Prayas Energy Group, Pune

THERMAL POWER PLANTS ON THE ANVIL Implications and Need for Rationalisation 22 Aug 2011

MASSIVE EXPANSION OF THERMAL CAPACITY ON THE CARDS Existing Thermal Capacity:113,500 MW Total Thermal Capacity in MoEF Pipeline702,000 MW Break Up – Capacity Already Accorded Environmental Clearance: 193,000 MW – Capacity in MoEF Pipeline  EC Awaited 27,000 MW  TOR Granted 387,500 MW  TOR Awaited 94,500 MW  Plus thousands of MWs that are not yet in the MoEF cycle According to data as on MoEF Website as on 12th May Only projects granted clearance after 1 Jan 2007 considered for Environmental Clearance Granted category. (Figures Rounded Off) 3

Current and In-Pipeline Thermal Power Capacity as of 12 May, 2011

COAL DOMINATES CAPACITY ADDITION 5 (Note: Projects with TOR Awaited not included as fuel wise break up is not available for all projects in this category)

WHAT THIS CAPACITY MEANS – Few Comparisons Thermal Capacity in MoEF Pipeline of 702,000 MW is 6 times Existing Thermal Capacity (113,500 MW) 7 times Proposed Total Addition (not just thermal) in 12th Plan(100,000 MW) 3 times total Thermal capacity addition needed by year 2032 (Planning Commission's IEP’s High Efficiency, High Renewables Scenario) (230,000 MW) 6

DISTRIBUTION OF IN PIPELINE CAPACITY Geographic Concentration 380,000 MW (> 50% of in-pipeline capacity) in only 30 districts 11 districts have >15,000 MW capacity each Districts with highest proposed plants – Janjgir-Champa (CG) 30,500 MW – Raigarh (CG) 24,500 MW – Nellore (AP) 22,500 MW Many of these districts are adjoining  concentration is more than what is seen in districtwise analysis 7 (Figures Rounded Off)

8 Some of the Major TPP Clusters in Pipe Line in India N Raigad (18500 MW) Ratnagiri (12500 MW) Total MW Total MW Janjgir Champa (30500 MW) Raigarh (24500 MW) Jharsuguda (9000 MW) Sundargarh (7000 MW) Korba (7500 MW) Total MW (Chandrapur (8000), Nagpur (10000), Amravati (6000), Gondia (6000) & Bhandara (5000)) Allahabad (5500 MW) Rewa (18000 MW) Sidhi (5000 MW) Singrauli (15000 MW) Sonbhadra (7500 MW) Total MW (Figures Rounded Off)

HIGH CAPACITY PROPOSED BY PRIVATE SECTOR 73% (514,000 MW) of in-pipeline capacity in private sector 10 corporate groups proposing 160,000 MW, further consolidation expected 9

POLLUTION Many Thermal Power Plants Coming Up in Critically Polluted Areas Critically Polluted Areas (As per MoEF Classification) Proposed Capacity Addition in MWs in the District Angul, Orissa18,000 Bharuch, Gujarat16,000 Singrauli, M.P.15,000 Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu10,000 Jharsuguda, Orissa9,000 Chandrapur, Maharashtra8,000 Korba, Chhatisgadh7,500 Visakhapatnam, A.P.4, (Figures Rounded Off)

POLLUTION SO 2 removal mandated only in 8 plants of 5448 MW ( ~ 3% of coal capacity with EC) – No clear criteria seen for mandating SO 2 removal equipment Ash disposal: MoEF notification mandates 100% ash utilization in 4 years. But questions remain about capacity and preparedness in the cement, construction and other sectors to ensure the full utilisation of this ash, and of MoEF to monitor it. Meanwhile, ash disposal in ponds or dumps continues to create serious pollution and health problems for local communities. Other pollutants (like Mercury) are likely to be a concern, especially in areas with high concentration of thermal power plants 11

RESOURCE ISSUES Fresh water: Over 70% of EC granted TPPs are located inland  need to watch for potential conflicts and over-allocation of water – Some basins of concern are Wainganga, Wardha, Irai, Mahanadi, Brahmani. Coal requirement of plants in-pipeline (based on domestic coal) will be ~ 2 billion tons per annum Land will be a major issue 12

CONCERNS Proposed capacity addition has little linkage with the needs of the power sector – Sub-optimal allocation of resources like land, water, fuel, finances – Optimal transmission planning affected – Excess capacity will not serve “public purpose”, so use of Land Acquisition Act for such projects not justified – High social and environmental impacts, especially cumulative impacts of TPPs in clusters 13

CONCERNS Can market weed out excess and inefficient capacity? Even if it does, it could be littered with – Incomplete projects = stranded assets of plants and transmission – Displaced communities, changes in land titles Cost of weeding out may be borne by local communities and common people Fuel, land and water allocation for projects may be diverted for other uses or for speculative activities (private gain by capturing difference between high market value of resources and virtually a pittance paid to gain the control) 14

Discussion Governance need to be set right: Interventions required with criteria of – minimising cost to the power sector, social and environmental impacts – checking regional concentration, making optimal use of water, land and other resources 15

Way Forward 1 Put an immediate moratorium on any further environmental clearances to thermal power plants. This includes, in particular, the 500,000 MW capacity that is Awaiting EC, Granted TOR or Awaiting TOR From those projects already cleared (200,000 MW), put on hold projects with high social and environmental impacts, projects lacking broad local acceptance, and projects leading to a sub-optimal use of transmission, fuel, land and water

Way Forward 2 Initiate a 2 year transparent deliberative process to – to completely revamp the environmental clearance procedures of power plants – to ensure a coordinated approach of different agencies for optimising fuel, land and water allocations for different projects – to re-assess long term demand for power and measures to meet this demand in most optimal manner including energy efficiency and renewable energy Considering the capacity already granted environmental clearance and/or under construction, such a moratorium and review can be carried out without jeopardising the power needs of the country in the next decade.