IESR

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia
Manfaat
Kesehatan dari
  Transisi
Energi Berkeadilan Penghentian dan
Bertahap 

Batubaradi Indonesia

      

1

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

About CREAThe Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) is an independent research organisation focused on revealing
the trends, causes, and health impacts, as well as the solutions to air pollution. CREA uses scientific data, research, andevidence to support the efforts of governments, companies, and campaigning organisations worldwide in their efforts tomove towards clean energy and clean air, believing that effective research and communication are the keys to successfulpolicies, investment decisions, and advocacy efforts. CREA was founded in Helsinki and has staff in several Asian andEuropean countries.

Authors
Lauri Myllyvirta
Jamie Kelly
Erika Uusivuori
Katherine Hasan
Vera Tattari

Contributors
Raden Raditya Yudha Wiranegara
Deon Arinaldo

Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the support, feedback, and insight we received from the following organisations andindividuals: Raden Raditya Yudha Wiranegara and Deon Arinaldo from Institute for Essential Services Reform (IESR). The
views expressed in this report are those of the authors and should not be attributed to any of the aforementioned.

iHealth benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

Health Benefits of Just Energy
Transition and Coal Phase-out
in Indonesia
Key findings• Air pollutant emissions from coal power plants increased by 110% in Indonesia over the past decade. If all planned

coal power plants, including captive power plants, are completed and put into operation, a further 70% increase is
expected under the current policies scenario by 2030.

• Detailed air quality and health impact modelling carried out for this report indicate that air pollutant emissions fromcoal-fired power plants in Indonesia in 2022 were responsible for 10,500 deaths from air pollution (95% CI: 6,500–
16,400) and health costs of USD 7.4 billion (IDR 109.9 trillion; 95% CI: USD 4.6–11.5 billion, IDR 67.6–170.3 trillion).

• Current policies would increase Indonesia’s current coal-fired capacity of 45 GW to 63 GW, before peaking in 2028. This
would result in deaths linked to air pollution from coal power rising to 16,600 per year (95% CI: 10,300–25,900) andhealth costs to USD 11.8 billion per year (IDR 175.2 trillion; 95% CI: USD 7.2–18.2 billion, IDR 106.9–270.3 trillion).

• Under current policies, cumulative health impacts from 2024 until the end of life of all coal power plants would result in
303,000 air-pollution-related deaths (95% CI: 189,000–468,000) and health costs of USD 210 billion (IDR 3.2 quadrillion;
95% CI: USD 130–330 billion, IDR 2.0–4.9 quadrillion).

• A faster coal phase-out by 2040, in line with the 1.5 degrees target of the Paris Agreement, would avoid a cumulative
total of 182,000 air pollution-related deaths (95% CI: 114,000–280,000) and health costs of USD 130 billion (IDR 1,900
trillion; 95% CI: USD 80–200 billion IDR 1,200–2,900 trillion), from 2024 until the end-of-life of all plants.

• Mandatory air pollution controls installation would avoid 8,300 air pollution-related deaths in 2035 in the current
policies scenario (95% confidence interval: 5,200–12,600), as well as health costs of USD 5.8 billion (IDR 86.5 trillion;
95% CI: USD 3.6–8.9 billion, IDR 54.1–131.5 trillion).

• Cumulative avoided health costs would reach USD 90 billion (IDR 1.3 quadrillion; 95% CI: USD 60–140 billion, IDR

0.8–2.0 quadrillion), yielding a net economic benefit of USD 70 billion (IDR 290 trillion) to the society, considering theinvestment and operating costs of the air pollution controls, making the investments highly profitable from a social
point of view.

• Responsible for one-fifth of all health impacts of coal-fired plants in Indonesia, it is crucial to include captive coal power

plants in the Energy Transition Mechanism (ETM) and Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) to make meaningfulprogress. Excluding them from the 2040 coal phase-out policy could cause an additional health burden of 27,000 air
pollution deaths. (95% CI: 16,000–42,000) and health costs of USD 20 billion (IDR 330 trillion; 95% CI: USD 10–30 billion,
IDR 200–520 trillion).

ii

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia• We also assessed the impacts of current and planned biomass co-firing on air pollution from coal power plants. Raising

the share of co-firing to a minimum of 20% at all PLN (Peraturan Listrik Negara, Indonesia’s state-owned electricity
provider) power plants — a significant challenge in terms of the availability of biomass and potentially also a technicalchallenge — would merely reduce the emissions of air pollutants from Indonesia’s coal power plants by 1.5–2.4%
depending on the pollutant.

• Reduction of air pollution from coal power plants can only be effectively achieved through the proper installation ofemission control technology. CREA’s analysis shows that having air pollution control installed in all operating coal
power plants beyond 2035 would reduce the emissions of SOx by 73%, NOx by 64%, dust by 86%, and mercury by 71%.
Ammonia co-firing would worsen air quality impacts due to fugitive ammonia emissions.

Source: Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) analysis based on University of Maryland
and Global Energy Monitor (GEM) data.

KF 1. Operating coal-fired capacity by scenarioiii

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

Source: Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA).

KF 2. Annual mean PM2.5 concentration from all coal power plants in Indonesia

iv

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

Source: Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA).

KF 3. Air pollution-related annual costs by scenario

Source: Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA).

KF 4. Air pollution-related annual deaths by scenariov

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

Contents
Key findingsii

Contentsvi

Abbreviations

vii

Executive summary
Background and methodology
Current impacts of coal power emissions
Future impacts under different retirement pathways
Benefits of health-based coal power plant retirement

1
2
2
3
4

Introduction
State of coal-fired electricity generation
National efforts and international support
Pollution control and emission regulation

5
8
10
11

Methodology
Emissions inventory
Atmospheric modelling
Health and economic impacts assessment
Cost of air pollution controls

13
14
16
18
21

Evaluation of different phase-out timelines
Implications on air pollution
Health impacts and cost implications
Annual impacts
Cumulative impacts
Benefits of prioritising plants with worst health impacts

22
24
29
29
31
33

Evaluation of air pollution control implementation

37

Evaluation of co-firing implementation

41

Conclusion

44

References

46

Appendix53

vi

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

Abbreviations
1.5 degrees

Target threshold limit of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels agreed in the 2015 Paris Agreement

ACT

Accelerating Coal Transition

ADB

Asian Development BankAPC

Air Pollution Control

AQLI

Air Quality Life Index

ASEAN

Association of Southeast Asian Nations

CCS

Carbon Capture and Storage

CEMS

Continuous Emission Monitoring System

CFPP

Coal-fired Power Plant

CI

Confidence Interval

CIF

Climate Investment Funds

CO

Carbon Monoxide

CO2

Carbon Dioxide

EEA

European Environment Agency

EIA

Environmental Impact Assessment

ETM

Energy Transition Mechanism

FGC

Flue Gas Concentration

GCPT

Global Coal Plant Tracker

GDP

Gross Domestic Product

GEM

Global Energy Monitor

GNI PPPGross National Income in Purchasing Power Parity

GW

Gigawatt

GtCO2-eq

Gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent

H2O2

Hydrogen Peroxide

IEA

International Energy Agency

IEEFA

Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis

IESR

Institute for Essential Services Reform

IHME

Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation

int. USD

International Dollar, equivalent to the purchasing power of 1 USD

IPP

Independent Power Producer

JETP

Just Energy Transition Partnership

LCCP

Low Carbon Scenario Compatible with Paris Agreement

LHV

Lower Heating ValueLTS-LCCR 2050

Long-Term Strategy for Low Carbon and Climate Resilience 2050

MEMR

Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources

μg/Nm3

Microgram per normal cubic metre (at 101.325 kPa, 273.15 K)
vii

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

mg/Nm3

Milligram per normal cubic metre (at 101.325 kPa, 273.15 K)

MtCO2-eq

Million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent

MW

Megawatt

NDC

Nationally Determined Contribution

NH3

Ammonia

Nm3/GJ

Normal cubic metre per GigaJoule (at 101.325 kPa, 273.15 K)

NO2

Nitrogen Dioxide

NOX

Nitrogen Oxides

O3

Ozone, ground-level

OECD

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

PERPRES112/2022

Peraturan Presiden No. 112 Tahun 2022 tentang Percepatan Pengembangan Energi Terbarukan
untuk Penyediaan Tenaga Listrik, Presidential Regulation No. 112 Year 2022 on the Acceleration of
the Development of Renewable Energy for the Provision of Electric Power

PLN

Perusahaan Listrik Negara, Indonesia’s State-owned Electricity Provider

PM

Particulate Matter

PM2.5

Particulate Matter with particles that are 2.5 microns or less in diameter

PM10

Particulate Matter with particles that are 10 microns or less in diameter

PPA

Power Purchase Agreement

RUPTL

Rencana Umum Usaha Penyediaan Tenaga Listrik, PLN’s 10-year business plan

SO2

Sulphur Dioxide

UNEP

United Nations Environment Programme

UNFCCC

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

USD

The United States Dollar

WRF

Weather Research Forecastingviii

Executive
Summary1

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

Background and methodology
Indonesia relies on coal-fired power for 62.5% of its electricity generation (PLN, 2022). This reliance comes with significant
impacts on the country’s air quality and public health, as well as a major contribution to the growth in greenhousegas emissions over the past decade. The coal phase-out and net-zero pathways currently being prepared are a major
opportunity to clean up Indonesia’s power system. This study assesses the current air quality and its health impacts, andthe associated external economic costs of coal power plants in Indonesia. The study also includes the impact of various
policy pathways into the future. We present the first health-based phase-out pathways that are designed to maximise
public health benefits of retiring coal power plants.
By using the impact pathway approach, this study quantifies the health impacts of air pollutant emissions from coal power
generation in Indonesia. This approach is the most common way to study the health impacts of air pollutant sources.
This approach includes following the chain of causation from emissions, to atmospheric dispersion and chemicaltransformation, population exposure, resulting health impacts, and the economic cost of those health impacts. The
impacts are quantified for the pathway implied by the regulation currently in place, for the 1.5-degree-aligned pathway
for utility power plants, and for the 1.5-degree-aligned pathway for both captive and utility power plants. The study also
quantifies the impact of more stringent air pollutant emission controls and different levels of biomass co-firing.
The analysis is done by developing a plant-by-plant inventory of emissions, estimating plant-level pollution dispersion
through atmospheric modelling, quantifying health impacts resulting from changes in ambient concentration, and valuing
health impacts in monetary terms using economic costs per case of different health outcomes compiled from literatures
and transferred to Indonesia’s level of income and GDP per capita.
The emission inventory is based on disclosures by plant operators as far as possible, with the plant-specific data compiled
for as many plants as possible and generalised to other plants of the same type. We assume that all power plants meetthe national emissions standards, providing conservative estimates of impacts. Future health and economic impacts areprojected taking into account population growth, economic growth, and projected changes in demographics.

Current impacts of coal power emissions
Based on the estimations of the Air Quality Life Index (AQLI), 91% of Indonesia’s population is exposed to air pollution
levels worse than WHO guidelines. In the most polluted province, West Java, air pollution reduces the life expectancy of its
48 million residents by 4.1 years. Comparably, the residents of the Jakarta Metropolitan Area, Jabodetabek, are exposed
to high levels of particulate pollution, and life expectancy is 5.5 to 6.4 years shorter than those living in regions where WHO
guidelines are met (AQLI, 2022).
According to a 2015 study conducted by the Atmospheric Chemistry Modeling Group of Harvard University andGreenpeace Southeast Asia, air pollution emitted by coal-fired power plants (CFPP) was estimated to be responsible for
6,500 premature deaths annually in 2011 (Koplitz et al., 2017). For each new addition of a 1,000 MW power plant, anaverage of 600 Indonesian adults and children would be severely impacted by acute and chronic respiratory diseases due
to exposure to fine particulate matter and gaseous pollutants (Greenpeace Indonesia, 2015).
Air pollutant emissions from coal power in Indonesia have increased by an estimated 110% over the past decade. Under
the current policy, the emissions are expected to further increase by 70% by 2030. In 2022, emissions from coal plants were
responsible for 10,500 deaths (95% CI: 6,500–16,400) and health costs of USD 7.4 billion (IDR 109.9 trillion; 95% CI: USD
4.6–11.5 billion, IDR 67.6–170.3 trillion). However, under the current policy, the deaths linked to emissions from coal-fired
power plants are estimated to rise to 16,600 a year (10,300–25,900), while the health costs would accordingly rise to USD
11.8 billion per year by the end of the decade (IDR 175.2 trillion; 95% CI: USD 7.2–18.2 billion, IDR 106.9–270.3 trillion).

2

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

Future impacts under different retirement pathways
After evaluating the air quality and health impacts of all coal power plants in Indonesia, we projected future emissions andhealth impacts for different pathways. Our “current policies” pathway is based on PERPRES 112/2022, which requires all
PLN and IPP power plants and new captive power plants to retire by 2050. In addition, we assume that all existing captive
power plants would retire after 30 years of operation while emission standards for all plants remain unchanged at thecurrent level. Under this scenario, starting from 2024 until the end-of-life of all coal-fired power plants in Indonesia, coal
power emissions would lead to the cumulative amount of 303,000 air-pollution-related deaths (95% CI: 189,000–468,000)
and health costs of USD 210 billion (IDR 3.2 quadrillion; 95% CI: USD 130–330 billion, IDR 2.0–4.9 quadrillion).
As an alternative, we evaluate the 1.5 degrees pathway, aligned with the goals of the Paris Agreement and the International
Energy Agency’s recommendation to phase out coal power plants by 2040. Compared with current policies, this fastercoal phase-out would avoid a cumulative total of 182,000 air pollution-related deaths (95% confidence interval: 114,000–
280,000) and health costs of USD 130 billion (IDR 1,900 trillion; 95% CI: USD 80–200 billion IDR 1,200–2,900 trillion), from2024 until the end-of-life of all plants.
Indonesia’s current air pollutant emissions standards for coal-fired power plants are far behind best international practices
and best available technology. This is clear from comparisons with e.g. China, South Korea, and the European Union. We,
therefore, model a pathway in which all power plants that are expected to operate beyond 2035 are mandated to installefficient emission control devices by 2030. In this pathway, 8,300 air pollution-related annual deaths could be avoided in
2035 in the current policies scenario (95% confidence interval: 5,200–12,600), as well as health costs of USD 5.8 billion (IDR
86.5 trillion; 95% CI: USD 3.6–8.9 billion, IDR 54.1–131.5 trillion). The cumulative avoided health costs would reach USD 90
billion (IDR 1.3 quadrillion; 95% CI: USD 60–140 billion, IDR 0.8–2.0 quadrillion), yielding a net economic benefit of USD 70
billion (IDR 290 trillion) to society, considering the investment and operating costs of the air pollution controls, making theinvestments highly profitable from a social point of view.
From the greenhouse gas and public health perspective, it is essential to include captive power plants in Indonesia’scoal phase-out policies as these plants are responsible for approximately 20% of the total health impacts of coal-fired
power in the country. Excluding captive power plants from a 2040 coal phase-out policy could cause an additional healthburden of 27,000 air pollution-related deaths (95% confidence interval: 16,000–42,000) and health costs of USD 20 billion(IDR 330 trillion; 95% CI: USD 10–30 billion, IDR 200–520 trillion). Even as the coal phase-out begins, some power plants
are expected to operate well into or beyond the 2030s. Investing in improved air pollution controls in those power plants
would deliver substantial health and economic benefits.
PLN’s plans for meeting renewable energy targets set for 2025 and 2030 rely heavily on biomass co-firing. Our evaluationof co-firing on air pollutant emissions and health impacts from coal power revealed it to be very modest. Raising the shareof this co-firing to a minimum of 20% at all PLN power plants would reduce these emissions by 1.5 to 2.4%, dependingon the pollutant. In contrast, requiring efficient emission control technology at all power plants operating beyond 2035
would reduce emissions of SOx by an estimated 73%, NOx by 64%, dust by 86%, and mercury by 71%.
There are also tentative plans for co-firing ammonia at some coal power plants. Besides the likely practical and economic
unviability of the idea, it could worsen air quality impacts, due to fugitive ammonia emissions from the transportation andhandling of ammonia and from the power plant itself.

3

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

Benefits of health-based coal power plant retirement
Power plants located near densely populated areas have the highest public health costs. The impact on the population isexacerbated by several factors, including unfavourable wind patterns and poor emission control measures. Clear examplesof this correlation include PLN Muara Karang and Lontar power plants located in Jakarta and Tangerang, as well as thecaptive coal power plants located in Bekasi, Karawang, Purwakarta, and Bandung.
The health benefits and cost-effectiveness of the coal phase-out are maximised by prioritising the plants with the highest
health impacts in the order of retirement. If we followed the simple logic of retiring the oldest plants first, the number of
air pollution-related deaths in the current policies scenario would be 36,000 cases higher. Simultaneously, the health costs
would increase by USD 24 billion (IDR 360 trillion) — by as much as 12%. Under the 1.5 degrees scenario, implementing
an age-based retirement schedule would cause additional cumulative air pollution-related cost burdens of USD 12 billion(IDR 180 trillion).

4

Introduction
5

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

Indonesia is the largest emerging economy in Southeast Asia — having the 4th largest population in the world andmaintaining an average GDP growth rate of 5.3% in the 2011-2019 period before the COVID-19 pandemic hit in 2020 (WorldBank Open Data, 2023a). The final energy consumption grew at an average rate of 3.0% over the same period. Indonesia
experienced a reduction in energy consumption in 2020 and 2021 as a result of the pandemic but quickly rebounded in
2022 as economic activities resumed (MEMR, 2023a).
Exporting 494 million tonnes of coal, or about 70% of its national production, Indonesia contributes 21% of global coalexports by monetary value (MEMR, 2023b; Workman, 2022). Indonesia’s coal resources and reserves are mainly mediumquality coal distributed over East Kalimantan and low-quality coal over Central and South Sumatra (IESR, 2019).
Despite the presence of recoverable oil and natural gas reserves of 25 billion barrels of oil equivalent, Indonesia is facedwith challenges in maintaining domestic output levels and meeting rising demand. Indonesia is already a net importerof oil and is projected to become a net importer of natural gas by 2030 (McKinsey & Company, 2020). Indonesia has been
relying on fossil fuels for the nation’s energy needs, where coal, oil, and gas made up nearly 88% of the national primaryenergy supply in 2022 — at 42%, 32%, and 14%, respectively. Renewable energy, with a 12% share, has remained vastly
untapped (MEMR, 2023a).
As the urbanisation rate significantly increases parallel to economic development — reaching 57% in 2021 (World Bank
Open Data, 2023b), Indonesia’s major metropolitan areas are faced with negative environmental consequences driven
by urban consumption patterns. Higher energy consumption for electricity, transportation, and cooking in urban areas
directly results in higher pollution release to air, water, and soil, due to the high reliance on fossil fuels and biomass.
Indonesia is also among the countries most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, classified in the top-third risk
grouping (48 out of 191) in the 2023 INFORM Risk Index mainly due to high exposure risk to floods, earthquakes, anddroughts (European Commission, 2023).
To express its national commitment to tackling climate change, Indonesia ratified the Paris Agreement in 2016, throughthe Nationally Determined Contribution pledged for 2020–2030. In the latest strengthened commitment published in
2022, Indonesia submitted the Enhanced NDC to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
Secretariat, in which the emission reduction target is increased from 29% to 31.89% unconditionally with the country’s
own effort, and from 41% to 43.20% conditionally with international support (UNFCCC, 2022).
The Enhanced NDC is aimed to be aligned with the Long-Term Strategy for Low Carbon and Climate Resilience 2050 (LTSLCCR 2050) (UNFCCC, 2021), to help the country transition towards the Second NDC and realise Net Zero Emissions by
2060 or sooner. The LTS-LCCR 2050 is designed to strengthen Indonesia’s One Hundred Years Vision, ”Visi Indonesia 2045”(Kementerian PPN/Bappenas, 2019), in which ambitious targets for human resource development, sustainable economy,
equitable development, and consolidation of national resilience and governance are defined.
Under the Low Carbon Scenario Compatible with Paris Agreement (LCCP) scenario included in LTS-LCCR 2050 set to be inline with the 1.5 degrees target, national emissions are projected to reach their peak in 2030 at 1.24 GtCO2-eq. Post 2030,
emissions are projected to gradually decline at a rate of around 30.7 MtCO2-eq annually, to reach 0.54 GtCO2-eq in 2050
or equivalent to 1.61 ton of CO2-eq per capita. To achieve these targets, Indonesia must achieve a net sink in Forestry andOther Land Uses (FOLU) by 2030, while also focusing on the energy sector development and transformation. Particularly
for power generation, the LCCP scenario projects shifts away from coal, enhancement of renewables share, and integrationof biomass-coal co-firing power plants are connected to CCS.
A concrete transition strategy is essential, not only to mitigate climate risks but most importantly to anticipate theconsequences of development and industrial growth. Energy generation‑related air pollution has severe impacts on
health. Air pollution disproportionately impacts low- and middle-income countries, with Southeast Asia and Western
Pacific countries facing the greatest burden, according to WHO (WHO, 2021). Indonesia faces growing issues of pollution
and environmental degradation as economic activities have significantly increased over the past decades.

6

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

Air Quality Life Index (AQLI) estimates that 91% of Indonesia’s population is exposed to air pollution levels above the
WHO guidelines. Air pollution in West Java, ranked as the most polluted province, reduces the life expectancy of its 48
million residents by 4.1 years. The residents of the Jakarta Metropolitan Area, Jabodetabek, are exposed to high levels ofparticulate pollution, and life expectancy is 5.5 to 6.4 years shorter than those living in regions where WHO guidelines aremet (AQLI, 2022).

Source: IQAir.

Figure 1. PM2.5 Concentration Distribution Map over Indonesia (IQAir, 2022)

The distribution of PM2.5 levels across the monitored major cities in Indonesia is visualised in IQAir’s 2022 World Air
Quality report, where Indonesia ranks worst in the Southeast Asian region and Jakarta is shown to have the worst
annual average of PM2.5 concentration of 36.2 μg/m3 (IQAir, 2022). Noting most areas in the island of Java, where 56% ofIndonesia’s population resides, show annual exposure exceeding three to seven times the WHO’s guideline for annual
PM2.5 concentration threshold of 5 μg/m3 (BPS, 2023).
Coal-fired power plants are one of the major sources of air pollutant emissions, and a significant cause of growth inemissions. According to a study conducted by the Atmospheric Chemistry Modeling Group of Harvard University andGreenpeace Southeast Asia in 2015, air pollution emitted by coal-fired power plants (CFPP) was estimated to be responsiblefor 6,500 premature deaths annually in 2011 (Koplitz et al., 2017). For each new addition of a 1,000 MW power plant, anaverage of 600 Indonesian adults and children would be severely impacted by acute and chronic respiratory diseases due
to exposure to fine particulate matter and gaseous pollutants (Greenpeace Indonesia, 2015).
A commentary released by Satya Widya Yudha, a member of the National Energy Council, highlights air pollution impactsof forest fires and peatland degradation, coal-fired power plants, and vehicle emissions, and emphasises the need forlegal reforms to mitigate the human cost of air pollution, namely increased cases of upper respiratory infections andpremature deaths (NBR, 2018).
Indonesia has to prioritise the adoption of cutting-edge energy-efficiency and clean energy solutions to avoid these risks,by phasing out the oldest and major CFPP emitters.

7

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

State of coal-fired electricity generation
In Indonesia, electricity production and distribution is handled by the national government through the state-owned PT
Perusahaan Listrik Negara (PLN) and its subsidiaries, with Independent Power Producers (IPP) responsible for a significant
share of generation. The total installed capacity in the country is 69,040 MW, of which PLN operates 6,314 units with a
combined capacity of 44,940 MW, or about 65%. The remaining 24,100 MW (35%) is operated by IPPs, according to PLN's
2022 Statistical Report (PLN, 2022).
Indonesia has been reliant on fossil fuels, particularly coal for power generation. Coal is the primary fuel source forpower generation at 62.5% share in 2022, followed by natural gas at 22.2% and oil at 5.6%, and the remaining 9.7% fromrenewables (PLN, 2022). Figure 2 below provides the locations of the CFPPs across the country, showing PLN and IPP
power plants for the national electricity supply, and captive power plants dedicated to energy-intensive industrial parks
located in East and Central Java, North Sumatra, Sulawesi, and Maluku.

Source: Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA),
Global Energy Monitor (GEM).

Figure 2. Indonesia’s coal power capacity distribution (CREA, 2023; GEM, 2022)

In October 2021, PLN released the company’s 10-year business plan, Rencana Umum Usaha Penyediaan Tenaga Listrik(RUPTL) 2021–2030. The document outlines a plan to add a total of 40,575 MW power generation capacity by 2030, where
51.6% comes from renewables, and 48.5% comes from fossil fuels (MEMR, 2021; OECD, 2021). The breakdown is illustrated
in Figure 3.

8

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

Total penambahan kapasitas daya, 2021-2030
Total: 40,57 GW
Termal/Fosil 19,7GW (48,4%)

Energi terbarukan 20,9GW (51,6%)

Source: RUPTL 2021-2030. *This category includes power generated from new and renewable energy sources tosupply baseload and peak load demand. The RUPTL indicates that baseload power plants under this category
could cover hybrid renewable and gas power plants whose generation costs are lower than that of coal projects.

Figure 3. Shares of Additional Power Capacity Addition per RUPTL 2021-2030 (OECD, 2021)

Despite the commitment to achieve 23% renewables share in the energy mix by 2025, RUPTL 2021–2030 still shows highreliance on fossil fuels for the next decade, particularly coal. As of January 2023, there are 88 CFPPs operating across thecountry totaling 40.6 GW of installed capacity. An additional 18.9 GW of capacity is under construction, 4.7 GW in the prepermit and permit phase, and 2.8 GW announced (GEM, 2022). In the past two decades, Indonesia has maintained steady
additions of capacity to keep up with projected demand growth. These additions were made possible through a series offast-tracked capacity expansion programs for CFPPs, with the aim of adding 42.5 GW capacity by 2024 (Antara News, 2019).
The realised demand growth has been consistently overestimated, resulting in excess capacities. Two of the largest grids
in the country, Java-Bali and Sumatra, are expected to have a reserved margin of up to 60% and 56% by 2030, respectively,
according to PLN forecasts. In essence, the national grid is facing an oversupply over the next decade (IEEFA, 2021a).
The planning document has indicated that PLN will retire its CFPP fleet, hence aligning with the government commitment
in achieving the carbon neutral target in 2060. Starting in 2030, the retirement will be done in stages and in accordancewith Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) and economic life-cycle considerations. The plan proposes the first phase of CFPP
retirement of 1.1 GW of subcritical units that have adequately reached the end of their designed lifetimes. The units locatedin Muara Karang, Tanjung Priok, Tambak Lorok, dan Gresik have been operating for 50–60 years, and are considered tobe retired in 2030 in RUPTL 2021-2030 (MEMR, 2021). However, PLN may decide to prolong the operational lifetime of its
plants by up to 20 years through refurbishment, retrofit or life extension for certain CFPPs that are still considered assets,
as cited in RUPTL 2021-23 (MEMR, 2021, p. V-66). This would disrupt efforts to reach emission reduction targets.

9

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

National efforts and international support
Based on the historical electricity consumption trend, it is clear that the country should reduce or delay capacity expansion
and pursue early retirement of the less efficient, older CFPPs, while load growth resumes. The Ministry of Energy andMineral Resources started to work with PLN to develop a staged retirement plan, designed to meet Indonesia’s Net Zero
Emissions 2060 roadmap. As the preliminary initial plan, PLN announced the targets to retire 1 GW of CFPPs before 2030
and implement phased retirements up to 2055 when the last unabated CFPP is expected to be retired (Fiscal Policy
Agency, 2022).
In October 2022, Presidential Regulation No. 112 Year 2022 on the Acceleration of Renewable Energy Development for theProvision of Electricity was issued. The regulation showcases the country’s commitment to prioritising new and renewable
power plants and transitioning away from fossil fuels. The regulation details that Indonesia will not allow additional CFPPs
to be built after its issuance and set 2050 as the maximum limit of the operational year. New CFPPs are only permitted for
those that have been included in RUPTL and Indonesia’s National Strategic Project due to the expected contribution tojob creation and economic growth.
The regulation also includes that exceptions may apply to coal power plant operations that are able to fulfil thecommitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 35% within 10 years since the start of operation, throughtechnology implementation, carbon offsets, and/or renewables energy mix. The emissions baseline would be the average
emission of PLTU in Indonesia in 2021 (MEMR, 2022a).
The Government of Indonesia and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) officially introduced the Energy Transition
Mechanism (ETM) Country Platform to pursue the country’s 2060 Net Zero Emissions target (MEMR, 2022b) at the G20
Summit in November 2022. To achieve this and to reduce Indonesia’s carbon emissions by 32% by 2030, the country aims
to speed up the retirement of 33 coal power plants which amount to a total capacity of 16.8 GW.
The ETM Country Platform targets acceleration of renewables and low-emissions technology development, and ultimately
deploying 700 GW of renewable energy plants. The total required investment amount will be up to USD 1 trillion (IDR 15
quadrillion) by 2060 with the support of international partners such as ADB, Islamic Development Bank, and World Bank
(ADB, 2022; MEMR, 2022b). The initial retirement plan has been developed by Indonesia under the ADB ETM initiative,
listing priority power plants that are best suited for retirement before and after 2030. The annual capacities listed in thisinitial plan are illustrated in Figure 4 below.

Annual Retirements (MW), 2035-2035 by grid

3.000

MW

2.000

1.000

0

2026

2027

2028
Java-Bali (PLN)

2029

2030
Java-Bali (IPP)

2031

2032

2033

2034

Sumatra (PLN)

Source: GEM. (2022). Global Coal Plant Tracker. Indonesia.

Figure 4. Annual future retirement plan of the coal plants for Java Bali (PLN), Java Bali (IPP), and Sumatra (PLN) developed
under the ADB ETM initiative (GEM, 2022; Fiscal Policy Agency, 2022).

10

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

At the same G20 Summit event, the United States, European Union, Canada, Japan, and the UK announced the Just
Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) with Indonesia to financially support the country in its climate targets and energy
transition, and to keep in line with the 1.5 degrees target. The targets will be achieved through USD 20 billion in public andprivate funding over three to five years (European Commission, 2022a).
The partnership is meant to help Indonesia reach Net Zero Emissions by 2060 or sooner by accelerating the decarbonizationof Indonesia’s power sector. This includes early retirement of some coal plants, while increasing the share of renewables.
The agreement requires the country to cap its power sector emissions at 290 million tons (CO2) in 2030, down from thebaseline value for 2030 of 357 million tons (CO2) (European Commission, 2022b). The share of renewable energy in theelectricity sector is to be increased from 23% to 34% by 2030.
The agreement also includes the target of achieving net zero emissions in the power sector by 2050. In addition, the early
retirement of coal-fired power plants will be prioritised as well as halting the pipeline of planned on-grid CFPPs includedin the RUPTL (Ember, 2023).
Another form of international support for Indonesia’s energy transition is the Climate Investment Funds (CIF) program
Accelerating Coal Transition (ACT), an initiative to aid coal-dependent countries reduce their dependence on coal powerand be on track to meet global commitments made in the 2016 Paris Agreement commitment (CIF, 2023). The ACTplan developed together with the ADB and World Bank, comprises three key elements: Accelerated CFPP Retirement;
Governance, Just Transition and Repurposing; and Scale Up of Renewable Energy and Storage.

Pollution control and emission regulation
The air pollutants of greatest concern emitted by coal-fired power plants are fine particulate matter of PM2.5, sulphur dioxide(SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NOx), mercury, and other heavy metals. Due to relatively lax air pollutant emissions standards, themajority of Indonesia’s coal-fired power plants lack air pollutant control technologies for SO2 and NOx. These pollutants
make a significant contribution to PM2.5 pollution through the formation and release of sulphate and nitrate aerosols, aform of PM2.5, in the atmosphere.
In recent years, numerous new CFPPs have been built to meet the increasing electricity needs of Indonesia (GEM, 2023).
The share of CFPPs in total power generation has increased substantially in the Southeast Asian region, particularly inIndonesia, nearly doubling from about 25% in 1995 to 52% in 2014, reaching 67% in 2022 (MEMR, 2023b). Indonesia also
has the highest share of coal-fired power in its generation mix among ASEAN countries (ERIA, 2017).
As highlighted by the Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA), coal can be considered one of thecheapest fuel sources for power generation in terms of direct cost but comes at a significant cost of public health.
While raising emissions standards generally leads to an electricity tariff increase, this would be the most desirable andsustainable outcome for the country to allow proper installation and continued operation of Air Pollution Control (APC)
equipment in all operational CFPPs.
Once emission standards are implemented, the country has the responsibility to ensure proper management of APC andprovide disclosure of monitoring records. Open access to these records serves as evidence for regulatory compliance,
while simultaneously gaining public support, especially for those living close to CFPPs. ERIA highlights that the monitoring
system should be highly transparent, monitoring levels at the plant level and the local regions.
Indonesia has implemented two key regulations on controlling emissions from CFPPs: the Ministerial Decree of the
Ministry of Environment and Forestry No 21. Year 2008 on Static Emission Sources Quality Standard for Business and/or Activities of a Thermal Power Plant, and the Ministerial Decree of the Ministry of Environment and Forestry No. P.15/
MENLHK/SETJEN/KUM.1/4/2019 on Emissions Quality Standard of Thermal Power Plant (Ministry of Environment andForestry, 2023).

11

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

The latter introduced standards for “new” coal power plants that are better aligned with standards enforced in othermajor coal-consuming countries. However, already permitted and under-construction power plants are not considered“new” by the government when enforcing the standards, allowing them to follow the lax standards for “existing” power
plants. CFPPs with a capacity of 25 MW and higher, as well as CFPPs with a capacity of less than 25 MW that operatecontinuously and use coal with a sulphur content larger than 2%, are mandated to measure their emissions using aContinuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS). The summary of the maximum levels of pollutants at coal plants isprovided in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Summary of Indonesia’s CFPP maximum emission limits

Regulation

Permen LHK No 21
Tahun 2008 (prior)

Permen LHK No.
P.15/MENLHK/SETJEN/
KUM.1/4/2019(in-force)

Operation
year

SO2(mg/Nm³)

NOx (NO2)(mg/Nm³)

PM(mg/Nm³)

Before 01
Dec. 2008

750

850

150

20%

After 01 Dec.
2008

750

750

100

20%

Before 23
April 2019

550

550

100

0.03

After 23 April
2019

200

200

50

0.03

Opacity

Mercury(mg/Nm³)

A three-year project, “Transparent Pollution Control in Indonesia” that runs from March 2021 until February 2024, aims to
support Indonesia in reaching international goals of energy transition. Indonesia receives financial support from the EU
to improve industrial pollution monitoring, through the implementation of the Pollutant Release and Transfer Register(PRTR). The project also aims to establish a stronger civil advocacy network in Indonesia, to engage with the national
stakeholders and push for an immediate response (EEAS, 2021; Simon, 2023).
Nexus3 Foundation highlights the urgent need to control air pollution, citing the 2019 Citizen Lawsuit submitted by 32
citizens which is addressed to President Joko Widodo, the Minister of Environment and Forestry, Minister of Health, andMinister of Internal Affairs, as well as the Governor of West Java and the Governor of Banten. Air pollution in Jakarta
is mainly associated with six coal-fired power plants located in the nearby three provinces, emissions from millions ofvehicles, and industrial activities. High levels of pollution have been a result of unenforced emissions testing and a lack ofnational and subnational efforts to reduce pollutant release (Nexus3 Foundation, 2021).

12

Methodology
13

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

This study quantifies the health impacts of air pollutant emissions from coal power generation in Indonesia using theimpact pathway approach. This approach is the most common way to study the health impacts of air pollutant sources,
following the chain of causation from emissions, to atmospheric dispersion and chemical transformation, population
exposure, resulting health impacts, and the economic cost of those health impacts. The impacts are quantified for a rangeof future pathways, from the pathway implied by the current regulations, as well as a pathway that is aligned with 1.5
degrees target for utility power plants and a pathway that is aligned with 1.5 degrees target for both captive and utility
power plants. The study also quantifies the long-term impacts of mandating more stringent air pollutant emission controls
and different levels of biomass co-firing.
The analysis carried out in this work is done by:(1) Developing a plant-by-plant inventory of emissions;(2) Estimating pollution dispersion from CFPPs through atmospheric modelling;(3) Quantifying air pollution health impacts resulting from changes in ambient concentration; and(4) Valuing health impacts in monetary terms using a cost of illness method.
The analysis was carried out in a spatial grid with a 5x5 km resolution, with health impacts calculated for each grid cell. Alldatasets were aggregated or interpolated to this resolution as required.

Emissions inventory
CREA compiled a plant-level emissions inventory of all operational CFPPs in Indonesia, to be used as inputs to air quality
modelling. The inventory includes plant-specific information on combustion and generation technologies, power
generation capacity and plant location, pollutant flue gas concentrations. It also includes stack information, namely stackheight and diameter, flue gas release velocity, and temperature. The stack characteristics are used to model plume releaseheight and the thermal rise of pollutants.
The first compilation on existing, under construction, and planned coal power plants were taken from the Global Energy
Monitor (GEM) Global Coal Plant Tracker (GCPT) (GEM, 2023). Basic information includes plant coordinates, generating
capacity, start year of operation, and status (operating, under construction, permitted, pre-permit, announced). The
initial inventory is then cross-verified and complemented with information compiled from local partners. Further datacompilation was conducted to obtain available data on plant-specific emissions data from official reports, voluntary
operator reports, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) documents, national emissions standards and other relevant
regulations..
Since the emission volumes of coal-fired power plants are not disclosed publicly in Indonesia, emissions mass rate (E) of
the main air pollutants (SO2, NOx, PM) were calculated using the formula:E=

CAPXCFx SFGV x FGC
EFF

where CAP is the gross electric generation capacity of the plant unit (MW), EFF is the thermal efficiency (gross, on Lower
Heating Value (LHV) basis, in MJ/kg), CF is the capacity factor, SFGV is the specific flue gas volume of the coal (Nm3/GJ) and
FGC is the flue gas concentration of the pollutant (mg/Nm3).

14

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

Mercury emissions were calculated as:

E=

1
CAPXCFxx CHg x (1 - C)
EFF
CAL

Where CAL is the calorific value of the coal, CHg is the mercury content in coal and CE is the mercury control efficiency.

• Information on FGC was collected from a wide range of sources including the plant operator's website, their CSR andfinancial reports as well as data from environmental impact assessments. We also sourced academic studies that
had plant-specific data. The information was then generalised to other power plants, creating separate categories forsmall plants (<100MW), new plants (commissioned since 2015), and for SO2 and NOx, plants equipped with emission
control devices for these pollutants.

• When plant thermal efficiency was not available, gross efficiency of 44% on an LHV basis was assumed for ultra-

supercritical plants, 42% for supercritical plants, 38% for subcritical plants built since 2010, and 35% for plants built
earlier. These are assumptions generalised from available data for plants of different types. For small units with lessthan 100 MW capacity, 30% was assumed.

• Specific flue gas volume of 379 Nm /GJ (corrected at 7% oxygen) was used, calculated as the average of Indonesian3coal samples in the USGS World Coal Quality Inventory (USGS, 2019).

• Coal power capacity and generation in the current policies and 1.5 degrees scenarios were taken from the GCAM

simulations (Cui et al., 2022). Captive power plants were assumed to operate at 80% utilisation, while utility power
plants followed the utilisation projected by GCAM.

• Mercury content in coal used as fuel sources in 47 CFPPs in Indonesia was obtained from a survey on national mercury
emissions from CFPPs in Indonesia (BCRC-SEA, 2017). Mercury control efficiency was based on values specific to coaltype and air pollutant control technology in UNEP (2017) Mercury Toolkit.

• The effect of biomass co-firing on emissions was projected using relationships derived from EU emissions data (EEA,

2023). This data contains annual fuel input and air pollutant emissions for hundreds of large combustion plants,
allowing us to quantify the effect of variations in the shares of biomass and coal year-to-year at the same facility(Figure 5).

• We assumed the application of CCS reduces SO , NO , and PM emissions by 85%, 29%, and 6%, respectively, based on2xresearch by the European Environment Agency (EEA, 2011).

Where information on a plant’s emissions values was lacking or unavailable, it was generalised using average values
for projects with similar capacity and combustion technology. We assumed that such plants were in compliance withthe country’s emissions standards and fully operating their emission control devices. Information on installed emission
controls was also collected from these primary documents, as well as the S&P (2020) World Electric Power Plants database.
To assess the life-cycle emissions of plants that are currently under construction and without a known date of operation,these plants are assumed to come online in 2025. As for projects that are not yet under construction and without a known
operating date, the power plants are assumed to come online by 2028. For delayed projects, i.e. under construction plantsthat had a targeted operating date in the past, the operating date was assumed to be 2023. Similarly, for new projects
not yet under construction, it was assumed that projects currently permitted would come online in 2026 at the earliest,
projects in the "pre-permit" stage in 2027, and "announced" projects in 2028.

15

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

In the Air Pollution Control (APC) scenarios, retrofitted plants were assumed to meet the more lenient end of the EU
Best Available Technology reference levels: 130 mg/Nm3 for SO2, 150 mg/Nm3 for NOx and 10 mg/Nm3 for PM1 (European
Commission, 2021). For mercury, mercury-specific controls with 75% control efficiency were assumed, based on UNEP's(2017) Mercury Toolkit.

Source: Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) analysis based on European Environment Agency (EEA) data.

Figure 5. Effect of biomass co-firing on emissions of major air pollutants, derived from European Union Industrial Reporting
Database (EEA, 2023)

Atmospheric modelling
CREA simulated air pollutant concentrations using the CALPUFF air dispersion model, version 7 (Exponent, 2015).
CALPUFF is a widely-used industry standard model for long-range air quality impacts of point sources. The model has
been evaluated extensively by the US Environmental Protection Agency, is open-source, and fully documented. CALPUFF
calculates the atmospheric transport, dispersion, chemical transformation, deposition of the pollutants, and the resulting
incremental ground-level concentrations attributed to the studied emissions sources. Chemical transformations of NO to
NO2 as well as SO2 and NO2 to PM2.5 are calculated using the ISORROPIA chemistry module in CALPUFF.
Background concentrations of oxidants (ozone, ammonia, hydrogen peroxide) are taken from simulations using the GeosChem global atmospheric model with a nested grid for Southeast Asia (Koplitz et al., 2017). Meteorological input data forthe year 2021 are generated from the Weather Research Forecasting (WRF) model (Skamarock et al., 2008), version 4.2.2.
WRF was set up with 33 vertical levels and two nested grids. These are shown in Figure 6.

1

The levels for SO2 and NOx are obtained from the yearly average higher end of 300 MW and larger coal-fired PC boilers for existing plants; and the level for PM is the yearly average higher
end of 300-1,000 MW for existing plants.

16

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

Source: Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA).

Figure 6. Maps of mother and inner nests in WRF meteorological model

The mother nest has a grid resolution of 60 km and spans approximately 12,000 km in the east-west direction and 4,600
km in the north-south direction. The inner nest has a grid resolution of 12 km, spanning roughly 4,000 km in the east-west
and 2,000 km in the north-south direction. Land-use data were obtained from the European Space Agency (2018), andterrain elevation data were obtained from NASA Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) high-resolution datasets (Farret al., 2007).
Mother and inner domains use a two-way nesting technique which ensures dynamic interaction between them. WRF
simulations use initial and lateral boundary conditions from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction’s(NCEP) Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR) dataset (Saha et al., 2014) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), producing three-dimensional, hourly meteorological data covering the full calendar year of 2021.
For assessment of annual average pollutant concentrations, emissions are assumed to be constant throughout the year.
The power plant units were modelled as buoyant point sources, taking into account the stack height and thermal plumerise from the stacks. This requires input data on the stack characteristics: stack height, stack inner diameter, flue gas
exit velocity, and temperature. Information on these characteristics was collected manually from a wide range of public
sources for as many power plants as possible and generalised to the other plants by building a linear regression model
predicting each of the stack characteristics based on the properties of the plant. The predictors used in the model wereplant capacity, commissioning year, and in the case of flue gas temperature, the presence of an SO2 scrubber, which
lowers the temperature.
The power plants were grouped into clusters, with units within 1 km of each other and with similar stack characteristics
grouped together as one point source, to make the computing requirements manageable. This resulted in a total of 145
modelled clusters, as illustrated in Figure 2. Separate model simulations were performed for each cluster.

17

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

Health and economic impacts assessment
We used CREA’s detailed and globally implementable health impact assessment framework based on the latest scienceto estimate the impacts of air pollution on public health. This framework includes as complete a set of health outcomesas possible without obvious overlaps. The emphasis is on outcomes for which incidence data are available at the national
level from global datasets and outcomes that have high relevance for healthcare costs and labour productivity. These
health endpoints were selected and quantified in a way that enables economic valuation, adjusted by levels of economic
output and income in different jurisdictions.
For each evaluated health outcome, we have selected a concentration-response relationship that has already been used
to quantify the health burden of air pollution at the global level in peer-reviewed literature. This indicates the evidence
is mature enough to be applied across geographies and exposure levels. The calculation of health impacts follows astandard epidemiological calculation:∆cases = Pop x ∑ Fracage x Incidenceage x
age

RRconc,age - 1
RRconc,age,

where Pop is the total population in the grid location, age is the analysed age group (in the case of age-dependent
concentration-response functions, a 5-year age segment; in other cases, the total age range to which the function isapplicable), Fracage is the fraction of the population belonging to the analysed age group, Incidenceage is the baseline
incidence of the analysed health condition, and conc is the pollutant concentration, with concbase referring to the baseline
concentration (current ambient concentration). RR(conc,age) is the function giving the risk ratio of the analysed healthoutcome at the given concentration for the given age group compared with clean air. In the case of a log-linear, non-agespecific concentration-response function, the RR function becomes:

RR (c) = [RR0 x c] - [c0 x ∆ c0], ketika c > c0
RR (c) = 1 otherwise, where RR0 is the risk ratio found in epidemiological research, ∆c0 is the concentration change that
RR0, and c0 is the assumed no-harm concentration (in general, the lowest concentration found in study data).
Data on total population and population age structure were taken from Global Burden of Disease results for 2019 (Global
Burden of Disease, 2020), distributed by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) (IHME, 2020). The spatial
distribution of population within each city and country, as projected for 2020, was based on the Gridded Population of theWorld v4 from the Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN, 2018). Following the update of the
WHO Air Quality Guidelines (WHO, 2021), which now recognizes health harm from NO2 at low concentrations, we use themortality risk function for NO2 based on the findings of Huangfu and Atkinson (2020), and include impacts down to 4.5 µg/
m3, the lowest concentration level in studies that found increased mortality risk, tabulated in Table 2.
Adult deaths were estimated using the risk functions developed by Burnett et al. (2018), as applied by Lelieveld et al. (2019).
Deaths of children under the age of five from lower respiratory infections linked to PM2.5 pollution were assessed using the
Global Burden of Disease risk function for lower respiratory diseases (IHME, 2020). For all mortality results, cause-specificdata were taken from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease project results (IHME, 2020).

18

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

Health impact modelling projects the effects of pollutant exposure during the study year. Some health impacts are
immediate, such as exacerbation of asthma symptoms and lost working days, whereas other chronic impacts may
have a latency of several years. Concentration-response relationships for emergency room visits for asthma and workabsences were based on studies that evaluated daily variations in pollutant concentrations and health outcomes. These
relationships were applied to changes in annual average concentrations. The annual average baseline concentrationsof PM2.5 and NO2 were taken from van Donkelaar et al. (2021) and Larkin et al. (2017), respectively. Since the no-harmconcentration for SO2 is very low and the risk function is linear with respect to the background concentration, there wasno need for data on SO2 background concentrations.
To understand the health impacts in the future, the study took into account the projected changes in population,
population age structure, and mortality by age group, based on the UNDP (2019) World Population Prospects Medium
Variant. This factors in the expected reduction in baseline infant mortality and increase in premature deaths from chronic
diseases in older adults as a part of the population and epidemiological transitions and improvements in health care. In
2022, CREA provided the Institute for Essential Services Reform and the University of Maryland health impact assessments,
which estimated 8,700 deaths caused by emissions from coal-fired power plants every year. This report incorporates far
more detailed air pollutant dispersion modelling and refined emissions inventories and takes into account the healthimpacts of exposure to SO2 and NO2, in addition to PM2.5.

Table 2. Input parameters and data used in estimating physical health impacts

Age
group

EffectConcentration
Concentration No-risk
Pollutantresponse
Referencechangethresholdfunction

Incidence
data

1–18

New asthma cases

NO2

1.26
(1.10 – 1.37)

10 ppb2 ppb

Khreis etal. (2017)

Achakulwisut
et al. (2019)

0–17

Asthma emergency
room visits

PM2.5

1.025
(1.013 – 1.037)

10 µg/m3

6 µg/m3

Zheng etal. (2015)

Anenberg etal. (2018)

18–99

Asthma emergency
room visits

PM2.5

1.023
(1.015 – 1.031)

10 µg/m3

6 µg/m3

Zheng etal. (2015)

Anenberg etal. (2018)

Newborn Preterm birth

PM2.5

1,15
(1.07 – 1.16)

10 µg/m

8.8 µg/m

20–65Work absence

PM2.5

1.046
(1.039 – 1.053)

10 µg/m3

N/A

WHO(2013)EEA (2014)

0–4

Deaths fromlower respiratory
infections

PM2.5

IHME (2020)

5.8 µg/m3

IHME(2020)IHME (2020)

25–99

Deaths fromnoncommunicablediseases,disaggregated bycause, and fromlower respiratory
infections

PM2.5

Burnett et al.
(2018)

2.4 µg/m3

Burnett etal. (2018)

IHME (2020)

3

3

ChawanSapkota etPaiboon et al.
al. (2012)(2018)

19

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

25–99

Disability causedby diabetes,
stroke and chronic
respiratory disease

PM2.5

IHME (2020)

2.4 µg/m3

Burnett etal. (2018)

IHME (2020)

IHME (2020)

IHME (2020)

25–99

Premature deaths

NO2

1.02
(1.01 – 1.04)

10 µg/m3

4.5 µg/m3

Huangfu &Atkinson(2020);
NRT dari
Stieb et al.
(2021)

25–99

Premature deaths

SO2

1.02
(1.01–1.03)

5 ppb

0.02 ppb

Krewski etal. (2009)

Note: Numeric values in the column “Concentration-response function” refer to odds ratio corresponding to the increase in concentrations given in the column “concentration change.”
Literature references indicate the use of a non-linear concentration-response function. No-harm threshold refers to a concentration below which the health impact is not quantified,generally because the studies on which the function is based did not include people with lower exposure levels. Data on concentration-response relationships do not exist for all
geographies, so a global risk model is applied to all cities. Incidence data are generally unavailable at the city level so national averages have to be applied.

Air pollution increases the risk of developing respiratory and cardiovascular diseases and complications related to them,significantly lowering the quality of life and economic productivity of people affected while increasing healthcare costs.
Economic losses as a result of air pollution were calculated using the methods outlined in Myllyvirta (2020). The valuationof deaths was updated to the values derived by Viscusi and Masterman (2017) which are based on labour market data, andpay particular attention to applicability in middle- and low-income countries.
The Global Burden of Disease project has quantified the degree of disability caused by each disease into a “disability
weight” that can be used to compare the costs of different illnesses. The economic cost of disability and reduced qualityof life caused by these diseases and disabilities are assessed based on disability weights, combined with the economic
valuation of disability used by the UK environmental regulator Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Birchby
et al., 2019), and adjusted by GNI PPP for Indonesia. The deaths of young children are valued at twice the valuation of adultdeaths, following OECD’s recommendations (2012).
The valuation of future health impacts is based on the premise that the long-term social discount rate is equal to the longterm GDP growth rate, and the economic loss associated with different health impacts is proportional to the GDP, resulting
in a constant present value of health impacts over time.

20

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

Table 3. Input parameters and data used to estimate economic costs of health impacts

Outcome

Valuation at world
average GDP/GNI
per capita (2017 int.
USD)

Valuation in Indonesia
Reference(current USD)

(current USD)

22

335,300

EEA (2014)

Number of children sufferingfrom asthma due to pollution
1,077
exposure (increased prevalence)

274

4,228,000

Brandt et al. (2012)

Deaths2,637,000

663,900

10,260,000,000

Viscusi & Masterman(2017)

Deaths of children under 55,273,000

1,328,000

20,510,000,000 OECD (2012)

Asthma emergency room visits

232

59

911,800

Brandt et al. (2012)

Preterm births

107,700

27,370422,800,000

Trasande et al. (2016)

Years lived with disability

28,4807,171

110,800,000

Birchby et al. (2019)

Work absence (sick leave days)

85

Cost of air pollution controls
Installation and operating costs for air pollution controls (APC) were compiled from a range of sources, shown in Table
A4 in the Appendix. We transferred these costs to Indonesian cost levels by first converting the reported costs to current
prices in U.S. dollars, and then using the cross-country estimates of the relative costs of flue gas desulfurization (FGD) andselective catalytic reduction (SCR) (Ferrari et al., 2019) to calculate the average transferred costs, shown in Table A4 in the
Appendix. Since Ferrari et al. did not estimate dust control costs, we used the sum of FGD and SCR costs as an indicator of
the relative costs of dust controls, as the relative costs of the different control systems are likely to be closely correlated.
Table A5 in the Appendix shows the estimated average costs of the different APC technologies in Indonesia. We used thisdata to project the additional costs from meeting the more stringent emission standards assumed in the APC scenario,
compared with the current APC costs plants have to incur already to meet current national standards. This means thatexisting plants already have particulate matter controls to operate. This study assumes the inclusion of investment in arebuilt dust control system to meet more stringent standards, without an increase in operating costs. SO2 and NOx controls
need to be added, with their full capital and operating costs included as an additional cost.
Unlike existing plants, new plants in Indonesia are already mandated to install FGD, and SNCR and dust controls to comply
with national emission standards. We assumed that the additional capital and operating costs of a higher-performance
FGD and dust control are 50% of the full cost shown in Table A5, a conservative assumption. For NOx control, we assumed
that the plants installed SCR instead of SNCR, and assigned the difference as an additional cost. For future projections, we
assumed that the cost escalation of the APC technologies is equal to the long-term average GDP growth rate.

21

Evaluation of different
phase-out timelines
22

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

CREA has developed and modelled three distinct scenario pathways based on CFPP retirement schedules applicable tothe national electricity provider namely PLN and the IPPs, CFPP retirement schedule applicable to captive power plants,
implementation of co-firing in CFPP operation, and installation of Air Pollution Control (APC) technologies. A summary of
the scenarios considered in this study is tabulated in Table 4.

Table 4. Scenario matrix of Indonesia’s pathways to a Just Energy Transition

Scenario

PERPRES 112/2022- referred to as
current policies inthis study
1.5 degrees,
excluding captive
power plants
1.5 degrees

PLN & IPP
Captive Power
Retirement Schedule Retirement Schedule
14 GW of PLN & IPP
power plants are
retired by 2035, while
the remaining are
retired by 2050

Retirement schedulealigned with IESRUMD optimised
pathway

Biomass
Co-firing

Phased increaseof co-firing share,reaching 20% at PLN
All captive power
plants are retired after power plants by 2030
30 years of operation

Retirement schedulealigned with IESRUMD optimised
pathway

Co-firing maintainedat currently
committed levels,
i.e. 5% at most PLN
power plants

Air Pollution Control
Retrofit
APCs are installed tofollow the current
national emission
limits until end-of-life

APCs are installed tofollow the current
national emission
limits until end-of-life

It should be noted that the study considers the retirement schedule defined in the Presidential Regulation (Peraturan
Presiden, Perpres) No. 112 Year 2022 as the baseline scenario. Under PERPRES 112/2022 scenario, a total capacity of
14 GW of PLN and IPP coal plants is to be retired by 2035, while the remaining plants retire by 2050. Captive plants are
assumed to retire after 30 years of operation. Furthermore, biomass co-firing is increased to a minimum of 20% by 2030 at
PLN power plants to contribute towards the 34% renewable energy target by 2030 set in JETP. APC technology is installed
and follows current emission limits until the end-of-life for the plants.
The pathway for retiring Indonesia's coal-fired plants in order to meet the global commitment to limit average global
temperature rise to 1.5 degrees by 2030 is derived from the report "Financing Indonesia's Coal Phase-out" by IESR and the
University of Maryland (Cui et al., 2022). The 1.5 degrees scenarios developed in this study maximise the health benefitsof the coal phase-out. Under this consideration, the plants with the highest health costs per unit of power generated are
retired first within each electric grid.
The 1.5 degrees scenario excluding captive power plants assumes them to be retired after 30 years of operation. With
the inclusion of captive power plants, the scenario assumes their retirement to be aligned with IESR-UMD’s optimised
pathway. This pathway suggests that Indonesia’s coal power generation would decrease by 11% in 2030, by over 90% in
2040, and would be completely phased out by 2045. In absolute numbers, 18 plants would retire by the end of the decade,39 between 2031 and 2040. The remaining 15 of the 72 non-captive coal plants would be operated at low utilisation levels
beyond 2040, and retired by 2045.

23

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

Implications on air pollution
Coal-based power plants emit large amounts of pollutants, namely SOX, NOx, and PM, and also heavy metals. This study
estimates that all operating coal plants in Indonesia emitted 399 kilotons (kt) of SOx, 349 kt of NOx, and 73 kt of PM in 2022.
Furthermore, an estimated 7,100 kg of mercury was emitted in the same period. Not only do these power plant emissions
affect populations in the vicinity of the plants, pollutants are also carried by wind and other atmospheric conditions tofarther locations resulting in nation-wide consequences.
Figure 7 shows the maximum 1-hour and 24-hour concentrations of NO2, SO2, and PM2.5 attributed to coal power in 2022,
and it shows high concentration levels of all pollutants throughout Indonesia. We chose between 1-hour and 24-hourmaximum plots for each pollutant based on the metric used in the WHO 2005 Air Quality Guidelines which are the basis
for Indonesia’s national standards.
The major hotspots of coal power plant pollution in Indonesia are Banten, Central Sulawesi, Central Java, Riau, Maluku,
and North Maluku. Emissions in Banten are dominated by PLN power plants, of which more than half are relatively old(commissioned before 2010). In all the listed provinces outside of Java, captive power plants commissioned after 2010
dominate the emissions. In Central Java, relatively new IPP power plants are the main source.
Figures 8, 9, and 10 visualise the annual mean concentrations of each pollutant type in 2035 by scenario. They are the
PERPRES 112/2022 scenario, the 1.5 degrees scenario excluding captive power, and the 1.5 degrees scenario. By 2035,
there would be large improvements in air quality by following a coal power retirement pathway that is aligned with the
1.5 degrees target, as shown in the bottom images. Also, for all of the pollutants, there are major changes in air quality
between the 1.5 degrees scenario that includes captive power plants retirement and the 1.5 degrees scenario that excludes
captive retirement, as shown in the middle and bottom images respectively, especially in Eastern Indonesia where most of
the captive power plant fleet is located.

24

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

ModeledsourcesModeledsources

Source: Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA).

Figure 7. Maximum 1-hour and 24-hour concentrations from all coal power plants in Indonesia by pollutant in 2022

25

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

Modeledsources

Source: Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA).

Figure 8. Visualised distribution of coal power plants and mean NO2 concentrations in Indonesia by scenario in 2035

26

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

Modeledsources

Source: Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA).

Figure 9. Visualised distribution of coal power plants and mean PM2.5 concentrations in Indonesia by scenario in 2035

27

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

Modeledsources

Source: Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA).

Figure 10. Visualised distribution of coal power plants and mean SO2 concentrations in Indonesia by scenario in 2035

28

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

Health impacts and cost implications
Annual impacts
Under the current policy measure, PERPRES 112/2022, air pollution from coal-fired power plants was accountable for an
estimated 10,500 (95% CI: 6,500–16,400) deaths in 2022 ( as illustrated in Figure 11) and health costs amounted to USD 7.4
billion (IDR 109.9 trillion; 95% CI: USD 4.6–11.5 billion, IDR 67.6–170.3 trillion). Air pollution-related deaths are on the rise,
and are expected to peak in 2028, with nearly 16,600 deaths annually - nearly a 60% increase in just six years.

Source: Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA).

Figure 11. Air pollution-related deaths by year and by scenario

Corresponding with the slow phase-out of power plants, deaths are expected to reduce slowly after peaking in the late
2020s. Air pollution would continue to burden society beyond 2050 if Indonesia continues with its current policies. Withan opportunity to accelerate coal phase-out by 2040, the country should prioritise cancellation of the coal power plantsthat are planned but not yet under construction and replace coal capacity needs with renewable sources. These measureswould kick-start national efforts in a Just Transition. As illustrated in Figure 11, air pollution-related deaths and costs
would reach an earlier peak in 2026, followed by a rapid decline to reach zero in both deaths and economic costs by 2041
under the 1.5 degrees scenario.
The magnitude of deaths linked to air pollution from coal power plants at the provincial level is illustrated in Figure 12.
West Java (Jawa Barat) is the most affected province by coal-fired power emissions with annual deaths exceeding 4,000(95% CI: 2,566–6,438). West Java is followed by Banten with 2,000 (95% CI: 1,308–3,406) deaths per year, and Central Java
(Jawa Tengah) with 1,700 (95% CI: 1,090–2,749) annual deaths.

29

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

Source: Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA).

Figure 12. Top 10 provinces most affected by coal power emissions

Figure 13 shows the estimates of air pollution deaths attributed to the provinces where the coal power plants are located.
Provinces whose emissions are responsible for the greatest of annual deaths are Banten, Central Java (Jawa Tengah), andWest Java (Jawa Barat). Banten’s CFPPs can be linked to an estimated 3,800 deaths, while air pollutant emissions from
CFPPs located in Central Java and West Java cause an estimated 3,000 and 2,500 annual deaths, respectively. These major
provinces located on the island of Java, have the largest capacity-wise and the highest count of coal-fired power plants inall of Indonesia.

Source: Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA).

Figure 13. Top 10 provinces responsible for the largest number of deaths per year30

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

Cumulative impacts
As illustrated in Figure 14, the cumulative deaths would reach nearly 303,000 deaths from 2024 till all plants reach theend of their life (95% CI: 188,700–498,000) under the current policies. All health costs would amount to USD 212 billion(IDR 3.2 quadrillion; 95% CI: USD 132.5–327.9 billion, IDR 2.0–4.9 quadrillion). The 1.5 degrees scenario that excludes
captive plants would lead to significantly lower deaths and health costs, with cumulative deaths halved at 148,000 (95%
CI: 91,400–231,000). The economic burden to society would also halve at USD 104 billion (IDR 1.5 quadrillion; 95% CI:
USD 63.7–161.2 billion, IDR 0.9–2.4 quadrillion). If captive power plants were to be retired early by 2040, greater national
benefits can be achieved. Approximately 180,000 air pollution-related deaths and USD 127 billion (IDR 1.9 trillion) in healthcosts can be avoided.

Source: Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA).

Figure 14. Cumulative deaths and health costs from 2024 onwards by scenario

Air pollution has a particularly profound impact on newborns, causing low birth weight, premature births and asthma toname a few. In adults, health impacts include diabetes, stroke and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. These give rise
to work absences due to the need to take sick leave or care for someone else who is sick and this burdens any economy.
The estimated cumulative health impacts are significant under the current policy. A large extent could be avoided throughbetter alignment with the 1.5 degrees target. As shown in Table 5, the 1.5 degrees scenario would avoid over half thenumber of sick leave days, new cases of asthma in children, total cases of children suffering from asthma due to pollution
exposure, asthma emergency room visits, low birthweight births, and preterm births compared to the PERPRES 112/2022
scenario. For instance, the number of children suffering from asthma due to pollution exposure would decrease from
240,323 to 107,494. Meanwhile, the 1.5 degrees scenario that excludes captive coal plants from the retirement assumption
would still bring significant reduction to 120,091, less than half of the number of cases estimated in the PERPRES 112/2022
scenario.
Similarly, the calculated years of lives lost due to NO2 and SO2 exposure are significantly reduced in the 1.5 degrees
scenarios compared to the PERPRES 112/2022 scenario. The greatest improvements would be in the years of lives lostfrom SO2 exposure, as the 1.5 degree scenario would reduce years of lives lost by 59%. The reduction in the years of lives
lost due to NO2 exposure would also be significant, at 58%. Excluding captive plants from the 1.5 degrees scenario would
lead to about 10% smaller reductions.

31

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

When it comes to the years lived with disabilities, the scenarios aligning with the 1.5 degrees target — including optimised
captive power plant retirement — would reduce those years by as much as 60–70%. The years lived with chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, or stroke would reduce by more than a half in the 1.5 degrees excluding captive
scenario, but the reduction would be even higher in the 1.5 degrees scenario.
Table 5. Central estimate of cumulative health impacts by scenario

Outcome

1.5 degrees
excluding captive

1.5 Degrees

PERPRES 112/2022

Counts of sick leave days
Work absence

48,831,083

55,968,109

114,352,550

Number of cases
New cases of asthma in children

70,68982,869146,902

Total cases of asthma in children

302,495

354,636

628,652

Asthma emergency room visits107,494

120,091

240,323

Low birthweight births

34,27338,39673,539Preterm births

50,51455,753

107,180Years of lives lostAll causes from NO2 exposure

645,845795,756

1,521,544

All causes from SO2 exposure

403,125

501,943974,158

Years lived with disability
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

41,16948,772103,933

Diabetes

27,34140,47982,491

Stroke87,160101,923

217,926

32

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

Benefits of prioritising plants with worst health impacts
There is wide variation in health impacts per unit of electricity generated between different coal-fired power plants inIndonesia, owing to differences in plant location and emission intensity of the plants. Figure 15 illustrates the variancein health costs distribution across the region of Java-Bali-Sumatra, Kalimantan, Sulawesi, and others based on CFPP
ownership categories, namely PLN, IPP, combination of PLN and IPP, and captive. Across Java-Bali-Sumatra, impacts arenearly exclusively attributed to PLN and IPP. In the remaining regions, particularly Sulawesi and other regions, captive
power plants would be the primary contributors to air pollution from coal power. As for Kalimantan, considerable
contributions are apparent from both captive and PLN-owned power plants.

Source: Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA).

Figure 15. Distribution of health costs by plant in different regions

The plants with the highest health costs are ones located in or near densely populated areas, with meteorologicalconditions that lead to high exposure of the population to the plant emissions, e.g. due to prevailing wind directions, andpoor emission control performance. Clear examples are the PLN Muara Karang and Lontar power plants located in Jakarta
and Tangerang, as well as the captive coal power plants located in Bekasi, Karawang, Purwakarta, and Bandung. A full listof CFPPs is provided in Table 6 below where the coal power plants are ranked from the highest to the lowest health cost
per unit of electricity generated in each region.

33

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

Table 6. Coal power plants ranked from the highest estimated health costs per unit of electricity generated in each grid region,
separated into utility and captive power plants

Coal Power Plant

Coal Province Plant

RegionOwner

Capacity (MW)

Muara Karang

Jakarta Raya

Java-Bali-Sumatra

PLN

400

LontarBantenJava-Bali-Sumatra

PLN

1,260

CirebonJawa Barat

Java-Bali-Sumatra

IPP

660

Jawa-1 / Cirebon-2

Jawa Barat

Java-Bali-Sumatra

IPP

924

Cilacap

Jawa Tengah

Java-Bali-Sumatra

IPP

2,260

Atambua

Nusa Tenggara Timur

OthersPLN

24

Parit Baru Expansion

Kalimantan Barat

Kalimantan

PLN

100

Pantai Kura-Kura

Kalimantan Barat

Kalimantan

PLN

55

Embalut

Kalimantan Timur

Kalimantan

IPP

100

Asam-Asam

Kalimantan Selatan

Kalimantan

PLN

460

Sumbawa Barat

Nusa Tenggara Barat

OthersPLN

14

Rote Ndao

Nusa Tenggara Timur

Others

PLN

6

Bima

Nusa Tenggara Barat

Others

PLN

20

Alor

Nusa Tenggara Timur

Others

PLN

6

Ropa

Nusa Tenggara Timur

OthersPLN

14

Nii Tanasa

Sulawesi Tenggara

Sulawesi

PLN

30

Punagaya

Sulawesi Selatan

Sulawesi

PLN

220

Sulsel Barru

Sulawesi Selatan

Sulawesi

PLN

200

Jeneponto

Sulawesi Selatan

Sulawesi

IPP

450

TalaudSulawesi Utara

Sulawesi

PLN

6

FAJAR power station

Jawa Barat

Java-Bali-Sumatra

captive

55

Pindo-Deli-Ii power station

Jawa Barat

Java-Bali-Sumatra

captive

50

Cikarang Babelan power
stationJawa Barat

Java-Bali-Sumatra

captive

280

34

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

Indo Bharat Rayon power
stationJawa Barat

Java-Bali-Sumatra

captive

36.6

Bandung Indosyntec power
stationJawa Barat

Java-Bali-Sumatra

captive

30

Bengkayang Power Station

Kalimantan Barat

Kalimantan

captive

100

Kalimantan Cement Works
power station

Kalimantan Selatan

Kalimantan

captive

55

Tabalong Wisesa power station Kalimantan Selatan

Kalimantan

captive60

Ketapang Smelter power
stationKalimantan Barat

Kalimantan

captive

220

Adaro Aluminum Smelter
power station

Kalimantan Timur

Kalimantan

captive

2,200

Batu Hijau power station

Nusa Tenggara Barat

Otherscaptive

124

East Halmahera power station

Maluku Utara

Otherscaptive

90

Amamapare Port power station Papua

Otherscaptive

195

MSP Pulau Obi power station

Maluku Utara

Otherscaptive

114

Xinxing Ductile Iron Pipes Co
Captive power station

Maluku Utara

Otherscaptive

114

Tonasa Cement Plant power
stationSulawesi Selatan

Sulawesi

captive70

Pomalaa Nickel power station

Sulawesi Tenggara

Sulawesi

captive

60

Delong Nickel

Sulawesi Tengah

Sulawesi

captive

4,665

Qingdao Zhongsheng captive
power station

Sulawesi Tengah

Sulawesi

captive

390

Wanxiang Nickel Indonesia
power station

Sulawesi Tengah

Sulawesi

captive

130

Retirement pathways developed in the 1.5 degrees scenarios prioritise the plants with the highest health impacts. This
greatly increases the health benefits and cost-effectiveness of the coal phase-out. If the logic of retiring the oldest plants
first were to apply, the number of air pollution-related deaths in the current policies scenario would increase by 36,000
cases. Health cost trends are shown in Figure 16, where the dashed lines represent the higher costs that can be attributed
to age-based retirement in both the 1.5 degrees scenario and the PERPRES 112/2022 scenario. Cumulative health costs
would increase by USD 12 billion (IDR 180 trillion) higher from the optimised health-based retirement schedule developed
for the 1.5 degrees scenario, and by USD 24 billion (IDR 360 trillion) higher from the PERPRES 112/2022 scenario.

35

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

Source: Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA).

Figure 16. Air pollution-related costs by scenario with age-based retirement.

36

Evaluation of air pollution
control implementation
37

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

In contrast to the minor benefits of co-firing, air pollution control can have a large impact on the economy, public health,resilience, sustainability, and above all, the air quality of Indonesia and its population. Further concrete actions are needed
to sustain the momentum started in the Transparent Pollution Control project (EEAS, 2021) and best align national efforts
and international support for the benefit of all Indonesian people.
The country needs to enforce stronger and actionable national planning to better address ongoing air pollution issues
by shifting away from the use of coal as an energy source. As reported by IQAir, residents of many major cities in Java andother highly polluted metropolitan areas of Indonesia are exposed to unhealthy levels well above the WHO thresholds
throughout the year (IQAir, 2023). While immediate restricting actions on coal energy generation at the national level
would bring significant reduction in coal power emissions, the consideration for proper installation of air pollution control
technology is essential during the coming decades. Between now and 2030, trajectories of power generation capacity andthe associated health impacts are expected to still move upward before reaching the peak and decreasing.
Based on this consideration, we included an additional analysis to the main three scenarios presented in the previous
chapter. We quantified the health and economic impacts of the current PERPRES 112/2022 scenario with air pollution
control technology and the 1.5 degrees scenario with air pollution controls implemented. The tabulation of theassumptions is provided in Table 7. In the scenarios where air pollution control is implemented, new coal power plants
are assumed to be equipped with efficient air pollution control technology by 2026 and existing plants by 2030. This
assumption was not applied to those existing plants that are scheduled to retire by 2035.

Table 7. Scenario matrix of APC assumptions in the two main scenarios - PERPRES 112/2022 and 1.5 degrees

Scenario
PERPRES 112/2022- referred to as
current policies inthis study

PERPRES 112/2022,with APC

PLN & IPP
Captive Power
Retirement Schedule Retirement Schedule

14 GW of PLN & IPP
power plants are
retired by 2035, while
the remaining are
retired by 2050

Biomass
Co-firing

APCs are installed tofollow the current
national emission
limits until end-of-life

Phased increase
All captive power
New plants areof co-firing share,
plants are retired after
required to installreaching 20% at PLN
30 years of operation
efficient SO2, NOx andpower plants by 2030
dust controls by 2026
and existing plants
by 2030, unless they
retire by 2035

1.5 degrees

1.5 degrees, with
APC

Retirement schedulealigned with IESRUMD optimised
pathway

Air Pollution Control
Retrofit

Retirement schedulealigned with IESRUMD optimised
pathway

Co-firing maintainedat currently
committed levels,
i.e. 5% at most PLN
power plants

APCs are installed tofollow the current
national emission
limits until end-of-life
New plants are
required to installefficient SO2, NOx anddust controls by 2026
and existing plants
by 2030, unless they
retire by 2035

38

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

We referred to the European Union Best Available Technique Reference Document (BREF) as the benchmark for efficient
air pollution controls (European Commission, 2017). This document specifies a range of emission levels that are consistent
with the use of best available air pollution control techniques. We applied the higher (more lenient) end of the ranges,
which is the level that all power plants in the EU are legally required to meet. Therefore, there is a lot of experience ofretrofitting existing coal-fired power plants to meet the standards. In the case of the EU, existing power plants are generally
much older than those in Indonesia.

Table 8. Air Pollution Control installation costs in the “current policies with APC” scenario

Description

Value

Unit

Capacity retrofit with APC

43,440MW

Newbuild capacity with APC

5,450

MW

Total investment cost

6,936

102,997

mln USD

bln IDR

Total operating cost, per year (2035)

684

10,150mln USD

bln IDR

Total operating cost, from installation year to
end-of-life

13,569201,491

mln USD

bln IDR

Health cost avoided in 2035

5,828

86,546

mln USD

bln IDR

Total health costs avoided, from installation
year to end-of-life

90,441

1,343,037

mln USD

bln IDR

Net economic benefit

69,937

1,038,549

mln USD

bln IDR

Approximately 8,000 deaths in 2035 alone could be avoided if the current policies scenario would include the installationof proper APC, as well as USD 5.8 billion (IDR 86.5 trillion) in air pollution-related health costs. In cumulative terms, a
total of 129,000 deaths and health costs of USD 90 billion (IDR 1.3 quadrillion) could be avoided if coal power plants wererequired to install efficient dust, NOx, and SO2 controls.
Installing APC is highly profitable from the point of view of the whole society. Health costs that are saved significantly
outweigh the implementation costs of air pollution control. We project net economic savings to the society of USD 70
billion (IDR 1.1 quadrillion) in the current policies scenario with APC installation, compared with current policies with no
improvements in APC requirements. The analysis has taken into account the investment and operating costs of the APC.
Further details on the costs for the APC technologies considered in this study are provided in Tables A4 and A5 in the
Appendix .

39

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

Compared to the more significant impacts that would result from delayed coal phase-out in the PERPRES 112/2022
scenario, the avoided deaths and costs between the 1.5 degrees scenario and the 1.5 degrees scenario with APC installation
are relatively small. This is mainly due to the fact that most coal power plants were assumed to retire by 2035 in the
1.5 degrees pathway, and therefore not required to further improve their APC under our assumptions. Furthermore, ouranalysis shows that the required investment and operating costs of the APC remain low, and the installation of improved
APC is beneficial from a cost-benefit perspective. The 1.5 degrees scenario with APC has by far the lowest air pollutionrelated deaths, as well as costs and other health impacts. Tabulation of health impacts and costs is provided in Tables A1
and A2 in the Appendix.
Table 9. Deaths and costs in 2035 in different scenarios

2035

Scenario

DeathsCosts, USD mln

PERPRES 112/2022

12,216

8,586

PERPRES 112/2022 w/ APC

3,931

2,758

1.5 degrees

1,792

1,285

1.5 degrees w/ APC

1,119

808

Table 10. Cumulative deaths and costs from 2024 onwards in different scenarios

Cumulative

Scenario

DeathsCosts, USD mln

PERPRES 112/2022

302,800

212,500

PERPRES 112/2022 w/ APC

174,200

112,100

1.5 degrees

121,000

85,0001.5 degrees w/ APC

115,800

81,40040

Evaluation of co-firing
implementation
41

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

While co-firing biomass can reduce emissions of air pollutants to a degree, it is no solution to Indonesia’s air pollution
challenge. We project that raising the share of co-firing to a minimum of 20% at all PLN power plants — a major challenge
in terms of the availability of biomass and potentially also a technical challenge — has little to virtually no impact on theemissions of air pollutants from coal power plants.
Figure 17 below shows the effect of different biomass shares on PM, NOx, and SO2 emissions. While pollutant emissions
show noticeable reductions at higher biomass shares, PLN's current target of 10% biomass share would deliver only a 9%emission reduction in particulate matter, about 7% in NOx and 10% in SO2 at power plants where it is applied. The effecton emissions is derived from a large dataset comprising hundreds of combustion plants, making it representative of theaggregate effect, even considering variation between individual plants.

Source: Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) analysis based on European Environment Agency (EEA) data.

Figure 17. Correlation between biomass share and emissions for dust, NOx, and SO2

CREA’s analysis shows that merely 1.5–2.4% reduction, depending on the pollutant, can be expected in Indonesia’s total
coal power plant emissions as a result of co-firing, when co-firing is limited to PLN power plants. In contrast, requiring
efficient emission control technology installations in all plants operating beyond 2035 would effectively reduce emissionsof SOx by an estimated 73%, NOx by 64%, dust by 86%, and mercury by 71%.
As part of PLN’s Green Booster program, biomass co-firing is expected to account for about 3.6% out of the 23% renewables
share in 2023 as defined in RUPTL 2021–2030 (OECD, 2021). PLN estimates an average of 10.2 million tonnes of biomass
to be supplied annually to substitute 12% of coal use (PLN, 2023). In 2022, PLN was able to realise 0.455 million tonnes

42

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

of biomass supply, from sawdust (90%), woodchips (3%), palm shells (5%), and other biomass feedstock (2%). Supply
targets will ramp up to 2.2 million tonnes in 2023, 2.83 million tonnes in 2024, and will reach 10.2 million tonnes by 2025
(IESR, 2022b).
The Indonesian Biomass Energy Society (Masyarakat Energi Biomassa Indonesia) stated that PLN’s achievement of
implementing biomass co-firing in 36 CFPPs is encouraging. However, questions must be raised about the sources for the
long-term supply of biomass. In addition, global prices of biomass feedstock, particularly wood pellets, are getting higher.
The market for exports as well as non-energy domestic use increasingly becomes more attractive for domestic suppliers.
Currently, the sales price for co-firing feedstock is capped at USD 70 (IDR 1 million) per tonne, while the price could reach
USD 240 (IDR 3.6 million) per tonne if sold to Japan or Korea (MEBI, 2023; IESR, 2022b).
PLN claims that biomass co-firing would reduce up to 11 million tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gases (PLN, 2023).
However, PLN has not considered unaccounted impacts on emissions that may arise due to technical and economic
barriers associated with the biomass feedstock supply chain. The implementation of biomass co-firing will not substantiallyreduce GHG emissions if coal remains the major fuel source for Indonesia’s coal fleet.
Furthermore, in addition to financial risks associated with poor fuel economy and operational constraints, there are risksof derating the asset. As noted by Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), Indonesia must takeprudent steps to ensure the feasibility of co-firing adoption, particularly considering the predominance of pulverised coalboilers in PLN’s coal fleet, which have a considerably narrow tolerance range in fuel properties (IEEFA, 2021b).
In order to meet the economic equivalent of coal, options for feedstock sources are limited by distance, namely 360 km for
Java, 300 km for Sumatra, Kalimantan, and Sulawesi, and 187 km for Maluku and Papua. Even though transportation costs
are limited to 11% of the capped price, supply risks may be greater than anticipated. IESR also noted that the actual costrequired to implement biomass co-firing is likely higher since costs associated with boiler fouling and equipment upgrade
and/or adjustment needs are excluded (IESR, 2022b).
While biomass co-firing is already being implemented in many PLN power plants, there are also future aspirations for cofiring ammonia. There are multiple obstacles to sourcing this ammonia — above all the cost and greenhouse gas emission
benefits that are questionable even at best (Kennedy et al., 2023; BloombergNEF, 2022). In addition, recent CREA research
has found that ammonia co-firing at coal-fired power plants could lead to very significant fugitive ammonia emissions
both from the ships transporting ammonia and from the power plant stacks (Myllyvirta and Kelly, 2023). Ammonia reacts
with SO2 and NO2 in the atmosphere to form PM2.5 aerosols. Therefore, ammonia co-firing could, in fact, make the air
quality impacts of coal-fired power plants worse than they currently are.
In this study, CREA assumes two variations of the biomass co-firing scheme; (1) phased increase of co-firing share, reaching
20% at PLN power plants by 2030 for PERPRES 112/2022 scenario, (2) currently achieved share of 5% biomass co-firing formost PLN CFPPs to be maintained and not increased for the 1.5 degrees scenario. Such consideration was made based on
the conclusion that biomass co-firing is not an effective strategy that would bring meaningful long-term contributions toIndonesia’s targets to realise the climate commitments and achieve an inclusive and just transition (Prasetiyo et al., 2023).

43

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

Conclusion
Indonesia has started to lay down the groundwork for the retirement of its CFPPs as defined in Presidential Regulation
No. 112 Year 2022 on the Acceleration of Renewable Energy Development for the Provision of Electricity. With the national
government committing to finalise the road map within six months since the formation of the JETP Secretariat in February
2023, Indonesia is now entering a critical period where commitments are turned into actions to get on track towards the
1.5 degrees path. The highly anticipated roadmap detailed in the Comprehensive Investment Plan and Policy (CIPP) marks
the beginning of clean energy investment mobilisation in Indonesia.
In this analysis, CREA seized the opportunity for the first assessment of the consequences of the stipulated coal phase-out
timelines, the presence of Air Pollution Control systems in coal power plant operations, and the implementation of biomass
co-firing as part of PLN’s green transition strategy. CREA has developed a comprehensive health impact assessment thatoutlines the implications of Indonesia’s decisions on coal power generation plans. Scenario pathways were built basedon the best data available, centered around the aim for a Just Energy Transition that prioritises the lives and livelihoodsof the affected communities throughout the journey. Indonesia would be able to minimise health impacts on the affected
population by prioritising early retirement of coal power plants and deploying renewables instead of pursuing solutions
that prolong coal power plant operations, particularly co-firing with biomass and ammonia.
While the current burden of air pollution from coal power plants on the health of Indonesians and on the economy
is overlooked and undercounted, CREA projects the planned expansion up to 2030 to sharply increase this existingburden. The analysis shows a significant increase of 110% in air pollutant emissions over the past decade, solely from coal
power generation. CREA estimates that coal power emissions in 2022 were responsible for 10,500 deaths from air pollution
and USD 7.4 billion (IDR 109.9 trillion) of economic burden from the associated health impacts. Under the implementationof current policies by 2030 and the full operation of all CFPPs currently planned, Indonesian people will be exposed to
70% higher air pollutant emissions. As Indonesia increases its coal generation capacity from 45 GW currently to 63 GW
before peaking in 2028, annual deaths linked to air pollution from coal power will rise to 16,600 per year and the healtheconomic burden will reach USD 11.8 billion (IDR 175.2 trillion) per year.
Cancellation of new coal power projects and acceleration of the schedules of the retirement of existing plants would
avoid significant economic costs that can cover the investment costs needed to deploy clean and renewable energy.
A faster coal phase-out by 2040, in line with the 1.5 degrees target of the Paris Agreement, would avoid a cumulative totalof 182,000 air pollution-related deaths and relieve health economic burden of USD 130 billion (IDR 1.9 quadrillion) up to
2060. As highlighted by IESR and UMD, the investment for renewable energy and energy efficiency must reach USD 135
billion (IDR 2 quadrillion) total investment by 2030, additional USD 455 billion (IDR 6.8 quadrillion) by 2040, and additional
USD 633 billion (IDR 9.4 quadrillion) by 2050 to facilitate the retirement pathway that is aligned with the 1.5 degrees
commitment (Cui et al., 2022).
Indonesia’s retirement schedule for coal phase-out should include a nationwide evaluation of plant-level healthimpacts for the amount of electricity the plant generates. The basis for this consideration is to ensure equitable energy
transition and mitigate impacts on the immediately affected communities living in close proximity and all citizens ofIndonesia. CREA has generated a list of power plants that should be prioritised, ranked from highest health costs for being
located in or near densely populated areas, with the surrounding meteorological conditions that raise exposure, and forplants assumed to be operated with poor emission control. Clear examples of such units include the PLN’s Muara Karangand Lontar power plants located in Jakarta and Tangerang, as well as several captive coal power plants located in Bekasi,
Karawang, Purwakarta, and Bandung.

44

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

Full inclusion of the large fleet of captive power plants in Indonesia’s coal phase-out policies is crucial from bothgreenhouse gas and public health perspective. Captive power plants are shown to be responsible for approximately 20%of the total health impacts of coal power generation in Indonesia. Any room for ambiguity in the regulatory framework
may leave captive power plants outside the 2040 coal phase-out policy. CREA approximates an additional annual healthburden of 27,000 air pollution-related deaths and health costs of USD 20 billion (IDR 300 trillion) to be attributed to captive
plants alone.
Even as coal power plants begin to retire, investing in improved air pollution controls in those power plants that plan
to operate well into and beyond 2030 would deliver substantial benefits. The country can avoid 8,300 deaths and USD
5.8 billion (IDR 86 trillion) in health costs in 2035 with the proper installation of APCs, our analysis shows. Taking into
account the investments and operational costs associated with APC facilities, the country would still gain a net economic
benefit of USD 70 billion (IDR 1 quadrillion) by mitigating public health risks from coal power emissions.

45

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

References
Achakulwisut, P., Brauer, M., Hystad, P. and Anenberg, S. C. (2019). Global, National, and Urban Burdens of PaediatricAsthma Incidence Attributable to Ambient NO2 Pollution: Estimates from Global Datasets. Lancet, 3 (4): E166-E178.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(19)30046-4
Anenberg, S. C., Henze, D. K., Tinney, V., Kinney, P. L., Raich, W., Fann, N., Malley, C. S., Roman, H., Lamsal, L., Duncan, B.,
Martin, R. V., van Donkelaar, A., Brauer, M., Doherty, R., Jonson, J. E., Davila, Y., Sudo, K. and Kuylenstiernam J. C.
I. (2018). Estimates of the Global Burden of Ambient PM2.5, Ozone, and NO2 on Asthma Incidence and Emergency
Room Visits. Environmental Health Perspectives, 126 (10). https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP3766
Antara News. (2019). Empat capaian terbesar sektor energi era Jokowi. Antaranews.com. (Published on October 17, 2019).
https://www.antaranews.com/berita/1117904/empat-capaian-terbesar-sektor-energi-era-jokowi
Air Quality Life Index (AQLI). (2022). Indonesia. (Published on June 13, 2022). https://aqli.epic.uchicago.edu/countryspotlight/indonesia/
Asian Development Bank (ADB). (2022). DB and Indonesia Partners Sign Landmark MOU on Early Retirement Plan for First
Coal Power Plant Under Energy Transition Mechanism. News Release. (Published on 14 November, 2022). https://www.adb.org/news/adb-and-indonesia-partners-sign-landmark-mou-early-retirement-plan-first-coal-powerplant
Basel and Stockholm Conventions Regional Centre for Southeast Asia (BCRC-SEA). (2017). Final Report on Mercury
Emissions from Coal-Fired Power Plants in Indonesia. (Published in December 2017). https://www.unep.org/
globalmercurypartnership/resources/report/mercury-emissions-coal-fired-power-plants-indonesia
Birchby, D., Stedman, J., Whiting, S. and Vedrenne, M. (2019). Air Quality Damage Cost Update 2019. 2019. Ricardo/
ED59323/Issue Number 2.0. https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat09/1902271109_Damage_cost_update_2018_FINAL_Issue_2_publication.pdf
Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BloombergNEF). (2022). Japan’s Costly Ammonia Coal Co-Firing Strategy. https://assets.
bbhub.io/professional/sites/24/BNEF-Japans-Costly-Ammonia-Coal-Co-Firing-Strategy_FINAL.pdf
Brandt, S.J., Perez, L., Künzli, N., Lurmann, F. and McConnell, R. (2012). Costs of childhood asthma due to traffic-related
pollution in two California communities. European Respiratory Journal, Aug. 2012, 40(2): 363-370. https://doi.
org/10.1183/09031936.00157811
Burnett, R., Chen, H., Szyszkowicz, M., Fann, N., Hubbell, B., et al. (2018). Global Estimates of Mortality Associated with
Long-Term Exposure to Outdoor Fine Particulate Matter. Proceeding of the National Academies of Science, 115 (38):9592-9597). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1803222115
Central Bureau of Statistics. Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS). (2023). Total Population by Province in Indonesia (Thousand
People), 2020-2022. https://sulut.bps.go.id/indicator/12/958/1/jumlah-penduduk-menurut-provinsi-di-indonesia.
html
Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN). (2018). Gridded Population of the World, Version 4(GPWv4): Population Density Adjusted to Match 2015 Revision UN WPP Country Totals, Revision 11. Palisades, NY:
NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC), 2018. https://doi.org/10.7927/H4F47M65
Climate Investment Funds (CIF). (2023). Accelerating Coal Transition. Coal-To-Clean-Transition. [Last accessed 15 May,2023] https://www.cif.org/topics/accelerating-coal-transition46

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

Cropper, M., Guttikunda, S., Jawahar, P., Lazri, Z., Malik, K., Song, X. and Yao, X. (2019). Applying Benefit-Cost Analysis
to Air Pollution Control in the Indian Power Sector. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 10(S1): 185-205. https://doi.
org/10.1017/bca.2018.27
Cui, R., Tumiwa, F., Zhao, A., Arinaldo, D., Wiranegara, R., Cui, D., Dahl, C., Myllyvirta, L., Squire, C., Simamora, P. andHultman, N. (2022). “Financing Indonesia's coal phase-out: A just and accelerated retirement pathway to net zero.”
Center for Global Sustainability, University of Maryland, College Park, USA; Institute for Essential Services Reform,
Jakarta. (Published in August 2022). https://cgs.umd.edu/research-impact/publications/financing-indonesiascoal-phase-out-just-and-accelerated-retirement
Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA). (2017). ERIA Research Project FY2016 No. 02 - Improving
emission regulation for coal-fired power plants in ASEAN. https://www.eria.org/research/improving-emissionregulation-for-coal-fired-power-plants-in-asean/
Ember. (2023). JETP: a reflection of Indonesia’s commitment to transform its power sector. https://ember-climate.org/
insights/commentary/jetp-indonesia/
European Environment Agency (EEA). (2011). Air pollution impacts from carbon capture and storage (CCS). https://www.
eea.europa.eu/publications/carbon-capture-and-storage/file
European Environment Agency (EEA). (2014). Costs of Air Pollution from European Industrial Facilities 2008–2012 — an
updated assessment. EEA Technical report. No. 20/2014. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/costs-of-airpollution-2008-2012
European Environment Agency (EEA). (2023). Industrial Reporting under the Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU
and European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register Regulation (EC) No 166/2006. Database ver. 8.0. https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/industrial-reporting-under-the-industrial-7
European Commission - European IPPC Bureau. (2017, December). Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Documentfor Large Combustion Plants. Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU (Integrated Pollution Prevention andControl). European Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Bureau (EIPPCB). https://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
sites/default/files/2019-11/JRC_107769_LCPBref_2017.pdf
European Commission. (2021). Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/2326 of 30 November 2021 establishing best
available techniques (BAT) conclusions, under Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,
for large combustion plants (notified under document C (2021) 8580) (Text with EEA relevance). Official Journal of
the European Union. L 469/1. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32021D2326
European Commission. (2022a). The EU and International Partners launch ground-breaking Just Energy Transition
Partnership with Indonesia. Press release. 15 November 2022. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/
detail/en/ip_22_6926
European Commission. (2022b). Joint Statement by the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and International
Partners Group members on the Indonesia Just Energy Transition Plan. Statement. 15 November 2022. https://
ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/statement_22_6892
European Commission. (2023). Country Risk Profile. DRMKC - INFORM. https://drmkc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/inform-index/
INFORM-Risk/Country-Risk-Profile
European External Action Service (EEAS). (2021). Delegation of the European Union to Indonesia and Brunei Darussalam.
Transparent pollution control for Indonesia: “We want to see blue skies again”. (Published on April 14, 2021).
https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/indonesia/transparent-pollution-control-indonesia-%E2%80%9Cwe47

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

want-see-blue-skies-again%E2%80%9D%E2%80%A8%E2%80%A8_en?s=168
Farr, T.G., Rosen, P.A., Caro, E., Crippen, R., Duren, R., Hensley, S., Kobrick, M., Paller, M., Rodriguez, E., Roth, L., Seal, D.,
Shaffer, S., Shimada, J., Umland, J., Werner, M., Oskin, M., Burbank, D. and Alsdorf, D. (2007). The Shuttle Radar
Topography Mission. Reviews of Geophysics 4(2), RG2004. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005RG000183
Ferrari, N., Mancuso, L. Burnard, K. and Consonni, F. (2019). Effects of plant location on cost of CO2 capture. International
Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, Volume 90. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.102783.
Fiscal Policy Agency, Ministry of Finance, Republic of Indonesia. (2022). CIF Accelerating Coal Transition (ACT): Indonesia
Country Investment Plan (IP). DRAFT FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION by the Government of Indonesia. Ministryof Finance, Republic of Indonesia. (Published on October 3, 2022). https://fiskal.kemenkeu.go.id/docs/CIFINDONESIA_ACT_IP-Proposal.pdf
Global Burden of Disease (2020). Global Burden of 87 Risk Factors in 204 Countries and Territories, 1990–2019: A Systematic
Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet, 396 (10258): P1223-1249. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0140-6736(20)30752-2
Global Energy Monitor (GEM). (2022). Dashboard. (Published on February 8, 2022). https://globalenergymonitor.org/
projects/global-coal-plant-tracker/dashboard/
Global Energy Monitor (GEM). (2023). Global Coal Plant Tracker. https://globalenergymonitor.org/projects/global-coalplant-tracker/
Greenpeace Indonesia. (2015). Human Cost of Coal Power. https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-indonesiastateless/2019/02/676f10e5-676f10e5-full-report-human-cost-of-coal-power.pdf
Huangfu, P. and Atkinson, R. (2020). Long-Term Exposure to NO2 and O3 and All-Cause and Respiratory Mortality: A
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Environment International, 144, 2020, 105998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envint.2020.105998
International Energy Agency (IEA). (2022). Age and technology of existing coal power fleet in Indonesia and FIDs – Charts– Data & statistics. (Published on October 26, 2022). https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/age-andtechnology-of-existing-coal-power-fleet-in-indonesia-and-fids
Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA). (2021a). Indonesia wants to go greener but PLN is stuckwith excess capacity from coal-fired power plants. (Published on November 1, 2021). https://ieefa.org/resources/indonesia-wants-go-greener-pln-stuck-excess-capacity-coal-fired-power-plants
Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA). (2021b). Indonesia’s biomass cofiring bet: Beware of
implementation risks. (Published on February 8, 2021). https://ieefa.org/resources/indonesias-biomass-cofiringbet-beware-implementation-risks
Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA). (2018). Decision Time at Poland’s PGE; Why a High-Risk,
Fossil-Heavy Strategy Doesn’t Add Up. (Published in June, 2018). https://ieefa.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/
Decision-Time-at-Polands-PGE_June-2018.pdf
Institute for Essential Services Reform (IESR). (2022a). Financing Indonesia’s coal phase-out. (Published in August 2022).
https://iesr.or.id/en/pustaka/financing-indonesias-coal-phase-out
Institute for Essential Services Reform (IESR). (2022b). Indonesia Energy Transition Outlook 2023: Tracking Progress ofEnergy Transition in Indonesia: Pursuing Energy Security in the Time of Transition. (Published in December, 2022).
48

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

https://iesr.or.id/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Indonesia-Energy-Transition-Outlook_2023.pdf
Institute for Essential Services Reform (IESR). (2019). Coal exports by country 2021. Medium-quality coal with calorific valueof 5,100-6,100 kcal/kg, low-quality coal with calorific value < 5,100 kcal/kg. Indonesia’s Coal Dynamics: Toward
A Just Energy Transition. https://iesr.or.id/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Indonesias-Coal-Dynamics_Toward-aJust-Energy-Transition.pdf
Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) (2020). GBD Results. http://ghdx.healthdata.org/gbd-results-tool
IQAir. (2023). Air Quality in Indonesia. https://www.iqair.com/indonesia
IQAir. (2022). World Air Quality. IQAir. https://www.iqair.com/world-air-quality-report
Kementerian PPN/Bappenas. (2019). Visi Indondesia 2045. Ringkasan Eksekutif. https://perpustakaan.bappenas.go.id/
e-library/file_upload/koleksi/migrasi-data-publikasi/file/Policy_Paper/Ringkasan%20Eksekutif%20Visi%20
Indonesia%202045_Final.pdf
Kennedy, S., Tao, J. and Lee, J. (2023). Japan’s toxic narrative on ammonia. Transition Zero. (Published on April 13, 2023).
https://www.transitionzero.org/insights/japans-toxic-narrative-on-ammonia-cofiring
Khreis, H., Kelly, C., Tate, J., Parslow, R., Lucas, K. and Nieuwenhuijsen, M. (2017). Exposure to Traffic-Related Air Pollution andRisk of Development of Childhood Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Environmental International,
100: 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2016.11.012
Koplitz, S., Jacob, D., Sulprizio, M., Myllyvirta, L. and Reid, C. (2017). Burden of Disease from Rising Coal-Fired Power Plant
Emissions in Southeast Asia. Environmental Science & Technology. 2017 51 (3), 1467-147. https://pubs.acs.org/
doi/full/10.1021/acs.est.6b03731
Larkin, A., Geddes, J. A., Martin, R. V., Xiao, Q., Liu, Y., Marshall, J. D., Brauer, M. and Hystad, P. (2017). Global Land Use
Regression Model for Nitrogen Dioxide Air Pollution. Environmental Science & Technology, 51 (12): 6957-6964.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b01148
Lelieveld, J., Klingmüller, K., Pozzer, A., Burnett, R., Haines, A. and Ramanathan, V. (2019). Effects of Fossil Fuel and Total
Anthropogenic Emission Removal on Public Health and Climate. Proceedings of the National Academies of Science,
116 (15): 7192-7197. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1819989116
McKinsey & Company. (2020). Ten ways to boost Indonesia’s energy sector in a postpandemic world. (Published on
December 16, 2020). https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/oil-and-gas/our-insights/ten-ways-to-boostindonesias-energy-sector-in-a-postpandemic-world
Masyarakat Energi Biomassa Indonesia - Indonesian Biomass Energy Society (MEBI). (2023). Perkembangan Cofiring
Biomassa pada PLTU. (Published on February 7, 2023). https://mebi.or.id/news/perkembangan-cofiring-biomassapada-pltu/
Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (MEMR). (2021). Rencana Usaha Penyediaan Tenaga Listrik (RUPTL) 2021-2030.
Keputusan Menteri Energi Dan Sumber Daya Mineral Republik Indonesia. Nomor: 188.K/HK.02/MEM.L/2021.
https://gatrik.esdm.go.id/assets/uploads/download_index/files/38622-ruptl-pln-2021-2030.pdf
Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (MEMR). (2022a). Perpres 112 Tahun 2022 Diteken, era Pembangkit Listrik
Rendah Emisi Dimulai. (Published on 23 September, 2022.) https://www.esdm.go.id/id/media-center/arsip-berita/
perpres-112-tahun-2022-diteken-era-pembangkit-listrik-rendah-emisi-dimulai

49

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (MEMR). (2022b). ETM Country Platform, Upaya Akselerasi Transisi Energi.
Republic of Indonesia. Siaran Pers, 460.Pers/04/SJI/2022. (Published on November 16, 2022). https://www.esdm.
go.id/en/media-center/news-archives/etm-country-platform-upaya-akselerasi-transisi-energi
Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (MEMR). (2023a). Handbook of Energy & Economic Statistics of Indonesia
2022. https://www.esdm.go.id/assets/media/content/content-handbook-of-energy-and-economic-statistics-ofindonesia-2022.pdf
Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources. (MEMR). (2023b). Capaian Kinerja ESDM 2022 Dan Target 2023. Online Drive
ESDM. https://drive.esdm.go.id/wl/?id=0wkgH9GoznLHQM5AZNfCIF76VygsJ1dy
Ministry of Environment and Forestry. (2023). WebGIS SISPEK. PORTAL DIREKTORAT PENGENDALIAN PENCEMARAN
UDARA DITJEN PPKL KLHK. Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan. (Accessed on May 29, 2023). https://
ditppu.menlhk.go.id/sispek/display
Myllyvirta, L. and Kelly, J. (2023). Air quality implications of coal-ammonia co-firing. https://energyandcleanair.org/wp/wpcontent/uploads/2023/05/CREA_Air-quality-implications-of-coal-ammonia-co-firing_Briefing_2023_EN_FINAL.
pdf
Myllyvirta, L. (2020). Quantifying the Economic Costs of Air Pollution from Fossil Fuels. Centre for Research on Energy andClean Air. 2020. https://energyandcleanair.org/publications/costs-of-air-pollution-from-fossil-fuels/
National Bureau of Asian Research (NBR). (2018). Air pollution in Indonesia. (2018, August 12). https://www.nbr.org/
publication/air-pollution-in-indonesia/
Nexus3 Foundation. (2021). NGOs: Governments Need New Tools To Control Air Pollution Urgently. (Published on June29, 2021). https://www.nexus3foundation.org/2021/06/29/ngos-governments-need-new-tools-to-control-airpollution-urgently/
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2012). Mortality Risk Valuation in Environment,
Health and Transport Policies. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264130807-en
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2021). RUPTL 2021-30: PLN steps up ambitions
to accelerate clean energy investments in Indonesia. (Published on November 16, 2021) https://www.oecd.
org/environment/cc/cefim/indonesia/RUPTL-2021-30-PLN-steps-up-ambitions-to-accelerate-clean-energyinvestments-in-Indonesia.pdf
Punyawadee, V., Pothisuwan, R., Winichaikule, N., and Satienperakul, K. (2008). Costs and Benefits of Flue Gas Desulfurization
for Pollution Control at the Mae Moh Power Plant, Thailand. ASEAN Economic Bulletin, 25(1), 99–112. http://www.
jstor.org/stable/41231498
Perusahaan Listrik Negara (PLN). (2022). Statistik 2021. Listrik untuk Kehidupan yang Lebih Baik - PT PLN (Persero).
(Published in June, 2022). https://web.pln.co.id/statics/uploads/2022/08/Statistik-PLN-2021-29-7-22-Final.pdf
Perusahaan Listrik Negara (PLN). (2023). Peluang & Tantangan Pengadaan Biomassa sebagai Energi Primer Pembangkit
Listrik yang Berkelanjutan. MEBI – Masyarakat Energi Biomassa Indonesia. (Published on February 23, 2023).
https://mebi.or.id/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Paparan-Webinar-IPB-PLN-EPI_20230225.pdf
Prasetiyo, A., Suarez, I., Parapat, J. and Amali, Z. (2023). Ambiguities versus ambition: A review of Indonesia’s energy
transition policy. Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air; Trend Asia. (Published on April 3, 2023). https://energyandcleanair.org/publication/ambiguities-versus-ambition-a-review-of-indonesias-energy-transitionpolicy/
50

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

Saha, S., Moorthi, S., Wu, X., Wang, J., Nadiga, S., Tripp, P., Behringer, D., Hou, Y., Chuang, H., Iredell, M., Ek, M., Meng, J.,
Yang, R., Peña Mendez, M., van den Dool, H., Zhang, Q., Wang, W., Chen, M. and Becker, E. (2014). The NCEP Climate
Forecast System Version 2. Journal of Climate, Vol. 27 (6): 2185-2208. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00823.1
Sapkota, A., Chelikowsky, A., Nachman, K., Cohen, A. and Ritz, B. (2012). Exposure to Particulate Matter and Adverse Birth
Outcomes: A Comprehensive Review and Meta-Analysis. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health, 5: 369-381. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11869-010-0106-3
Simon, J. (2023). Despite billions to get off coal, why is Indonesia still building new coal plants? Npr, climate. (Published
on February 5, 2023). https://www.npr.org/2023/02/05/1152823939/despite-billions-to-get-off-coal-why-isindonesia-still-building-new-coal-plants
Skamarock, W. C., Klemp, J. B., Dudhia, J., Gill, D. O., Barker, D., Duda, M. G. and Powers, J. G. (2008). A Description of
the Advanced Research WRF Version 3 (No. NCAR/TN-475+STR). University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.
https://opensky.ucar.edu/islandora/object/technotes:500
Srinivasan S., Roshna N., Guttikunda S., Kanudia A., Saif S. and Asundi J.(2018). Benefit Cost Analysis of Emission Standards
for Coal-based Thermal Power Plants in India. (CSTEP-Report-2018-06). https://shaktifoundation.in/wp-content/
uploads/2018/07/Benefit-cost-analysis-of-emission-standards-for-coal-based-thermal-power-plants-in-India-1.
pdfSun, J., Schreifels, J., Wang, J., Fu, J. and Wang, S. (2014). Cost estimate of multi-pollutant abatement from the power sector
in the Yangtze River Delta region of China. Energy Policy, Volume 69, 2014. Pages 478-488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2014.02.007.
Trasande, L., Malecha, P. and Attina, T. (2016). Particulate Matter Exposure and Preterm Birth: Estimates of U.S. Attributable
Burden and Economic Costs. Environmental Health Perspectives, 124 (12). https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1510810
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2017). Toolkit for Identification and Quantification of Mercury Releases.
UN Environment Chemicals Branch, Geneva, Switzerland. https://www.unep.org/globalmercurypartnership/
resources/tool/mercury-inventory-toolkit
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2022). Form EIA-860, Annual Electric Generator Report. (Published on
September 22, 2022). Table 9.4. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_09_04.html
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2017). IPM Model – Updates to Cost and Performance for APC
Technologies SNCR Cost Development Methodology. (Published in January, 2017). https://www.epa.gov/sites/
default/files/2018-05/documents/attachment_5-4_sncr_cost_development_methodology.pdf
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2019). Selective Catalytic Reduction. https://www.epa.gov/sites/
default/files/2017-12/documents/scrcostmanualchapter7thedition_2016revisions2017.pdf
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2003). Air Pollution Control Technology Fact Sheet. https://www3.
epa.gov/ttncatc1/dir1/fwespwpi.pdf
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). (2019). World Coal Quality Inventory. U.S. Department of the Interior. https://www.usgs.
gov/centers/geology%2C-energy-%26amp%3Bamp%3B-minerals-science-center/science/world-coal-qualityinventory
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). (2021). Indonesia Long-Term Strategy for Low
Carbon and Climate Resilience 2050. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/Indonesia_LTS-LCCR_2021.pdf

51

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). (2022). Enhanced Nationally Determined
Contribution of the Republic of Indonesia. (Published on September 23, 2022). https://unfccc.int/sites/default/
files/NDC/2022-09/23.09.2022_Enhanced%20NDC%20Indonesia.pdf
Van Donkelaar, A., Hammer, M. S., Bindle, L., Brauer, M., Brook, J. R., Garay, M. J., Hsu, N. C., Kalashnikova, O. V., Kahn, R. A.,
Lee, C., Levy, R. C., Lyapustin, A., Sayer, A. M. and Martin, R. V. (2021). Monthly Global Estimates of Fine Particulate
Matter and Their Uncertainty. Environmental Science & Technology, 55 (22): 15287-15300. https://doi.org/10.1021/
acs.est.1c05309
Workman, D. (2022). Coal exports by country 2021. World's Top Exports — Trade metrics that inspire global thinking.
https://www.worldstopexports.com/coal-exports-country/
World Bank Open Data. (2023a). GDP growth (annual %) – Indonesia. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.
KD.ZG?end=2021&locations=ID&start=1961&view=chart
World Bank Open Data. (2023b). Urban population (% of total population) – Indonesia. https://data.worldbank.org/
indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS?locations=ID
World Health Organization (WHO). (2021). WHO Global Air Quality Guidelines: Particulate Matter (PM2.5 and PM10), Ozone,
Nitrogen Dioxide, Sulfur Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/345329
Zhang, C. and Liu, M. (2014). Cost and Benefit Analysis of Desulfurization System in Power Plant. TELKOMNIKA, Vol.12,
No.1, March 2014, pp. 33-46. https://doi.org/10.12928/TELKOMNIKA.v12i1.1259

52

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

Appendix
Table A1. Cumulative deaths and total health costs of each scenario

Scenario

Deaths*Costs, USD bln

Costs, IDR tln

1.5 degrees w/ APC

115,800 (71,600 – 180,700)

81.4 (50.0 – 126.5)

1,208.2 (742.6 – 1,877.8)

1.5 degrees

121,000 (74,940 – 188,400)

85.0 (52.3 – 131.9)

1,262.6 (777.3 – 1,985.8)

1.5 degrees excluding captive 147,800 (91,400 – 231,000)

103.6 (63.7 – 161.2)

1,539.1 (946.0 – 2,394.1)

PERPRES 112/2022 w/ APC

174,200 (107, 200 –
273,600)

122.1 (74.7 – 191.1)

1,813.2 (1,110.0 – 2,837.5)

PERPRES 112/2022

302,800 (189,000 – 468,000) 212.5 (131.5 – 327.9)

3,156.2 (1,953.5 – 4,868.8)*95% confidence interval in parentheses

Table A2. Cumulative health impacts by scenario

Scenario
OutcomeWork absence (sickleave days)

New cases of asthma
in children

Number of children
suffering from asthma
due to pollution
exposure

Asthma emergency
room visitsValue

1.5 degrees w/
APC

1.5 degrees

1.5 degrees
excludingcaptive

PERPRES112/2022

PERPRES112/2022 w/
APC

central46,791,822

48,831,083

55,968,109

114,352,550

67,204,753

low

39,819,025

41,554,40

47,627,885

97,312,027

57,190,074

high

56,713,477

156,054,396

64,247,163

131,268,092

77,145,981

central68,85770,68982,869146,901

101,438

low

15,826

16,24819,04833,76523,316high

150,010

154,004

180,534

320,036

220,992

central294,650

302,495

354,636

628,652

434,079

low

78,71180,80594,736167,929

115,958high

598,326

614,265

720,132

1,276,610

881,452

central103,638

107,494

120,091

240,323

146,453low

62,30464,63572,263145,096

88,209high

144,532

149,898

167,411334,555

204,08053

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

Scenario
Value

1.5 degrees w/
APC

1.5 degrees

1.5 degrees
excludingcaptive

PERPRES112/2022

PERPRES112/2022 w/
APC

central32,99734,27338,39673,53945,590low

10,267

10,664

11,94722,882

88,209high57,10359,31066,446

127,261

204,080

central48,84150,51455,753

107,180

67,458low

23,72924,542

27,08652,072

32,774high51,84453,621

59,181

113,770

71,607

central628,415645,845795,756

1,521,544

997,891low

268,147

275,579

295,555649,202425,799high

1,445,900

1,486,038

1,593,681

3,501,181

2,296,049

central393,978

403,125

501,943974,158

567,595

low

233,632

239,054

242,012577,673

336,588high

593,450

607,235

614,736

1,467,413

854,973

central39,202

41,16948,772103,933

58,159low

14,243

14,957

14,51537,75921,131high

73,00076,66374,394

193,546

108,302

central24,407

27,34140,47982,49137,501

low

4,638

4,963

4,789

13,375

7,022

high

56,57863,99360,287

205,985

89,059central83,27387,160101,923

217,926

123,320low

26,85028,10427,32670,272

39,763high

170,836

178,807173,866

447,049854,973

OutcomeLow birthweight births

Preterm births

Years of lives lostAll causes from NO2
exposure

All causes from SO2
exposure

Years lived with disability

Chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease

Diabetes

Stroke54

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

Table A3. Top 10 provinces most affected by coal power emissions and top 10 provinces most responsible for the largest number ofdeaths per year

Province

Deaths in the province

Caused deaths by the province

Jawa Barat

4,135 (2,566 – 6,438)

2,510 (1,524 – 3,987)

Banten2,153 (1,308 – 3,406)

3,755 (2,304 – 5,905)

Jawa Tengah

1,761 (1,090 – 2,749)

3,069 (1,932 – 4,698)

Jakarta Raya

1,643 (991 –2,634)

593 (360 – 944)

Jawa Timur

1,013 (611 – 1,642)

1,374 (842 – 2,180)

Lampung

636 (408 – 947)

90 (52 – 151)

Sumatera Utara

356 (224 – 537)

390 (246 – 588)

Sumatera Selatan

254 (163 – 380)

283 (179 – 434)

Sulawesi Tenggara

241 (159 – 344)

226 (149 – 323)

Sulawesi Selatan

241 (158 – 349)

73 (48 – 107)Jambi

107 (69 – 159)

187 (119 – 284)

55

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

Table A4. Cost information compiled for different air pollutant control technologies

Capital cost,
Capitaltransferred to
cost,
Indonesia
original,
USD/kW USD/kW IDR/W(2022)(2022)(2022)

O&M
cost,
original,
USD/
MWh(2022)

O&M cost,
transferred toIndonesia

Controlled pollutant

Control
technology

USA

NOx

SCR

148

130

2,193

USA

NOx

SNCR

26

23

380

1.2

1.0

17.4

EPA (2017)

USA

PM

ESP

26

18

380

0.3

0.2

4.2

EPA (2003)

India

SO2

FGD

101

62

1,505

1.4

1.0

21.5

Cropper et al.
(2019)

India

SO2

FGD

75

51

1,119

Srinivasan et al.
(2018)

India

SO2

FGD

53

36

784

Srinivasan et al.
(2018)

China

SO2

FGD

51

32

760

2.2

1.5

32.2

Zhang & Liu (2014)

China

SO2

FGD

37

21

544

1.5

1.0

21.8

Sun et al. (2014)

USA

SO2

FGD

253

133

3,764

2.6

1.7

39.1

EIA (2022)

Thailand

SO2

FGD

49

36

729

0.5

0.5

7.7

Punyawadee et al.
(2008)

Poland

SO2

FGD

203

109

3,021

IEEFA (2018)

Poland

SO2

FGD

209

112

3,104

IEEFA (2018)

Indonesia

SO2

FGD

87

71

1,299

Ferrari et al. (2019)

Indonesia

NOx

SCR

63

51

933

Ferrari et al. (2019)

CountryUSD/
MWh(2022)

IDR/
kWh(2022)

Reference

EPA (2019)56

Health benefits of Just Energy Transitionand coal phase-out in Indonesia

Table A5. Total air pollutant control costs estimated for Indonesia

Control
technology

Controlled
pollutant

Capital cost,
USD/kW (2022)

Capital cost,
IDR/W (2022)

O&M cost, USD/
MWh (2022)

O&M cost, IDR/
kWh (2022)

FGD (limestone)

SO2

66

977

1.15

17.06

SCR

NOx

55

819

0.83

12.34

SNCR

NOx

23

3,345

0.83

12.34

ESP

PM

18

275

0.21

3.06

Total additional cost of meeting more stringent standards for newbuild power plants
all

73

1,081

0.57

8.46

148

2,201

1.98

29.40

Total additional cost for retrofits
all

57

IESR