
F1.12 Fuelwood 1 2 3
/DON’T KNOW
a. Fuelwood is difficult to get a.
b. Fuelwood is expensive b.
c. Fuelwood is dirty
c.
d.
d FFuelwood
l d iis nott safe
f tto use
d.
e. Our kitchen is not appropriate for fuelwood e.
f. Fuelwood is not convenient to use f.
g. Fuelwood gives hotter flame

g.
h. Cooking with fuelwood creates better tasting dishes
h.
i. Fuelwood gathering is a cause for forest denudation
i.
- page 22 -
G. AWARENESS ON ENERGY ISSUES
G1. LABELING PROGRAM
G1.1 Are you aware of the Energy Labeling Program for appliances and lighting
products?
1 - YES 2 - NO
G1.2 1 - YES 2 - NO 3 - NA
Do you understand the information written on the energy label for the following?
a. Airconditioner
a.
b. Refrigerator
b.
c. Compact Flourescent Lamps (CFL) c.
d. Linear Flourescent Lamps (LFL) d.
e. Circular Flourescent Lamps e.

f.
f. Lamp Ballasts
G1.3 How did you acquire the knowledge and information you have on energy labeling? 1 - YES 2 - NO 3 - NA
a. Multi - Media (print, radio, television, internet)

a.
b. Face to face or interpersonal communication (public dialogue,
group discussion, small talks) b.
c. Formal and/or Non-Formal Education
c.
G1.4 Do you consider the energy label when you buy appliances and lighting products?
1 - YES 2 - NO 3 - NA
G2. NATURAL GAS AWARENESS
G2.1 Are you aware of Natural Gas as fuel?
1 - YES 2 - NO, GO TO G2.7
G2.2 Are you aware that natural gas is being used as fuel for:
a.
a. Transport? 1 - YES 2 - NO
b. Power Generation? 1 - YES 2 - NO b.
c. Heating/Cooling? 1 - YES 2 - NO c.
d. Cooking? 1 - YES 2 - NO d.
G2.3 Are you aware of the natural gas reserves in:

a.
a. Malampaya, Palawan? 1 - YES 2 - NO
b. Libertad, Cebu? 1 - YES 2 - NO b.
G2.4 Do you know the following Natural Gas Technology:

a.
a. Compressed Natural Gas? 1 - YES 2 - NO
b. Liquefied Natural Gas? 1 - YES 2 - NO b.
G2.5 The following pertains to the willingness to use natural gas in the household. 1 - YES 2 - NO
a. Are you willing to use natural gas for cooking? a.
b. Are you willing to have natural gas lines installed into your homes? b.
G2.6 How did you acquire the knowledge and information you have on natural gas? 1 - YES 2 - NO
a. Multi - Media (print, radio, television, internet) a.
group discussion, small talks) b.
c. Formal and/or Non-Formal Education c.
G2.7 Are you willing to learn more about natural gas?
1 - YES 2 - NO, GO TO G3 (LPG Awareness)
- page 23 -
G2.8 How do you want to learn more about natural gas? 1 - YES 2 - NO
1. Media: 1a.
a. Print (newspapers, brochure, pamphlets, newsletters, reports,
bulletin boards and other public publications) 1b.
b. Television (infomercials, documentaries, audio-video presentation) 1c.
c. Radio (school-on-the-air, public announcements)
1d.
d. Internet (DOE, webpage, email, etc.)
2. Face to face or interpersonal communication 2
(public dialogue, group discussion, small talks)
3
3. Formal and/or Non-Formal Education
G3. LPG AWARENESS
G3.1 Are you aware that there are substandard/dilapidated LPG circulating in the
market?
1 - YES 2 - NO
G3.2 Do you know of any safety practices in buying and handling LPG?
1 - YES 2 - NO
G3.3 Do you practice any of the following measures in buying and handling LPG? 1 - YES 2 - NO 3 - NA
a. Do you check the weight of the LPG you buy?

a.
b. Do you check if the LPG seal is intact before buying?
b.
c. Do you check LPG cylinder for rust, dent or signs of corrosion before buying?
c.
d Do you check the bottom part of the LPG cylinder for any sign of rust
d. rust,
dent or signs of corrosion? d.
e. Do you clean the LPG hose? e.
e.
f. Do you check the LPG hose/regulator/valve for gas leakage using the f.
"soap sud test" (apply sponge soaked in water and soap)?
g.
g. Do you place your LPG in a well ventilated place?
h. Do you place your LPG far from electrical outlet (at least 1 meter away)? h.
G3.4 How did you acquire the knowledge and information you have on safety measures 1 - YES 2 - NO
in LPG handling?
a. Multi - Media (print, radio, television, internet) a

b
group discussion, small talks)
c. Formal and/or Non-Formal Education c
G4. NUCLEAR ENERGY AWARENESS
G4.1 Are you aware of Nuclear Energy?
1 - YES 2 - NO, GO TO G4.4
G4.2 The following pertains to your knowledge on Nuclear Energy 1 - YES 2 - NO
a. Do you know that nuclear energy can be used for power generation? a.
b. Do you know that nuclear energy can be used for non-power

applications such as medical, industrial, agricultural and environmental? b.
G4.3 How did you acquire the knowledge and information you have on nuclear energy? 1 - YES 2 - NO

b. dialogue,
b Face to face or interpersonal communication (public dialogue
b
c. Formal and/or Non-Formal Education c
G4.4 Are you willing to support nuclear energy as a long-term option for electricity
generation?
1 - Yes
2 - No, Why? ________________________________________
3 - Undecided
- page 24 -
G4.5 Are you in favor of constructing nuclear power plants for electricity generation in
your barangay?
1 - Yes
2 - No, Why? __________________________________________
3 - Undecided
G5. RENEWABLE ENERGY AWARENESS
G5.1 Are you aware that energy can be sourced from the following? 1 - YES 2 - NO
a. Biomass/ Biofuels a.
b. Geothermal b.
c. Sun (Solar) c.
d. Hydro d.
e. Ocean e.
f. Wind f.
G5.2 Are you aware that the energy coming from the biomass/biofuels, geothermal
steam, sun, bodies of water and wind are called renewable energy ?
1 - Fully aware 2 - Partially Aware 3 - Not Aware
G5.3 Are you aware of the Renewable Energy Act of 2008 (RA 9513) enacted by the
government to promote the development and utilization of renewable energy?
1 - YES 2 - NO
FILTER CHECK: IF G5.2 = 3 AND G5.3 =2, GO TO PART IV
G5.4 How did you acquire the knowledge and information you have on renewable energy, 1 - YES 2 - NO
including the Renewable Energy Act of 2008 (RA 9513)?

b
c. Non-formal education (trainings, seminars, workshops, short courses) c
PART IV. FAMILY INCOME

H1.1 During the period March to August 2011, what was the average monthly income in
cash and in kind of your family?
1 - Less than P10,000
2 - P10,000 to P29,999
3 - P30,000 to P59,999
4 - P60,000 to P99,999
5 - P100,000 and over
PART V. HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS

I1.1 In what type of building/house does the family reside?
1 - Single house
2 - Duplex
3 -Apartments/accessoria/condominium/townhouse
4 - Commercial/industrial/agricultural (office, factory, and others)
5 - Other housing units (boat, cave and others)
I1.2 How many are the number of ___ in the housing unit?
a. Bedrooms a.
b. Bathrooms/Toilets b.
c. Storeys c.
I1.3 What is the total floor area of the housing unit?

1 - Less than 20 square meters
2 - 20 to 39 square meters
5 - 100 square meters and over
- page 25 -
Project Staff
Special Order No. SO2011-07-0041
Project Director : Dir. Jesus T. Tamang

Project Asst. Director : Asst. Dir. Carmencita A. Bariso
Project Team Leader : Salvador M. Salire, Jr.
Project Asst. Team Leaders : Ma. Victoria B. Capito
Ma. Pamela Grace C. Muhi
Project Members : Arnel C. Antonio
Editha T. Ramos
Rosanna Y. Tejuco
Marietta M. Quejada
Lilibeth T. Morales
Michael B. Coligado
Ma. Cristina P. Velasco
Diana Christine L. Gabito
Charmaine R. Taliping
S. Magnolia B. Olvido
Jovee Rose B. Jandusay
Administrative Support : Ferdinand C. Maximo
Technical Working Group (TWG)

Energy Policy and Planning Bureau (EPPB) Energy Resource Development Bureau (ERDB)
Planning Division (PD) Elizabeth N. Tilos

Michael O. Sinocruz Aristotle Carlos F. Joaquin
Enrique M. Navarrete
Francis Richard O. Rabulan Energy Utilization Management Bureau (EUMB)
Celedonio B. Mendoza, Jr. Vilma P. Reyes
Michael S. Leabres Allan G. Bacudo
Ricardo C. Yambao
Energy Cooperation and Coordination Division (ECCD)
Michael G. Floria Oil Industry Management Bureau (OIMB)
Christopher Edmundo V. Manalo Loralai G. Capistrano
Charles Dhave L. Ronquillo Geraldine M. Sacayan
Renewable Energy Management Bureau (REMB) Energy Research and Testing Laboratory Services
Fortunato S. Sibayan (ERTLS)
Ricardo G. Dela Cruz Dir. Raquel S. Huliganga
Mirna S. Campañano
Information Technology and Management Services (ITMS) Isagani C. Soriano
Danilo N. Javier Emmanuel R. Soyosa
Richard Dennis M. Pimentel
Financial Services (FS) Legal Services (LS)
OIC-Dir. Nora A. Tuazon Atty. Angelito V. Agoncillo
Arturo M. Cudia Ruby T. Villarante
Mariquita E. Talamayan
Elmer D. Talamayan Natural Gas Office (NGO)
Araceli S. Soluta Vivien Josephine C. Panes
Elisa B. Morales Anita R. Capate
Human Resource Management Division (HRMD) Consumer Welfare and Promotion Office (CWPO)
Aurora G. Dionisio Norita C. Froilan
Israel B. Santos Roselle J. Lijuaco
Michelle Angela Q. Vita
Federico G. Domingo
Gender and Development Committee (GAD)

Helen B. Arias
Luzon Field Office Visayas Field Office Mindanao Field Office

Mario R. Libiran Crisostomo C. Laplap Ernesto B. Obelidhon
Elinor P. Quinto Marcialita V. Garcia Armando S. Malapitan

Untitled

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Untitled

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FOREWORD

The 2011 Household Energy Consumption Survey (HECS) is a nationwide survey of

TO ALL OF THEM, OUR HEARTFELT GRATITUDE!

CARMELITA N. ERICTA CARLOS JERICHO L. PETILLA

Chapter 2 - Profile of Households 12

2.1 Number and Regional Distribution of Households 12

Chapter 3 – Energy Consumption Pattern 16

3.1 Types of Fuel Used by Households 16

3.3 Petroleum Products 23

2011 Household Energy Consumption Survey Page iii

Chapter 4 – Households Practicing Energy Mix and Fuel Switching 31

4.1 Energy Mix for Lighting 31

Chapter 5 – Awareness, Practices and Perception of Households on 35

5.1 Awareness on Energy Issues 35

5.2 Households Practices To Reduce Energy Consumption 40

5.3 Perceptions on the Use of Common Household Energy Sources 42

5.4 Problems Encountered in Fuel Supply System 44

Chapter 6 – Policy Implications and Recommendations 47

A - 2003 New Master Sample Survey Design 59

2011 Household Energy Consumption Survey Page iv

Appendix Table 2 – Households Using Electricity, by End-Use, Type of 68

Appendix Table 3 – Households Using Petroleum Products, by Type of 70

Appendix Table 4 – Households Using Petroleum Products, by Type of 71

Appendix Table 5 – Average Consumption of Petroleum Products 73

Appendix Table 6 – Households Using LPG and Kerosene, by Source 74

Appendix Table 7 – Households Using Renewable Energy Sources, by 75

Appendix Table 8 – Households Using Renewable Energy Sources, by 76

Appendix Table 9 – Average Consumption of Renewable Energy 77

Appendix Table 10 – Household Practices to Reduce Fuel Consumption 78

D – 2011 HECS Project Staff and Technical Working Group (TWG)

2011 Household Energy Consumption Survey Page v

1.1 Total Sample Households Responding and Eligible Households and 4

2.1 Distribution of Households by Sex of Household Head and Region, 13

2.2 Distribution of Households by Age of Household Head and Region, 13

2.3 Distribution of Households by Age of Household Head and Sex, 14

2.4 Distribution of Households by Average Monthly Income and Region, 15

3.1 Households Using Electricity by End-Use and Average Monthly 18

3.2 Average Consumption of Electricity Per Household During the Six 19

3.3 Average Consumption of Electricity Per Households During the Six 20

3.4 Average Consumption of Electricity Per Household During the Six 21

3.5 Average Consumption of Electricity Per Household During the Six 22

3.6 Households Using Electricity by Source of Electricity and Average 22

4.1 Households Practicing Energy Mix for Lighting by Combination of Fuel 31

4.2 Households Practicing Energy Mix for Cooking by Combination of Fuel 33

2011 Household Energy Consumption Survey Page vi

5.1 Households by Awareness of the Energy Labeling Program for 36

5.2 Households by Awareness on Natural Gas as Fuel by Average 37

5.3 Percent of Households Practicing Safety Measures in Buying and 38

5.4 Households by Awareness on Nuclear Energy and Average Monthly 39

2011 Household Energy Consumption Survey Page vii

2.1 Distribution of Households by Region, Philippines: 2011 12

2.2 Households by Age of Household Head, Philippines: 2011 12

3.1 Types of Fuel Used by Households, Philippines: 2011 16

3.2 Types of Fuel Used by Households for Lighting, Philippines: 2011 16

3.3 Types of Fuel Used by Households for Cooking, Philippines: 2011 17

3.4 Types of Fuel Used by Households for their Vehicle, Philippines: 17

3.5 Households Using Electricity by End-Use, Philippines: 2011 18

3.6 Types of Lamp Used by Households, Philippines: 2011 19

3.7 Types of Electric Appliance Used for Recreation by Households 20

3.8 Types of Electric Appliance Used for Cooking by Households 21

3.9 Types of Petroleum Products Used by Households, Philippines: 23

3.10 Households Using LPG for Cooking by Type of Equipment Used, 23

3.11 Mode of Acquisition of LPG, Philippines: 2011 24