Jakarta, November 28, 2024 – Publish What You Pay (PWYP) Indonesia organized a Focused Discussion entitled “Criticizing Geothermal Development within the Framework of Just Energy Transition.” This event invited representatives from civil society organizations (CSOs) to gather insights from their respective experiences in monitoring geothermal development.
PWYP Indonesia invited Wishnu Try Utomo, Head of Mining and Energy Advocacy at the Center of Economic and Law Studies (CELIOS), to present findings from a study titled “Geothermal in Indonesia: Dilemma, Potential, and Exploitation in the Name of Energy Transition.” The scope of the study discussed the development of geothermal power plants (PLTP), which is an indirect utilization of geothermal energy.
The government has initiated PLTPs as a cornerstone for Indonesia’s energy transition. This is supported by Law Number 21 of 2014 on Geothermal Energy, Law Number 11 of 2020 on Job Creation, and the National Energy General Plan (RUEN) targeting an energy mix of 23% by the year 2050.
Indonesia has 361 potential geothermal spots (23.7 GW) scattered across the archipelago, 64 of which have been designated as Geothermal Working Areas (WKP), with 24 PLTPs already established and a total installed capacity of 2.4 GW. The discussion highlighted areas such as North Sumatra, West Java, Central Java, and East Nusa Tenggara (NTT) as development sites for PLTPs.
Despite government support, geothermal development has faced opposition at the local levels where PLTPs are built. Law Number 21 of 2014 on Geothermal Energy does not categorize geothermal extraction activities as mining operations, but rather as environmental service provisions, which means they can occur in high conservation areas. The operational impacts of PLTPs include the displacement of living spaces, earthquakes, contamination of water sources, and air pollution.
“This community opposition should not be interpreted as ignorance on the part of the locals concerning geothermal development impacts. In fact, it is quite the opposite; they oppose it because they truly understand the negative impacts on their lives,” Wishnu explained.
The situation becomes more complex with the Job Creation Law, which allows for the criminalization of community opposition against projects determined by the central government. On one hand, PLTP development poses significant negative impacts on local communities, while on the other hand, people are restricted in their ability to fight for their rights.
Syifa Annisa, a representative of the Indonesian Women’s Disability Association (HWDI), also expressed concerns about the inclusivity aspect of the government’s approach in dealing with local stakeholders who are most affected.
“Geothermal development should consider the rights of persons with disabilities to avoid creating new disabilities or making existing conditions worse. Unfortunately, Law No. 21/2014 on Geothermal Energy does not mention the rights of disabled people, even though Indonesia has ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which emphasizes their rights concerning the environment. The government and companies need to accommodate disability rights, including conducting research on the five types of disabilities, not just involving companions. The government often overlooks that anyone has the potential to become disabled,” she asserted.
Recognition of unaccounted impacts of PLTP development in Indonesia was a central topic in the discussion. From an economic perspective, there are facts that counter the main narrative of geothermal advantages in energy transition.
CELIOS noted that plantations such as cloves and candlenuts experienced a decline after the first year of PLTP operations. There is a potential state loss of Rp1.1 trillion and an impact on 50,608 workers. Moreover, once construction is complete, PLTP operations employ a limited number of workers compared to the plantation sector on Flores Island, NTT.
Furthermore, in practice, PLTPs often drill new wells (spatial expansion) or have to use polymerization inhibitors like polyacrylate and polysulfone, which can damage water bodies and increase heavy metal absorption in living organisms. This occurs because, over time, the well/reservoir undergoes temperature changes, resulting in silica agglomeration in the rocks that can block production wells. This indicates that geothermal development can also lead to spatial expansion and the introduction of harmful chemicals into the community water sources.
Various civil society comments further underscore the importance of monitoring geothermal development considering its high risk to ecological sustainability and the livelihood of nearby communities. Deregulation related to geothermal extraction in conservation areas also poses a severe threat. The Job Creation Law does not require reclamation after drilling, potentially increasing environmental costs in geothermal development. Economically, it should be noted that the cost of developing transmission is not yet included in the studies already presented. Social costs should also be considered as part of the project feasibility analysis.
Referring back to the foundational principles of a just energy transition, energy is a right, not a commodity. Therefore, every energy development project must adhere to principles of respect, provision, and protection of human rights; protection of land, water, and community-managed areas; protection of ecological integrity and biodiversity, and mitigation of ecological-social disaster risks.
Author: Muhammad Adzkia Farirahman