Indias Energy Matrix- Whither Hydropower?

Preface This is a paper being written for use of policy practitioners. Being one myself, I am often besieged by reams and reams of data. Having read all the data, my uppermost question always is what is the take-away? Often there is none, except to enlighten me with the data and state of play. For true policy wonks, the essence should be what is the change you wish to see?- and to say so with brevity. I shall attempt to remain within this policy framework. Introduction The takeaway of this paper is simple. The country needs to have a more proactive policy for realizing its full hydropower potential. Not to do so, is a waste of precious energy resource and runs into an opportunity cost of a lost revenue stream of more than 30.2 Billion $ (Rs. 1,60,000 crore) per annum. (Every one MW of hydropower translates into between 4 to 5 million units of kwh, per year). Though attempts have been made in the past...... there is an urgent need to be more proactive for further acceleration of the ongoing efforts to harness our hydropower potential. India has an assessed hydropower potential of more than 1,20, 000 MW. 65 years after Independence, we have harnessed only about 40, 000 MW of this potential, i.e. about 615 MW per annum. Going by this rate we shall need another 130 years to realize our balance potential. Are we happy to state that in year 2143, India shall realise its full potential? We must have a policy and implementation plan to harness the next 50,000 MW over a maximum of 15 years, i.e. an average capacity addition of

about 3300 MW per annum. This implies that over the next five years, we must have hydropower projects aggregating 50,000 MW under actual construction. Background. Around ten years ago, Ministry of Power came out with a policy to develop 50,000 MW of hydropower. Actual capacity addition of hydropower has been from 26,000 MW in 2002 to 39,000 MW in 2012, i.e. an average increase of 1300 MW per year. This is almost double the average increase per year of 700 MW for the previous decade from 1992 to 2002. Can we now rest on these laurels and continue business as usual? This BAU of our last decade progress rate still condemns us to another 62 years to our full potential. Are we going to be happy with a 2075 timeline? Our coal based power generation capacity increases are facing the problems of paucity of domestic coal, import issues of high fuel costs and inability of the distribution companies to absorb and recover from consumers, the higher pass through fuel costs. Gas based plants are running at sub-optimal capacities because of the same fuel linkage issues. Nuclear power continues to languish at total capacity of less than 5000MW. Wind and Solar energy are promising. In the long run, solar would be more reliable in India. But.....we are right now looking at the medium term policy strategies......not at the long term ones. While our energy matrix certainly needs to fast track all potential areas, can we afford the relative neglect hydropower ? At the time of Independence, hydropower contributed almost 40% of the energy source mix. This is down to less than 20% now.

Why not hydropower? Opponents of hydropower have many sets of arguments against it. Let me summarise them: i) Environmental damage caused by large dams.
ii)

Balance hydropower potential mostly in the Himalayan region which is ecologically fragile.

iii) Geological surprises during project construction phase leading to heavy time and cost over-runs.
iv)

Financial closures are difficult due to the inherent higher risks and longer gestation time periods. Banking system already overstretched in its exposures to the power sector. Other alternatives such as coal/gas/nuclear/wind/solar, which would be faster and more reliable.

v)

Why Hydropwer? Proponents of hydropower would use the following constructs:

Large dams would have huge downstream benefits of flood control, irrigation and drinking water, livelihood through fish farming, tourism, etc. Zero fuel costs mean that variable cost of power production is negligible. Life cycle cost of power being low, manufacturing competitiveness of the economy benefits from such projects. (Bhakra power costs are estimated at less than one cent a unit, one-tenth of present day tariffs of about ten cents a unit) Given climate change issues, Hydropower potential is now recognised as a clean energy source and projects thereof can earn carbon credits.

b)

c)

d) Since silt of the rivers would harm the turbines of the project, there is in fact an alignment of the producers interests and environmentalists to undertake better forestry programmes in the water sheds/catchment areas of the project.

e) Hydropower projects give the country peaking power. This peaking power is much more valuable, unit for unit, as compared to base-load power of thermal power stations. Hydropower stations can ramp up and back down more smoothly as compared to thermal/nuclear power. Therefore this hydropower is much better in managing grid efficiencies for managing the volatility of power grid demands.
f)

Run of the river projects in the Himalayas have proved themselves to be ecologically reliable. Example- Himachal Pradesh has the Nathpa-Jhakri project of 1500 MW (bigger than the Bhakra storage dam project) running for nearly a decade now- the relative environmental costs have been negligible. (In fact Himachal has already completed various hydropower projects aggregating more than 7000 MW. Another 10,000 MW of projects are expected to be completed by 2017. For all these completed and started projects, the environmental impacts have been relatively benign, compared to the economic benefits of the peaking power made available to the national grid.)

What is the urgency- why not business as usual?

Most of the balance hydropower potential of the country is in the special category Hill States of Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Tripura, Assam, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, Manipur, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu&Kashmir.

These special category are economically unviable states and the Central Government has to transfer large amount of financial resources each year (Plan and Non-Plan) to these states, for meeting the committed liabilities and developmental plan needs of these states. (In fact, the Centre has a separate Ministry/Department for the NorthEastern States.)

If the Central Government develops a coherent plan to develop the balance hydropower potential of the country, much of the lost annual revenue stream of Rs. 1,60,000 crore could accrue to the benefit of the special category states. This would kill two birds with one stone- the Union Finance Ministry would save itself the headache for finding the necessary future

financial resources for these states and our country would benefit by the injection of 320 billion units of power into its energy grid.

If we add the fact that the fuel cost of hydro is nil, the case should rest with the policy makers- to galvanize themselves for a faster roll out of hydropower, rather than business as usual. Some additional considerations:-

With the current shortage of domestic coal being faced by the Power producers, India imported $17.5 Billion (Rs. 92,750 crore) worth of Coal in 2011-12. (DGCIS figures). Coal has now become the 6th highest commodity of import by India. The import figure of 2011-12 for coal is 79% higher than the figure for year 2010-11. (The real Coalgate!) Coal is now being sourced from whichever countries possible including Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand, USA, South Africa, China, Japan, Russia, Ukraine, Canada, Colombia, Poland, Vietnam, Austria, Israel, UK, Germany, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Netherlands, Mozambique, Romania, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Spain, Pakistan and others. (Total of 57 countriessource, DGCIS). India is facing total import bill scenario of 500 Billion USD in 2012-13 (Rs. 26, 50, 000 crore). The current account deficit (CAD) scenario risks Indias crashing in its fiscal ratings in world financial markets. Can the country therefore afford to see imports of coal grow at 80% year on year?

Gas fired power plants in India are now on hold/ running at sub optimal capacities because of shortage of domestic gas- high prices of imported gas. New capacity addition plans (including ultra mega power plants) are being put on the backburner now, because of the severe fuel linkage problems being encountered.

 Fuel pass through costs of ultra mega power projects are running into legal problems because the bidding was tariff based without fuel price linkages, whereas now the operators cannot complete the projects due to the coal price increase (Indonesian taxes, general price rise.)

Power distribution companies are not willing to either absorb or pass through the full fuel cost increase charges to their consumers. (Costs to consumers of their power tariffs are already very high- check the way your domestic energy bills have been increasing lately!)

Our Industries are becoming un-competitive in the worlds export markets because of rising input costs of power and even worse, the unreliable supply of power/scheduled and unscheduled power cuts.

In the meanwhile China accelerated on hydropower and completed projects such as the 20,000 MW Three Gorges Dam, which supplies ample and cheap power to the manufacturing juggernaut of Chinese factories.

World over countries such as USA, Canada, European Countries, Australia, New Zealand, China, Brazil, Russia etc. raced to first realize their hydropower potential. Why has India remained enamoured with coal over hydropower? Did the environmentalists clamour drown out the sane voice of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru when he described Bhakra etc. as the temples of modern india?

If the environmentalists were indeed right, how come the most environmentally sensitive nations of USA, Europe, New Zealand, Canada, etc. did not give up the unlocking of their hydropower projects?

Please arise my fellow countrymen and its illustrious policymakers- if you continue sleeping you have much to loseincluding the annual revenue stream of Rs. 1, 60, 000 crore! My main purpose through this paper is to focus attention to the need for the urgency in harnessing our countrys hydropower.

The need is urgent because the special category states of India shall forever remain poor and basket cases for Finance Commission, Planning Commission, Finance Ministry doles and grants, in the absence of quick rapid action on this front. More so, because the solar power feed in tariff rates are expected to reach grid parity within a five year span. If and when this happens, the fiscal argument for investment in hydro would have vanished. This would be a pity because a clean and zero fuel cost energy resource would have been beaten to death by the dirty coal lobby, which will triumph and take many years to be eventually replaced by solar and wind energy........... If I have been able to impart the sense of urgency- the sole purpose of this paper would have been accomplished. The first question is Should we get hydro moving fast. If we all agree upon the urgency- the next logical question would be How do we get this moving fast? I will now pre-suppose, that the ones who read further are convinced about the Should part and therefore willing to explore the How part. The How. Can we speed up the harnessing of our hydropower resources? Sure we can, provided all our relevant policymakers and implementation agencies are willing to synergise. As compared to even just a decade ago, we now have a much greater pool of engineers and construction companies which understand this business better. If they are given the necessary financial support and requisite clearances, we can easily add 50,000 MW in the next 15 years. What do we do?

First and foremost, we need to get the Central Electricity Authority (CEA), strengthened and rejuvenated to do the required techno economic clearances much faster. As per the CEA website, at present it is managing to clear only about three hydropower projects per year. The institutional capacity of the CEA must be increased to be able to clear 10 to 12 mega hydropower projects per year. Second and related, the required environmental clearances will need to come in faster. The urgency of the nation must be that the environmental clearances come in faster, with a shared environmental lobby responsibility for getting the projects quickly off the ground. I am not suggesting that environmental safeguards need to be jettisoned. I am only saying that the timelines for clearances need to be much tighter and more pragmatic. On the Government side, we must have better communication skills with the environmental lobbies, NGOs, civil society and the local community, to better address their fears and Relief and Rehabilitation (R&R) issues. On R&R, based upon my past experience in this sector, I can vouch that the State/Central Government should be far more supportive in the R&R of the local community. Typically, the operating companies (State, Central or private) tend to be miserly on R&R issues, as compared to the benefits to be reaped from the project. The local community must be more incentivized for early completion of the projects, so that their economic interests are more clearly aligned with the national interest of completing these projects expeditiously. (At the same time, better ways need to be found to deal with the middlemen, who jump in to delay settlements, simply so that they can extract their economic cuts for arranging the settlements Similarly, the host state governments also need to be more clearly incentivized, so that they too have a greater stake in the fast track completion of these projects. One pointer is that just as in the

thermal projects, the Central Govt policy now allows the host state governments to get at least 50% of the power produced at the generating cost; for hydropower too the host state government should get at least 50% of the power produced at the generating cost. Such a policy has no financial impact for the power producer, since he gets the CERC determined tariff, but it strongly incentivizes the host state government to ensure fast track completion of the project. Better communication is also required with the public/environmentalists that Indias balance hydropower potential generally does not involve large dams, but run of the river projects which use the natural gradients of the Himalayan rivers to produce energy. Being located in sparsely populated areas, the R&R issues are also more manageable as compared to the earlier larger dams. The Government policy also needs to be proactive to ensure that these projects remain bankable and financial closures can be done more easily. A PPP mix would help boost the required financial engineering to support the physical engineering challenges. Central Governments first order of priority should in fact remain to help state governments with plan loans/grants, to ensure that the state governments own these projects to the maximum extent possible. This is because it is in the central govt. interest to ensure a revenue stream for the state governments from these projects. This will drastically cut down future financial support required by the special category states from the central kitty. (In the case of Himachal in fact a lot has already been achieved with the Central Govt. supporting World Bank/ADB loans for the hydropower sector in this state.) Central Government has also taken a good step by allowing the private producers to tap into merchant power sale. This boosts the profitability projections, attracts private investment interest and ensures faster financial closures. Where different IPP structures are to be created, Himachal has given the lead in various forms of bidding structures which were

formulated. In essence the following principles may be best for the competitive bidding: i) Take some upfront premium (say Rs. Ten lakh per MW), to prevent squatting. The successful bidders interest is thus better aligned with the national interest to have the project completed early. The power royalty sharing could be fixed in the range of 13% to 25%. Centre need not fix this, leave it to the wisdom of state governments- if they set the range too high, the requisite bids would not come in. The competitive bidding parameter could be the BOOT (Build own operate and transfer) period. Though no state government has as yet used the BOOT period for the competitive bidding, my assessment is that for good projects, the BOOT period may be as low as 12 to 15 years. The Net present value (NPV) stream is generally zero or negligible after ten/twelve years. Thus, through such bidding system, state governments can hope to fully own the IPP projects, within 12 to 15 years of their first commercial operations Epilogue. There is an old adage which wisely states that where there is a will, there is a way. I personally feel that due to the general antipathy of the environmentalists against large dams, the nation lost its will towards hydropower. This is unfortunate because in the public perception large projects were equated with large dams, which is not necessarily true for the run of the river projects. Even for large dams, the nation seems to have forgotten that these dams are our water security against drought. America has large dams, which give it water security for two years against failure of rains. In India, our water

ii)

iii)

security is not even for two months against such precipitation failure. Can India afford its relative neglect of hydropower? Can it give up on what Pandit Nehru wisely termed as the temples of modern India? Can we be foolish in continuing to be sanguine about 80,000MW worth of oil flowing into the sea, year after year? Please wake up fellow policy makers in the Power Ministry and the Planning Commission. Let us blueprint for 50,000 MW of hydropower capacity addition in the next 15 years. This is certainly doable- provided we are determined to do it.

XXXXXXXX