Why Energy Secretary Garin says Pax Silica is ‘too dangerous’ to plug into grid
How much electricity is 3 gigawatts? Enough to give Energy Secretary Sharon Garin pause.
Pax Silica, the planned artificial intelligence, semiconductor, and advanced manufacturing hub in New Clark City, could eventually require 3,000 megawatts.
That’s about 19% of Luzon’s projected 2026 peak demand and nearly equivalent to the entire Visayas grid. It’s also close to the combined capacity of five 620-MW Bataan Nuclear Power Plants, the Philippines’ mothballed nuclear plant that never produced commercial electricity.
Or, as Garin put it: “Malaki siya. Malaki.” (It’s big. Big.)
In an exclusive interview with Rappler, Garin made clear that Pax Silica cannot simply plug its full demand into the Luzon grid without exposing households and businesses to serious risk.
“If you put it on the grid, and then suddenly this 3 gigawatt demand will be lost, the grid will just shut down,” Garin told Rappler.
‘Too dangerous for consumers’
Garin’s concern was that introducing a 3-GW load tied to one industrial area could become a problem of grid stability.
“It’s too dangerous for our usual consumers. So, there are ways to do it. But the primary concern is that we don’t destabilize the grid because that will affect other businesses and households,” she said on Friday, July 24.
To mitigate risks, the energy secretary said that the massive US-led project will likely scale up over the years rather than drawing the full 3 GW at once. In the meantime, the Luzon grid might be able to absorb the project’s early phases. (READ: Pax Silica, El Niño: Environmental issues for SONA 2026)
From 100 or 200 megawatts is still manageable. “But once it scales up, we have to provide them with their own power plant,” Garin said.
The quality of that energy supply matters as much as quantity. A data center will need “cheap power and stable power” with a quality component that demands no red and yellow alerts whatsoever.
Asked whether Pax Silica’s demand could drive up prices in the electricity spot market, Garin said she did not expect it to do so. But she urged caution, pointing to the problems other countries have encountered in their race to build out data centers.
“There are problems in other countries already,” Garin said. “So, for us to avoid that, learning from their mistakes, one is to come up with a system or technology that can cater to their needs,” she added in a mix of English and Filipino.
Her preferred solution is effectively a separate ecosystem with its own power, water, and supporting infrastructure.
“If it’s going to be bigger and bigger, I would rather have it on a stand-alone system where it has its own power plant, whether it’s renewable or gas,” she added.
![[Tech Thoughts] We need to be more responsible if we’re taking the Pax Silica route](https://www.rappler.com/tachyon/2026/07/tech-thoughts-pax-silica.jpg?fit=449%2C449)
Can that renewable promise even be met?
The Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) has said Pax Silica would rely on renewable energy, mainly solar. The first concrete piece is a deal with Saudi Arabia’s ACWA Power, which leased a 500-hectare site in New Clark City for a solar photovoltaic and battery storage project with a capacity of up to 500 MW.
But that is only one-sixth of Pax Silica’s projected requirement.
There’s also a proposed 1,200-MW LNG or liquefied natural gas terminal and power plant, for which the US International Development Finance Corporation has reportedly approved funding for a feasibility study.
Together, that would provide 1,700 MW on paper, still leaving a 1,300 MW gap.
And even this is generous; remember, a solar facility rated at 500 MW does not deliver 500 MW around the clock. Would the mega-investors being courted for Pax Silica really leave the fate of their data centers at the mercy of passing clouds?
The LNG proposal brings its own problems. Clark has an airport, not a seaport. LNG arrives by ship. The fuel would first have to enter through a coastal import terminal, then be transported inland, most plausibly through a new pipeline from Subic or another port. None of that infrastructure is operating yet, while the proposed power plant remains at the feasibility-study stage.
Gas also complicates BCDA’s green sales pitch. The proposed LNG plant alone would cover 40% of Pax Silica’s projected requirement. But LNG is not considered green or renewable. Unless significantly more renewable capacity is added, fossil gas could end up doing much of the heavy lifting.
Energy industry sources have been raising the same questions with Rappler. Their point is not that solar has no place in the project, but that nameplate capacity isn’t the same as round-the-clock, high-quality power. Facilities that cannot tolerate interruptions would still need substantial battery storage and likely grid support.
And best pray that Pax Silica doesn’t destablize the Luzon grid.
![[In This Economy] Risks of Pax Silica](https://www.rappler.com/tachyon/2026/05/PAX-SILICA.jpg?fit=449%2C449)
Still early, still talking
Asked whether Pax Silica had been planned from the beginning with a complete energy strategy, Garin told Rappler that much is still being firmed up.
“We’re still in the early stages. But we need to be more rational about it, in the sense that we need to plan properly,” she said in a mix of English and Filipino. There’s been close consultation too with the Department of Energy, Department of Information and Communications Technology, and Department of Trade and Industry.
Garin said actual locators must first make firm commitments so generation can be planned around real demand. Such commitments can justify building a power plant. This has all to be in sync, Garin added.
Power plants take time. Garin estimated three to five years for conventional facilities and around a decade for nuclear.
“Energy is one big factor,” she said, “and I’d rather do it properly.” – Rappler.com
