STANDING COMMITTEEON ENERGY

(2015-2016)SIXTEENTH LOK SABHA

MINISTRY OF POWER

HYDRO-POWER, A SUSTAINABLE, CLEANAND GREEN ALTERNATIVE

SEVENTEENTH REPORT

LOK SABHA SECRETARIATNEW DELHI

May, 2016/Vaisakha, 1938 (Saka)

17

SEVENTEENTH REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENERGY(2015-2016)

( SIXTEENTH LOK SABHA )

MINISTRY OF POWER

HYDRO-POWER, A SUSTAINABLE, CLEAN ANDGREEN ALTERNATIVE

Presented to Lok Sabha on 06.05.2016Laid in Rajya Sabha on 06.05.2016

LOK SABHA SECRETARIATNEW DELHI

May, 2016/Vaisakha, 1938 (Saka)

COE No. 272

Price : Rs. 125.00

© 2016 BY LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT

Published under Rule 382 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct ofBusiness in Lok Sabha (Fifteenth Edition) and printed by National Printers,New Delhi-110 028.

(i)

CONTENTS

PAGES

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE (2016-17) ........................................... (iii)

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... (v)

REPORT

PART I

NARRATION ANALYSIS

I. Introductory ................................................................................ 1

II. Evaluation of Hydro Power Sector .......................................... 3

III. Financial Issues ........................................................................... 17

IV. Clearances and Environmental Issues ..................................... 25

V. Enabling Infrastructure Issues .................................................. 38

PART II

Observations/Recommendations of the Committee ............ 42

ANNEXURES

(i) List of hydro projects under-construction with no majorconstraints [para 1.18] ............................................................... 56

(ii) List of hydro projects under-construction having majorconstraints [para 1.18] ............................................................... 59

(iii) List of proposed hydro projects at DPR/Early stages[para 1.18] .................................................................................... 61

(iv) The detail of Hydro Electric Projects commissioned andlikely to be commissioned in the remaining period of12th Plan and beyond [para 1.23] ............................................ 64

(v) Time/Cost Overrun of Central Sector H.E. Projects (above25 MW) Commissioned during 12th Plan [para 1.26] .......... 68

PAGE

(ii)

(vi) The details of projects pending with CEA for approval[para 1.51] .................................................................................... 71

(vii) List of DPRs concurred by CEA from 2002-03 onwards[para 1.54] .................................................................................... 72

(viii) Minutes of the sitting of the Committee held on 16.11.2015 ... 78

(ix) Minutes of the sitting of the Committee held on 11.01.2016 ... 81

(x) Minutes of the sitting of the Committee held on 25.01.2016 ... 85

(xi) Minutes of the sitting of the Committee held on 11.02.2016 ... 88

(xii) Minutes of the sitting of the Committee held on 27.04.2016 ... 91

COMPOSITION OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENERGY(2015-2016)

Dr. Kirit Somaiya— Chairman

MEMBERS

Lok Sabha

2. Shri Om Birla

3. Shri M. Chandrakasi

4. Shri Ashwini Kumar Choubey

5. Shri Harish Chandra alias Harish Dwivedi

6. Shri Deepender Singh Hooda

7. Shri Saumitra Khan

8. Shri Bhagat Singh Koshyari

9. Kunwar Sarvesh Kumar

10. Dr. Arun Kumar

11. Shri R.P. Marutharajaa

12. Dr. Pritam Gopinath Munde

13. Shri Jagdambika Pal

14. Shri Ravindra Kumar Pandey

15. Shrimati Krishna Raj

16. Shri M.B. Rajesh

17. Shri Vinayak Bhaurao Raut

18. Shri Gutha Sukender Reddy

19. Shri Devender Singh alias Bhole Singh@

20. Shri Purno Agitok Sangma*

(iii)

@ Nominated as Member of the Committee w.e.f. 13th April, 2016, consequent upon vacancycaused by the death of Shri P.A. Sangama on 4th March, 2016.

* Expired on 4th March, 2016.

(iv)

21. Shri Malyadri Sriram

22. Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh Verma

Rajya Sabha

23. Shri V.P. Singh Badnore

24. Shri Oscar Fernandes

25. Shri Ram Jethmalani

26. Shri Pyarimohan Mohapatra

27. Shri S. Muthukaruppan

28. Dr. K.P. Ramalingam

29. Shri Ananda Bhaskar Rapolu

30. Dr. Anil Kumar Sahani

31. Shri Javed Ali Khan

32. Shrimati Viplove Thakur

SECRETARIAT

1. Shri K. Vijayakrishnan — Additional Secretary2. Shri N.K. Pandey — Director3. Shri Manish Kumar — Senior Executive Assistant

(v)

INTRODUCTION

I, the Chairperson, Standing Committee on Energy having beenauthorized by the Committee to present the Report on their behalf, presentthis Fifteenth Report on ‘Hydro-power, a sustainable, clean and greenalternative’ relating to the Ministry of Power.

2. The Committee had a briefing on the subject by therepresentatives of the Ministry of Power on 16th November, 2015. TheCommittee, with a view to examining the subject in detail, had evidenceof the representatives of the Ministry of Power on 11th January, 2016.Further, the Committee, to gain clarity in regard to financial issues relatingto the hydro power sector, took evidence of the representatives of theMinistry of Power on 25th January, 2016. The Committee, thereafter, tookevidence of the representatives of the Ministry of Power, the Ministryof New and Renewable Energy, the Ministry of Environment, Forest andClimate Change, and Border Roads Organization, jointly on 11th February,2016.

3. The Committee wish to express their thanks to the representativesof these Ministries/Organizations for appearing before the Committeeand furnishing the desired information on the issues relating to the subject.

4. The Report was considered and adopted by the Committee attheir sitting held on 27th April, 2016.

5. The Committee place on record their appreciation for the valuableassistance rendered to them by the officials of the Lok Sabha Secretariatattached to the Committee.

6. For facility of reference and convenience, the observations andrecommendations of the Committee have been printed in bold letters inPart-II of the Report.

NEW DELHI; DR. KIRIT SOMAIYA,05 May, 2016 Chairperson,Vaisakha 15, 1938 (Saka) Standing Committee on Energy.

REPORT

PART I

NARRATION ANALYSIS

I. Introductory

1.2 Hydro power is clean, green, sustainable and also a cheap sourceof power in the long run. Amongst the renewable sources of energy,hydro power has been recognized as the most preferred source of energydue to its inherent benefits. Thermal power generation stations aredependent on fossil fuels, which are limited and may not last long, whereashydro power is a renewable source of energy. Inadequate availability ofcoal is already causing lot of concerns while non-availability of gas hasalready caused thousands of MW capacity equivalents of power stationsto be non-operational, at least at present. While hydro power has a longgestation period and needs huge upfront capital cost, it is a much longerlife and is free from fuel cost which significantly makes it cheaper in thelong run. The Bhakra Nangal Plant, which is about 40 years old, has anoperating cost of meager 10 paisa per unit. Moreover, hydro powerstations, unlike conventional thermal power stations, do not emitpollutants into the environment.

1.3 Hydro power, in the recent times, has gained greater importancedue to the planning of 1.75 lakh MW capacity of power in the countryfrom renewable sources, including wind and solar. Since these renewablesources of energy are intermittent in nature, it will require balancingpower which can swiftly start up and stop down to provide grid stability.Hydro power possesses this quality.

1.4 Hydro projects generate employment for local people in remotehilly and backward areas and also provide incidental benefits ofdevelopment of road/rail, telecommunications, electrification,industrialization and improvement of the quality of life in backwardareas which lead to overall development of the area. Further, hydro powerprojects help in the utilization of water resources for other purposes likeirrigation, flood moderation, navigation, pisci-culture, water supply etc.

2

1.5 At present, hydro power only upto capacity of 25 MW is termedas renewable energy source in the country and is under the purview ofthe Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, while larger capacity hydroprojects are still included in conventional energy sources and lookedafter by the Ministry of Power. Basically, there are three types of hydropower projects: run of the river – it channels flowing water from a riverthrough a canal or penstock to spin a turbine and has little or no storagefacility; Storage hydro power – dam is used to store water and whenreleased electricity is produced; and Pumped Storage hydro power —works like a battery and it stores energy by pumping water uphill to areservoir at higher elevation from a second reservoir at a lower elevation.

1.6 It has been assessed that the country has hydro power potentialto the tune of 1,45,320 MW. Besides this, an additional potential to thetune of 96,524 MW has been discovered in the form of Pumped StorageSchemes. Against this backdrop, at present, only 42,433 MW capacity ofhydro power is being harnessed. It is a matter of great concern thatdespite having various positives, the hydro sector has not got the dueattention of the Government and the valuable resource remains unutilized.The share of hydro power in the total energy mix of the country has beenfalling consistently, from 51% in the year 1962-63 to about 15% at present.The North-Eastern Region, where most of the hydro power potential lies,has the least installed hydro power capacity.

1.7 The inherent complexities of hydro power – long gestationperiod, requirement of huge land area, large upfront capital and beingsite-specific – have further been aggravated by lack of finances andincentives, lack of transparency in allocation of projects, lack ofcoordination among agencies for grant of various clearances and inproviding support to these projects. So far, rapid augmentation of thermalpower generation capacities in the country has been compensating theslow pace of hydro power sector to some extent. However, due to fuelconstraints and other limitations of the conventional thermal power,planning of 1.75 lakh MW of renewable energy, and in view of globalclimate concerns and international commitments, we are left with nooption but to strategize our efforts and resources in such a way that itensures optimum harnessing of available hydro potential within a definitetimeframe.

3

II. Evaluation of Hydro Power Sector

1.8 Hydro Power Installed Capacity at the end of the 1st Five YearPlan was about 1,061 MW which has grown to 42,433.4 MW as on30.09.2015. The present status of hydro power potential in the countryis as follows:—

Status Capacity (MW)

Identified Hydro Potential (Schemes of above 25 MW) 1,45,320

Schemes under Operation 37,648*

Schemes under Construction 11,812*

Schemes for which DPRs Concurred by CEA but yet to be 26,638taken up for construction

DPRs under examination in CEA 6,989

DPRs appraised in CEA and returned for revision 8,496*

Schemes under Survey and Investigation (S&I) for 14,147*preparation of DPRs

Schemes allotted for development on which S&I is held 13,628up/yet to be taken up

Balance Hydro Potential to be taken up for Development 25,962

* Excluding Pumped Storage Schemes (4785.6 MW under operation, 1080 MW underconstruction, 500 MW returned and 1000 MW under S&I)

1.9 In addition to the above, Pumped Storage Schemes foran aggregate capacity of about 96,524 MW have also been identifiedby CEA during the reassessment study completed in 1987. Thepresent status of Pumped Storage Schemes in the country is givenbelow:—

Nos. Capacity (MW)

Pumped Storage Scheme identified 63 96,524.0

Under Operation 9 4,785.6

Under Construction 2 1,080.0

DPR prepared and submitted to CEA 1 1,000.0

4

1.10 As on 30.09.2015, the total installed capacity in the countryis 2,78,883.62 MW and hydro share accounts for 15.2% as given below:—

Type of Station Installed Capacity %age(MW)

Hydro 42,433.42 15.22

Thermal 1,94,199.56 69.63

Nuclear 5,780.0 2.07

R.E.S.* 36,470.64 13.08

Total 2,78,883.62 100

*R.E.S. includes Small Hydro/Biomass/Urban and Industrial waste power/Wind power etc.

1.11 The share of hydro power in the Indian power sector increasedand reached upto a maximum of 50.62% in 1962-63. Thereafter, it hasbeen declining and at present it is 15.22%.

1.12 At present, 193 nos. of hydro stations with total installedcapacity of 42,433.4 MW, including 9 Pumped Storage Schemes (PSS)with installed capacity of 4,785.6 MW, are under operation. Sector-wisesummary of Hydro Electric Projects under operation is given below:—

Sector Nos. I.C. (MW) %age

Central 38 14,357.72 33.83

State 140 24,921.70 58.73

Private 15 3,154.00 7.43

Total 193 42,433.42 100

5

1.13 State-wise overview of Hydro Power Development is givenbelow:—

State Exploitable Developed Under To BePotential (MW) Development Developed

(MW) (MW) (MW)

Arunachal Pradesh 50,064 405 2,854 46,805

Uttarakhand 17,998 3,756 1,430 12,812

Jammu and Kashmir 13,543 2,969 1,330 9,244

Himachal Pradesh 18,540 9,308 2,216 7,016

Karnataka 6,459 3,585 0 2,874

West Bengal 2,829 272 280 2,277

Meghalaya 2,298 282 40 1,976

Kerala 3,378 1,881 100 1,397

Sikkim 4,248 765 2,526 957

Odisha 2,981 2,027 0 954

Maharashtra 3,314 2,487 0 827

Andhra Pradesh 2,341 1,747 50 544

Other States 17,327 8,164 986 8,177

Total 1,45,320 37,648 11,812 95,860

1.14 The details of development of Small Hydro Power Projectsless than 25 MW are given below:—

State Sites Potential Achievement %(MW) (MW) Utilisation

1 2 3 4 5

Karnataka 834 4141 1177.93 28.45

Himachal Pradesh 531 2397 739.91 30.87

Uttarakhand 448 1707 209.32 12.26

Jammu and Kashmir 245 1430 156.53 10.95

Arunachal Pradesh 677 1341 104.6 7.80

Chhattisgarh 200 1107 52 4.70

Andhra Pradesh and 387 978 232.23 23.75Telangana

Madhya Pradesh 299 820 86.16 10.51

Maharashtra 274 794 335.425 42.24

Kerala 245 704 168.92 23.99

6

Tamil Nadu 197 659 123.05 18.67

Uttar Pradesh 251 460 25.1 5.46

Punjab 259 441 157.4 35.69

West Bengal 203 396 98.4 24.85

Others 1424 2362.5 463.48 19.62

Total 6474 19737.5 4130.46 20.93

1.15 At present, 47 nos. of Hydro Electric Schemes with totalinstalled capacity of 12,892 MW, including 2 Pumped Storage Schemes(PSS) with installed capacity of 1,080 MW, are under various stages ofconstruction.

1.16 42 nos. of Hydro Electric Schemes with installed capacity 26,638MW have been cleared by CEA which are yet to be taken up forconstruction. The DPRs of 12 Nos. of H.E. Schemes with total installedcapacity of 6,989 MW are presently under examination in CEA. The DPRsof 27 Nos. of Hydro Electric Schemes with an aggregate installed capacity8,996 MW, including 1 pumped storage scheme (PSS) with installedcapacity of 500 MW, have been returned to the project authorities forre-submission after compliance of various observations of CEA/CWC/GSI and other apprising agencies.

1.17 45 nos. of hydro schemes with an aggregate installed capacityof 13,421 MW are under various stages of Survey and Investigation inthe country. At present, there are 48 nos. of hydro schemes with anaggregate installed capacity of 14,498 MW on which S & I is held up/yet to be taken up.

1.18 Hydro projects which are under construction/concurredand yet to be taken up for construction has been categorized in3 categories:—

Category-I — Hydro projects under construction with no majorconstraints as per details at Annexure-I.

Category-II — Hydro projects under construction having majorconstraints as per details at Annexure-II.

Category-III — Proposed Hydro Projects at DPR/Early stages asper details at Annexure-III.

1 2 3 4 5

7

1.19 Summary of the above mentioned projects is given below:—

Nos. MW

Category-I 36 8,190

Category-II 11 4,852

Category-III 35 24,025

1.20 Targets and achievements in regard to generation capacityaddition programme during the 11th Five Year Plan are as under:—

(in MW)

Sector Thermal Hydro Nuclear Total

Tgt. Ach. Tgt. Ach. Tgt. Ach. Tgt. Ach.

Central 24,840 12,790 8,654 1,550 3,380 880 36,874 15,220

State 23,301 14,030 3,482 2,702 0 26,783 16,732

Private 11,552 21,720 3,491 1,292 0 15,043 23,012

Total 59,693 48,540* 15,627 5,544 3,380 880 78,700 54,964

* Includes additional capacity of 9,678.5 MW not included in the original target.

1.21 Targets and achievements in regard to generation capacityaddition programme during the 12th Five Year Plan so far are as under:—

(in MW)

Sector Hydro Thermal Nuclear Total

Target Ach till Target Ach till Target Ach till Target Ach till29.2.16 29.2.16 29.2.16 29.2.16

Central 6,004 2,464.02 14,878 11,228.1 5,300 1,000 26,182 14,692.1

State 1,608 672 13,922 14,569.1 0 0 15,530 15,241.1

Private 3,285 595 43,540 44,667.5 0 0 46,825 45,262.5

Total 10,897 3,731.02 72,340 70,464.7 5,300 1,000 88,537 75,195.7

1.22 A hydro capacity addition of 10,897 MW is programmed forthe 12th Plan (2012-17). Sector-wise details are as under:—

(upto 30.09.2015)

Sector Commissioned (MW) Under Execution (MW) Total (MW)

Central Sector 2,424 3,580 6,004

State Sector 442 1,166 1,608

Private Sector 595 2,690 3,285

Total 3,461 7,436 10,897

8

1.23 It is expected that hydro electric capacity to the tune of6,746 MW will be added during the 12th Plan period. The detail ofHydro Electric Projects commissioned and likely to be commissionedin the remaining period of the 12th Plan and beyond is enclosed atAnnexure-IV.

1.24 The Generation Performance of Hydro Stations (above 25 MW)since 2010-11 is given below:—

Year Target (MU) Achievement Achievement/(MU) Target (%)

2010-11 1,11,352 1,14,257.36 102.61

2011-12 1,12,050 1,30,509.52 116.47

2012-13 1,22,045 1,13,720.29 93.18

2013-14 1,22,263 1,34,847.52 110.29

2014-15 1,24,297 1,29,243.68 103.98

2015-16 77,830 79,958.14 102.73(as on 30.09.2015)

1.25 When the Committee asked for the comparative per unitgeneration cost of a typical hydro and a coal based thermal power plant,the Ministry, in their reply, have furnished the following information:—

“The per unit capital cost of Hydro Projects ranges betweenRs. 6 crore to 10 crore/ MW as compared to Rs. 3 crore toRs. 5 crore for thermal plants. The initial capital cost of HEPs ishigh on account of high civil construction cost, difficult terrain,poor connectivity, high cost of Survey and Investigation etc. Thefollowing chart gives an idea of the average sale rate of thermalpower vis-à-vis hydro power in the years 2011-12 to 2013-14:—

Mode of 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14Generation

Hydro 233.58 238.89 232.98paise/KWh paise/KWh paise/KWh

Thermal 313.41 333.00 336.43paise/KWh paise/KWh paise/KWh

1.26 The Ministry have stated that the normal construction periodof hydro projects after the award of works ranges from about four yearsto seven years depending upon the size and features of the project andthe geographical terrain of the site, amongst other factors. When theCommittee desired to know whether all the functional projects of various

9

PSUs of the Government of India have become operational within thestipulated period, the Ministry have furnished the followinginformation:—

“Majority of the hydro projects of various CPSUs functional in the12th Plan Period could not be commissioned within the stipulatedperiod. The details of these projects along with the reasons for timeoverrun are enclosed at Annexure-V. However, some of the CPSUProjects viz. Omkareshwar HEP, Chamera-II HEP etc., commissionedduring the earlier Plans, were commissioned within the stipulatedtime period.”

1.27 On being inquired by the Committee whether there is anyscope for curtailment of the gestation period in view of the advancementin engineering/technology, the Ministry have stated as below:—

“The major advancements during the recent years are use ofadvanced Tunnel Boring Machines for excavation of tunnels(Kishanganga HEP) , Tunnel Seismic Prediction machine to predictthe geology ahead of the tunnel face upto 200m, use of advancedDrill Jumbos for excavation of tunnels etc. These machines help inreducing the construction period to some extent. However,prediction of geology deep inside the mountains has not beenaddressed in case of under construction hydro projects.”

1.28 When the Committee further desired to know whether thelong gestation and heavy initial capital cost in hydro power projects arecompensated in the long run, the Ministry stated as under:—

“It is felt that the long gestation period and heavy capital investmentin Hydro Power projects get compensated in the long run since theactual life of the hydro projects is much more than the normativeuseful life of thermal plants. Beyond that stage, hydro power provesto be cheaper option, when all loans are recovered and the plantis fully depreciated.”

1.29 On being asked by the Committee whether implementingprovisions, viz. differential tariff for hydro power, specifying mandatoryuse of hydro power by the Discoms and Hydro Power Purchase Obligationwill provide impetus to the sector and what are the barriers inimplementing these, the Ministry, in their written reply, have stated asunder:—

“The provision of differential tariff for Hydro Power and HydroPower Purchase Obligations are likely to give boost to the

10

development of Hydro Power Projects. Of-late, the capital cost ofhydro projects is gradually increasing, leading to a correspondingincrease in the tariff of hydro power.

Ministry of Power had sought views/comments of StateGovernments on introduction of Hydro Power Purchase Obligationon the lines of Renewable Purchase Obligation. Several major States,having less or negligible hydro potential, are not in favour of theimplementation of HPO. Governments of Chhattisgarh and Odishastated that these States mostly rely on thermal projects for theirpower requirements. These States have negligible hydro powerpotential. Therefore, it would not be possible to come to the termsof the HPO. Some of the States (like UP, Chhattisgarh, Odisha) alsoopined that there is no need to implement HPO as a similar RPOis already in place.”

1.30 During the examination of the subject, the Committee observedthat at present Private Sector’s share in hydro power generation is ameager 7.43%. When the Committee desired to know the reason for thesame, the Ministry, in their written reply, have stated as under:—

“Hydro Power development involves large capital investment andhas a longer gestation period than other types of Power Projects(Thermal/Wind/Solar etc.) . These projects also involve risk andchallenges during execution viz. geological risks due to youngHimalayan mountains; remote locations and poor infrastructure;adverse weather conditions; local issues; environment and forestissues; land acquisition problems; natural calamities like flash floods,cloud burst, earthquake, etc.”

1.31 On being asked by the Committee for the details of the effortsof the Government that are being made by the Government to improvethis situation, the Ministry have stated as under:—

“45 nos. of H.E. Projects having aggregate installed capacity of12,722 MW have been identified for benefits during 13th Plan. Outof which 25 nos. of H.E. Projects having aggregate installed capacityof 5,830 MW (45.83%) are from private sector. The private sectorhas a substantial share in the projects under construction which arelikely to yield benefits during 12th Plan and beyond. However, theabove mentioned factors have caused appreciable time and costoverruns in some of the projects. The funds constraint faced by thePrivate Developers due to their inability to get additional equityfor the increased cost has affected the progress of the works. Further,the low returns vis-à-vis risks involved in case of hydro projects

11

could also be deterrent to Private Developers to enter this field.The Government of India has taken a number of steps to promoteprivate sector.”

1.32 The Committee observed that the share of Hydro Power in thetotal energy mix has constantly been on the decline. At present, the shareof Hydro Power is only 15%. When the Committee asked for the detailsof the specific efforts that have been made by the Government to increasethe share of Hydro Power, the Ministry of Power, in their written reply,have furnished the following details:—

“It is true that over the years, the share of hydro in the total installedcapacity has declined from a maximum of about 51% (2,936 outof a total of 5,801 MW) in the year 1962-63 to about 15% (42,433MW out of a total of 2,78,883 MW) now. It is mainly due to thefact that upto 1960s, the major emphasis of the Government wason development of multi-purpose reservoir based hydro projectsmainly to have irrigation for better food security which also ledto development of hydro capacity. Major multi-purpose projectsconstructed till the 1960s include Hirakund, Bhakhra, DamodarValley projects etc. However, apart from lack of adequateinfrastructure, drying-up of funding by bilateral/multi-lateralagencies, increasingly stringent environment clearance regime forhydro projects after 1970s due to world-wide focus onenvironmental/ecological/R&R issues and consequent activismagainst the development of hydro projects by NGOs/Environmentalactivists, greater emphasis on rapid development of thermal powerduring 1970s for quicker capacity addition in view of large scaleindustrialization have contributed to the slow growth/decline ofhydro share in subsequent years. In addition, factors like Landacquisition issues, R&R issues, inter-State issues and non-tie-up/non-availability of requisite finances on long term basis etc. havefurther slowed down the development of hydro power.

The Government has taken a number of steps to give boost to thedevelopment of hydro project development by introducing policieslike National Electricity Policy, Hydro Power Policy- 2008, and Rightto Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Further, apart fromrigorous monitoring of the projects under construction, Governmenthas also introduced a multi-pronged strategy involving aConsultation approach for Fast Tracking of S&I activities andpreparation of Quality DPRs and introduced norms for time bound

12

appraisal of DPRs. Various policy initiatives as well as othermeasures undertaken by this Ministry to give impetus todevelopment of Hydro Power are below:—

National Electricity Policy, 2005

The policy lays maximum emphasis on full development of thefeasible hydro potential in the country which will facilitateeconomical development of States, particularly North Eastern States,Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir. Sincethe hydel projects call for comparatively larger capital investment,debt financing of longer tenure has been recommended. The StateGovernments have been advised to review procedure for landacquisition and other approvals/clearances for speedyimplementation of hydro projects. Full support of CentralGovernment has been extended for hydel development by offeringthe services of CPSUs like NHPC, NEEPCO, SJVNL, THDC, etc.

Hydro Power Policy, 2008: Salient Features (including subsequentchanges) : Hydro Power Policy, 2008 has been notified byGovernment of India on 31.3.2008. The salient features of the policyare given below:—

• The cost plus Tariff regime (in which tariff is to be determinedby the regulator under section 62 of Electricity Act, 2003) hasbeen extended for public as well as private sector hydro powerprojects up to December 2015.

• Transparent selection criteria for awarding sites to privatedevelopers.

• Enables developer to recover his additional costs throughmerchant sale of upto a maximum of 40% of the saleableenergy. 5% reduction for a delay of every six months. – Balancelong term PPAs.

• For 10 years from the COD, developer to provide 100 unitsof electricity per month to each Project Affected Family (PAF)— in cash or kind or a combination of both.

• The host State is provided with 12% free power of the totalinstalled capacity of the project.

• Additional 1% free power from the project (over and above12% free power earmarked for the host State) for a LocalArea Development Fund—regular revenue stream for welfareschemes, creation of additional infrastructure and commonfacilities.

13

• The State Governments would also contribute a matching1% from their share of 12% free power.

Other Measures Taken for Increasing the Hydro Capacity

Central Electricity Authority (CEA) monitors the progress of eachproject regularly through frequent site visits, interaction with thedevelopers and critical study of the progress reports. CEA holdsreview meetings with the developers and other stakeholders to sortout the critical issues.

• A Power Project Monitoring Panel (PPMP) has been set upby the Ministry of Power to independently follow up andmonitor the progress of the hydro projects.

• Review meetings are taken by Ministry of Power/CEAregularly with the concerned officers of CEA, equipmentmanufacturers, State Utilities/CPSUs/Project developers, etc.to sort out the critical issues.

Review meetings are taken by MoP/CEA with Border RoadsOrganization, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways etc. tosort out the infrastructure issues and with MoEF & CC to sort outclearance issues.”

1.33 During the examination of the subject, the representative ofthe Ministry of Power, while enumerating the various constraints indevelopment of hydro power, has deposed as under:—

“We have analysed the reason as to why hydro power is not comingup at a desired stage. The reasons which we have understood sofar are various clearances. When I say various clearances, clearancesmean environmental and forest clearances and then there are someland acquisition issues; there are rehabilitation and resettlementissues; and there are legal and social problems also. In the last tento fifteen years, there has been tremendous social resistance to thelarge hydro projects. We have dealt extensively about the financialaspects of hydro power projects. How can we promote hydro powerprojects by incentivising them, by way of cheap finance, cheaploans or by giving some other incentives like tax holiday ortax free instruments? We are trying to address those at ourown level.”

14

1.34 As the Committee have been stressing the need for speedydevelopment of hydro power sector, the representative of the Ministryof power, while stating the steps taken by the Ministry in this regard,deposed before the Committee as under:—

“We have formed two sub-committees to look at the overall legaland regulatory framework of hydro power. Another Committeehas been constituted with the objective of looking into the variousfinancing options of hydro power. One thing is legal regulatoryframework – how can we ease it, how can we simplify it or whatchanges are required to be made in the regulatory framework topromote hydro power? One Committee is constituted with the termsof reference of looking into as to how we can arrange the cheapfinances or innovative financing instrument for funding the hydropower projects.”

1.35 While stating the steps taken by these Committees, he furtherdeposed before the Committee as under:—

“We should be able to come up with some firm steps in the nexttwo to three months. We have kept the internal deadline of Aprilof this year. We will be ready with the draft paper in the next threemonths. We have taken some concrete steps also. Recently, theCabinet has approved the new tariff policy in which hydro powerhas been exempted from the renewable solar power obligation.Earlier the position was different. If the total capacity in the Stateis, for example, 10,000 MW, then certain percentage of that totalcapacity was required to be from solar or from renewable. Nowthat obligation to buy solar power, renewable power will becalculated after excluding the hydro power capacity. That is anincentive for hydro power. We have discussed in the past also thathydro power has a very typical kind of a tariff framework in whichthe tariff is higher in the first year and it gradually decreases asand when loan is repaid and depreciation comes down. States arereluctant to buy hydro power because the initial tariff is high. Nowwe have given that flexibility to the developers to modify thedepreciation rate so that the tariff is either flat or it increases withthe passage of time. Earlier this flexibility was not there with thedevelopers. He had to fix depreciation rate determined by CERCand he had no option but to charge the depreciation at that ratewhich made the tariff in the initial year very high. As a result,States were reluctant to buy that power. Now we have given thatflexibility. If the developer wants to charge lower tariff in the initialyear and higher tariff in the subsequent years, that option is nowavailable to the developers.”

15

1.36 When the Committee raised the issue of transparency inallocation of hydro power projects, the representative of the Ministry ofPower, deposed before the Committee as under:—

“Regarding the allotment of projects in the States, for example inthe State of Arunachal Pradesh, it were allotted on first come firstserve basis and on the basis of upfront premium. In the Uttarakhand,where the matter went to court, one time premium was given. Atfew places, there are allotted on bidding and at some places it isallotted on the basis that who will be giving more free power tothe State. Sometimes it happens that due to lack of due diligencealso few projects have been allotted to the promoters also, asregarding the NEEPCO, have MD of NEEPCO is also available;there are four food projects of Arunachal Pradesh with good tariffbut the private institute is not also to do it. The reason can betechnical capacity or financial capacity or any other reason. We hadraised this issue in the power ministers conference. We have beenrequesting the States to have a uniform policy on this issue. Thisshould also be transparent because now due to increased allocationof the matter goes to court and capacity gets stuck up which cannotbe given to any other also. This is not applicable to our PSUs butis for IIPs.”

1.37 The Secretary, Power further expounded:—

“In premium-basis bidding, premium is not the cost of the projectand that premium is not included in the tariff determination, if thatis not pass through then wherefrom the premium comes. If I takethe project by paying the premium, premium is not a part of thetariff. Premium is not a part of the tariff. Then, how does thedeveloper make up for the premiums? To be frank, that is whatI was saying. I did not say in so many words, but this is what ishappening. That is why I said it should be transparent.”

1.38 In regard to provision of upfront fee for allotment of hydropower projects, CMD, NEEPCO deposed before the Committee as under:—

“During 2008 when hydro policy was formulated in ArunachalPradesh, they had made provision of upfront fee. That time all theproject which were with NHPC were taken back and after takingthe upfront fee there were allotted to private companies. NEEPCOcould not pay upfront fee because there was no such provision inthe government company. In that PFR for the few was completeand for the few others it was going on. After that many letters havegone from our ministry. Whatever money was spent by the ministry,

16

that money has also not been received back. We have receivedmoney for one project. We prepared DPR for that project. Moneyfor only that project has been received. No money has been receivedfor the remaining twelve projects. On that issue we have taken upmatter on each forum and matter has been taken up. Secretary,Power has also written a letter on the subject. Then also, there hasbeen no response from there and they say clearly that they willnot pay any money. They also say that you can take money fromprivate companies who have been allotted projects. How can wetake money from these companies at our level because the supportof State government is required in this matter. Where the Stategovernment has not made any provision of any penalty on themthat company will not make payment. Like this the matter ispending. In that we have stated of 225 crore rupees including theinterest.”

17

III. Financial Issues

1.39 In regard to funding pattern of hydro power projects, theMinistry have stated that the debt equity ratio for a hydro power projectis generally 70:30 for Central Hydro Projects and 80:20 for State HydroProjects. This ratio is adhered to in most of the cases. However, sometimesthe equity may be different from the ratios given above.

1.40 When the Committee asked for the details of the terms of loanand depreciation rate for hydro power projects, the Ministry, in theirreply, have stated as under:—

“Financial institutions grant loan for hydro projects normally fora period of 10-15 years whereas the life of hydro project is 35 years.The term of loan is not concurrent with the life of the project.However, recently Power Finance Corporation (PFC) has amendedtheir policy to extend loan for longer periods (upto 80% of theuseful life of asset) for power projects. There is a moratorium givenfor the purpose of repayment of principal portion of the loan duringthe construction period. Thereafter, at present, the loan is repaidin equated monthly installments of principal amount plus interestover the term of the loan. As per the principles of accounting, thedepreciation should be charged on a straight line method over theuseful life of asset. However, since the term of the loan is less thanthe life of asset, i.e., the debt is required to be repaid in 12-15 yearsas against the useful life of 35 years or more. Therefore, higher cashflow is required in initial years on account of repayment of debt.To meet the increased cash flow requirement, higher rate ofdepreciation is allowed (5.28%) for initial period of 12 years forthe purpose of determination of tariff. As a result, the tariff ofHydro Power Project is on the higher side in initial years. The tariffof hydro power station then reduces after the loan is repaid andplant is depreciated. However, the O&M charges, which also formpart of the tariff of hydro power stations is escalated at a pre-fixedrate during the tariff period based on a combination of WPI &CPI.”

1.41 In regard to the desire of the Committee to make availablelong-term finances to hydro power sector, the representative of theMinistry of Power deposed as under:—

“We have two financial institutions viz. Rural Electricity Corporationand Power Finance Corporation and they have modified theirpolicies. Now they are willing to extend loans for a longer durationupto 85 per cent of the useful life of the power plant. They are

18

also ready to pay lown on long term. Now they are ready to giveloan for 25 years. So, it would act as a cushion to our developersthat they pay less amount of loan during the initial years.”

1.42 When the Committee desired to know the link between termof loan and the rate of depreciation of hydro power projects, the Secretary,Power, stated before the Committee as under:—

“When you speak of the financial, it get linked to the depreciation.Because both go hand in hand. So, if we make 12 years into30 years then depreciation needs to be reset. So, in the currentcircumstances, it has been said that CERC will stipulate or determinea particular depreciation rate which SERC will adopt. What we aresaying in our policy is that they will indicate a depreciation ratewhich will be an upper ceiling for the developer of a hydro project.If he chooses so, depending on the financial instrument that he isusing, he may accept a low depreciation rate so that he can matchthe depreciation along with that financial instrument. That is why,I was linking it up. It is all flowing from there.”

1.43 When the Committee desired to know the view point of theCentral Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) in respect of rate ofdepreciation of hydro power projects, the representative of CERC deposedbefore the Committee as under:—

“As far as CERC is concerned, we are with the Government. So faras our regulations are concerned, these are based on the policydecided by the Government and regarding the issue that whydepreciation is given for 12 years, all the developers said thatcurrently we are getting loan for 12 years. To make the projectfinancially viable, depreciation is given for the initial 12 years sothat they can make prepayment of the loan. Therefore, ourregulations are based on extensive consultations with the developer,with the stakeholder, where everybody participates, based on whichwe prepare our regulations. I want to assure through your medium.CERC is open to any modification in the regulation provided thepolicy is changed. If there are loans available for 30 years, 35 years,we would be able to reduce the depreciation for repayment in35 years. The only point I would like to submit .... it will be back-loaded from front-loaded I can tell that in the levelised tariff, itwill not make much difference. Levelised tariff will come downby only ten paise or twelve paise; may be in the initial 11 years,the tariff based on depreciation/reduction will come down fromfifty paise to eighty paise and subsequently it will go up after theeleventh year, but interest liability will come up because if the

19

loans are getting repaid in 11 years, you will be repaying only22 per cent of the loan amount, if you are giving two per centdepreciation in that. Therefore, that factor also has to be considered.The major portion which we consider in hydro projects, as it hasbeen rightly raised, is the capital cost. When the project is conceived,the capital cost is taken as Rs. 5 crore. When you end up, you willend up with Rs. 10 crore or Rs. 15 crore. Every Rs. 1 crore increasein the capital cost has an impact of 40 to 60 paise per unit cost.That is the kind of variation. Suppose Rs. 5 crore becomes Rs. 10crore, Rs. 3 per unit cost automatically increases. Therefore, so faras CERC is concerned, we are open to any suggestion. We willdefinitely cooperate and support in modifying our regulations.”

1.44 While elaborating the financial constraints being faced by hydropower projects, the representative of the Ministry of Power deposed beforethe Committee as under:—

“There are many problems in hydro viz. rehabilitation,environmental, inter-state and social isssues. If Secretary, Financewill come than utilizing the moment, I would like to project oneproblem. We are facing the problem that it takes 8-10 years inmaking a hydro project, whereas solar plant is ready in one year.The returns of the solar plant start yielding afrter one year, in caseof thermal from the returns starts after 4-5 years but in case of hydro,the returns starts coming after 8-10 years. Whatever is the affectingrate of return of the investor, if we are giving equity on the samereturns, the return on equity reduces of 16 percentage of hydro,thermal or solar because there is no returns for the 10 years. If Iseparate the returns and investment out of the overall project lifecycle, the hydro comes lesser than the solar and thermal. The costis more and that is the reason this problem is coming that the tariffof power project is coming in the range of five to six rupees andthe States are not ready to purchase this. Our Kishanganga projectis under construction in Jammu and Kashmir. Through Ministryof Finance, it has got subordinate debt also, but despite that weare not able to execute the power cost which is with PPA andpower purchase agreement States. States claim that it is very costlyand they are getting theremal power in cheaper rates. We are facingthis problem We have problem of environment, rehabilitation,resettlement, social issues and these are major issues. Seven to eightyears also there was no huge problem of financing or costing. Butnow, this has become a huge problem. Regarding the hydro, havethought, as the Hon’ble Chairman has said that though we get thefinance for 12 or 15 years, we have to repay the complete loanwithin 12 to 15 years. The cash flow to repay the loan can be

20

derived from tariff only. So, during the initial years, we have tofix the tariff more. The provisions were mode in the policyaccordingly. Recently, cabinet has given approval to the tariff policyand in that we have given flexibility to the developers that if youare getting long term finance then you can increase the tariff inthe later years by reducing the tariff in the initial years. We havekept such provision in the new tariff policy which has beenapproved by the cabinet. If we can get long term finance from theinstitutions, we can reduce the tariff during the initial years andcan increase it later on by reworking the tariff. This would onlybe possible once we get the long term finance. If we do not getlong term finance, we will have the requirement of cash flow andduring the initial 12-15 years, we will have to recover that cashflow from the buyer as a tariff.”

1.45 He further stated:—

“ Second, since the hydro has become very critical, as there isprovision of tax free bonds or capital gain bonds for road sector,they get concession in income tax under section 54 or get tax freebonds and the cost of loan or finance reduces. Currently, tax freebonds are able to get money from the market at the rate of sevento seven and half per cent in comparison to the normal bondswhich are on nine to quarter past nine per cent. We can have aserving of one and half to two per cent in this. We had calculatedand that was presented in the last meeting also, if our cost offinance is reduced by two per cent than our tariff of first year willreduce by 50 to 60 paisa. If we can get cheap finance then it wouldbe a great convenience to the hydro power sector. If we get a windowin the form of tax free bonds or get a facility of capital gas bondor government can provide us multilateral funding from WorldBank or Jaika or from ADB an if the government borrows that fundand does its exchange fluctuation by foreign currency fund or thegovernment absorbs at or provides such holding mechanism to usby which we can get long term multilateral funding then that willgo a long way in sensitivising hydro power projects.

Regarding the sovereign guarantee, as the Secretary, Finance said,sovereign guarantee is a window, space for them. While getting thehydro power projects loan from market, in the forms bond orinstitutions or from multilateral organization such as ADB or WorldBank if they get sovereign guarantee from Government of India itwould lead to reduction in the cost loan. Sovereign guarantee issuch for instance NHPC has taken loan from the market. Ifgovernment of India gives guarantee then NHPC can pick up the

21

same loan from the market in 8.5 per cent rate instead of nine,per cent. That would be beneficial for NHPC. The moment it getsovereign guarantee, the rate of loan will be reduced.”

1.46 He also stated:—

“Recently many States have imposed water cess. It is leading tolots of implications. It has affected viability of the hydro powerprojects. For example in Jammu and Kashmir it has led to differenceof more than one rupee in the tariff due to hydro cess. More thanthis, hydro cess has been imposed. This is also an issue.”

1.47 On being asked by the Committee as to how the cost of hydropower could be reduced, the representative of the Ministry of Powerdeposed before the Committee as under:—

“We have made calculation in that and have taken one sample. Ifwe make repayment in 12 years and in that we have the interestrate of 12 per cent and we make repayment in 12 years and fixthe depreciation in that order than we get the tariff of 4.38 rupeesfor the first year. The same loan if we repay in 30 years anddepreciation and we write it off in 30 years, currently we areclarifying 5.28 per cent depreciation; if these are changed in thetariff policy than we will also lower the depreciation rate becauseif we have to repay the loan in 30 years than our tariff will bereduced to 3.87 rupees from 4.38 rupees. It will make differenceof 50 paisa. If we can lower the rate of interest also to 7.5 per centfrom 12 per cent, we can get permission to raise the tax free bondsthan the tariff can be brought to 3.08 rupees from 4.38 rupees. Ifwe align the depreciation also in that direction than our tariff canbe brought to 3.08 rupees from 4.38 rupees.”

1.48 Since the matter of long-term loan, issuance of bonds andproviding other incentives are dealt with by the Ministry of Finance, theCommittee also held a discussion with the representatives of the Ministryof Finance. During the discussion on the subject, the representative ofthe Ministry of Finance, while suggesting solutions to the financingconstraints in the hydro power projects, deposed before the Committeeas under:—

“We have observed that the project financing cycle of hydro projectsis very different from project financing cycle of other infrastructureprojects like highways and railways and the main reason is thatin a hydro project the investigation on the site, pre-investigationsurvey, preparation of DPR is far more complex and takes a longer

22

time. Secondly, the environment and forest clearance is a verytortuous process. Then coming to land acquisition and rehabilitation,it is a very long third stage process. Normally it happens thatinitially DPR is made after pre-investigation. But by the time DPRis made, the appraisal approved becomes as routine from the normalroute. But when we get the clearance by that time DPR becomesold and we reach in the already first revise estimate. By the timeland acquisition takes place by that time practically we reach inthe second revise cost estimate. Thereafter the work begins. Dueto this such a confusion is created in the financing, debt financing,bank financing, equity financing that all the project authorities getentangled in these three cycles. The most difficult part on thebottlenecks is project clearance, regularity clearance and of approval.There is a practical suggestion that we should not do financialappraisal and approved in one step. Whatever original DPR is madethat goes for the clearance and by that stage it is not to be consideredas original cost estimate. Approval not to be accorded at that stagebut should be bifurcated into two parts. First, we can call it as pre-investment equity. For the pre investment equity, Finance Ministryhad made delegation enhancement of a specific window; thedelegation power of the ministry was increased and in that windowhas been liberalised. The work which was supposed to be donebefore the actual start, should be done as financial appraisalapproved as pre investment equity and not as a original costestimate. This would lead to continuity of the job which is on spotas the clearances keep coming. If we get the land, take possession,have rehabilitation but the financial approval should be taken onlywhen we are in the position of starting the work of dam actually.We can call this stage as original cost estimate and should restricta timeline for this purpose. If we will do like this then whatevercost escalation comes in the timeline, we will not have to take theproject approval again for all the cost escalation. Here is a practicalsolution that if we look at the project financing cycle like this thanwe can reduce the the difficulties being faced during the financingand execution.”

1.49 He further stated:

“I would like to give two more practical suggestions that there istypically mixing of equity and debt. Earlier sometime, we had givenequity out of the budget also. Our companies are involved in thehydro project and are doing well. They have worked under the

23

pressure. We also agree that a support should be provided to theNationalised Companies in this sector. Nationalised companies areearning well overseas. We should give the same support to themin our country. We get the equity, cash is also available, sometimesthese take support from the budget. Finance Secretary has suggestedof co-financing with other PSUs which are cash rich. This is goodsuggestion. Now we would come to the financing of the debt site.The practical problem of our banks and financial institutes is thatwhatever credit they provide, they have to rotate that. It leads todifficulty for the period of 20, 25 or 30 years and probably it goesupto 12 to 15 years. There is mismatch between the cash flow cycleof the project and tenure of the debt financing that is available.Broad financing is a good way to remove this mismatch. Till now,we have been doing the sovereign borrowing. We might have floatedbonds of 10, 15 or maximum for 20 years but now we are floatingthe bonds of 10 years. 10 years bonds which have sovereignguarantee, are benchmark in the market because this is financeslinking of all the private sector and of the projects. If Power Ministrygives such a proposal then we can consider it favourably. In thelong term bond financing FRBM Ltd. of power projects, there iswindow of 5 per cent GDP guarantee for 25, 30 years. We can givepriority to hydro projects in that so that the kind of facility beinggiven to Railways or Highways, similar facility can be given tothese. Third practical way about which Finance Secretary has alsothought on. As far as possible it should be multilateral or bilateralfinancing because this is of long term than the typically debtfinancing. This should also be explored. May be that this is notpossible at everyplace due to strategic issue but wherever possible,we should explore that way also through the Deptt. of EconomicAffairs.”

1.50 In regard to providing long term finances to hydro powersector, the Secretary, Finance deposed as under:—

“One of the demands which have been raised on the financing sideof hydro projects is the requirement of long-term financing forthem, with the loan spread over the entire life-cycle, say 50 yearsinstead of 12 years. Unless this is done, the problem of levelisedtariff, which you raised, will be there. As you said that earlier itwas made as 6 rupees and later on it was reduced. In a one wayyou are subsidising it. It is a distortion. So, we have to look at thetenure of the loan. It is basically a project finance issue on which

24

we have to work together—the Ministry of Finance and the Ministryof Power. There are perhaps ways of addressing this problem. Theyhave been demanding infrastructure bonds to finance these projects.We can look at long term infrastructure bonds.”

25

IV. Clearances and Environmental Issues

1.51 On being asked by the Committee, it was stated by the Ministrythat 12 nos. of DPRs of Hydro Electric Schemes aggregating to installedcapacity of 6,989 MW are under examination in CEA for accord ofconcurrence of Authority u/s 8 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The detailsof these are enclosed at Annexure-VI.

1.52 During the examination of the subject, when the Committeeasked about the role of the Central Electricity Authority (CEA) in theHydro Sector, the representative of CEA deposed as under:—

“Our role is basically to fasttrack the concurrence of the hydro-electric projects, which are submitted to CEA. So, to fasttrack theclearances, which is required for DPRs, we have streamlined thatmechanism. The appraisal is done by various concerned specialisedorganisations like the Central Water Commission, Geological Surveyof India, Central Soil and Material Research Station, and variousother divisions of CEA.

At present, developers are required to coordinate with CEA andour divisions of CEA and various aspects — which are covered inthe DPRs of these hydro-projects — are discussed by developersand periodical meetings are taken in the CEA to provide themguidance for preparing various chapters and clearances are givenfor various chapters by CEA. If they have some queries or someissues, then they are discussed and before taking up DPR formallyfor concurrence. So, that these hydro-electric projects can be takenup for implementation, after the DPR is cleared. So, probably around36 months are required for preparing the DPRs with coordinationwith all the organisations. Thereafter, DPR is taken up for appraisalby CEA and a time period of 150 days is required for approvalof design of structure and equipment, vetting the financial aspect,lay-out and other issues and concurrence of the scheme.

At present, 12 DPRs are under examination. We are in the processof doing appraisal of those and for DPRs which are underpreparation, periodical consulation meetings are taken by Member(Hydro) and Chairperson (CEA) and all other organisations areinvited there. So, we are rendering guidance to developers forpreparing various chapters so that proper DPRs are submitted andtime for concurrence should also be minimised. This is the broadframework in which CEA is working for concurrence of DPRs.”

26

1.53 When the Committee asked about the normative time takenby CEA to grant clearance, it was stated by the Ministry as under:—

“As per the “Guideline for Formulation of Detailed Project Reportsfor Hydro Electric Schemes, their Acceptance and Examination forconcurrence” revised by Central Electricity Authority in January,2015, in case the Hydro Electric Scheme is found technical andeconomically viable with necessary inputs/clearances having beentied up, the Authority may accord concurrence for implementationof the hydro electric scheme within a period of 150 working days(excluding time taken by the Developer for compliance ofobservations of CEA/CWC/GSI/CSMRS etc.) after submission of DPRcomplete in all respects.”

1.54 When the Committee desired to know the details of the projectswhich took more time in grant of clearance by CEA and the reasons forthe same, the Ministry furnished the following information:—

“Generally, the Detailed Project Reports received in CEA for accordof Concurrence are framed based on inadequate investigations ofproject site. As a result, appraising groups in CEA/CWC/GSI/CSMRSsend back references to the developer and developer takes time insubmitting the DPR to an examinable level after carrying out thesuggested investigations. As such, the projects take more time ingrant of concurrence by CEA. A list of DPRs concurred by CEAfrom 2002-03 onwards indicating the time taken in grant ofconcurrence is enclosed at Annexure-VII.”

1.55 In regard to appraisal process of DPR, the Committee wasapprised that it has been divided into two stages as under:—

(a) Pre-DPR stage: Preparation and approval of Chapters priorto submission of DPR:

The process of preparation of Detailed Project Report shallbe completed by the developer indicatively in a period of30 months from the date of allotment/signing of MoU of theproject, extendable by 6 months for reasons beyond the controlof the Developer.

(b) Post DPR stage: Examination and Concurrence of DPR:

In case the Hydro Electric Scheme is found technical andeconomically viable with necessary inputs/clearances havingbeen tied up the Authority may accord concurrence forimplementation of the hydro electric scheme within a period

27

of 150 working days (excluding time taken by the Developerfor compliance of observations of CEA/CWC/GSI/CSMRS etc.)after submission of DPR complete in all respects.

The Developers have to seek Environment and Forestclearances from MoEF&CC before start of work at site.

1.56 On being enquired by the Committee about the steps takenby CEA to reduce the time taken in grant of clearance, it was stated asunder:—

“To reduce the time taken by CEA in grant of concurrence of DPRs,following steps have been taken by CEA:

(a) The guidelines for concurrence of DPR have been revised. Asper new guidelines, the hydroelectric projects shall beappraised in two parts. The Developer has to get nine chapters(mainly relating to planning of the Project) appraised fromrespective appraising groups prior to submission of DPR.The appraising groups are involved from the very beginningand the Developer is facilitated/provided the requiredguidance for framing of the chapters and DPRs. Afterappraisal of these chapters, the DPR is submitted. At thisstage, very little scope may be left for back references andthe DPR can be concurred as per the stipulated time frame.As per the Guidelines, in case the Hydro Electric Scheme isfound technical and economically viable with necessaryinputs/clearances having been tied up, the Authority mayaccord concurrence for implementation of the hydro electricscheme within a period of 150 working days (excluding timetaken by the Developer for compliance of observations ofCEA/CWC/GSI/CSMRS, etc.) after submission of DPRcomplete in all respects.

(b) Digitization of concurrence process has been carried out andbased on this process the DPRs will be submitted ‘online’ inCEA. Observations, compliance and Approval of variousaspects of DPRs shall also be given ‘online’ by the respectiveappraising groups and project developer.

(c) Periodical review of DPRs under examination is carried outby inviting the project developers and appraising groups inCEA/CWC/GSI and the issues are discussed and resolved.”

28

1.57 As per present policy, hydro power projects upto the capacityof 25 MW are considered as renewable energy sources and above thatcapacity as conventional energy sources. When the Committee desiredto know the logic behind such categorization and why all the hydropower projects, irrespective of their capacity, cannot be considered asrenewable energy sources, the Ministry in their reply have stated asunder:—

“As per Allocation of Business Rules, all matters relating to Small/Micro Hydel Project of and below 25 MW capacity comes underthe domain of Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE).Declaring all Hydro Power projects as renewable energy source isa policy decision which may involve joint consultation betweenMinistry of Power, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, StateGovernments and other stakeholders.”

1.58 On being asked by the Committee for the details of any recentstudy done in regard to the environmental impacts of hydro powerprojects, the Ministry, in their written reply, have furnished the followinginformation:—

“Following pre-impoundment as well as post-impoundment studieswere undertaken in respect of Tehri Power Complex to assess theimpact of the project on environment:—

1. Vegetation of the Tehri Dam Submersible Area: AnEnvironment Impact Assessment Floristic Survey andAnalysis of Tehri Dam Environs

a. Pre-Impoundment

Vegetation of the Tehri Dam Submersible Area: AnEnvironment Impact Assessment was conducted throughBotanical Survey of India in 1993. During the course ofstudy, three plant collection tours were undertaken inthe area in different seasons, i.e. Aug.’ 1992, Oct.’ 1992and April, 1993. The major observations made in thereport are as under:—

• The forests are mostly at the higher level than theproposed reservoir site and thus are safe.

• The number of plant species present today is boundto increase as the river water may continuously bringwith it seed of plants from higher reaches, some ofwhich may settle down in the valley.

29

• None of the economically or otherwise useful speciesgrow in the area are not restricted to project areaalone but are distributed in the adjoining as well asdistant localities of our country even outside. Hence,the construction of proposed dam will in no waylead to extermination of any species.

b. Post-Impoundment

Post-Impoundment Floristic Survey and Analysis of TehriDam Environs was conducted through Botanical Surveyof India, Dehradun from April, 2009 to October, 2011.Under the project, four 10-days floristic survey and plantcollection was undertaken during Apr. – May, 2009, July,2010, April, 2011 and Oct. 2011.

Entire catchment covering Bhagirathi-Bhilangana valleyparts, New Tehri-Dharasu, New Tehri-Ghansali, Ghansali-Pratapnagar (Lambgaon and Gomethi Dhar both routeseparately) was surveyed and 613 specimens werecollected.

It is concluded that the moisture regime of Dam isexerting positive effect and area is progressively becominggreen. Since community development is non-immediateand gradual process, the radical changes cannot beexpected in short duration. Tehri Hydro DevelopmentCorporation and Tehri dam forest Division is alreadydoing appreciable efforts in conservation and with theiradditional accelerated efforts in coming decade or two,the prediction of green valley with moisture regimesupporting luxuriant vegetation and lake serving as awintering habitat to aqua-fauna like waterfowls wouldturn into a reality in near future.

2. Environment Impact Assessment Study: Faunal Analysis

a. Pre-Impoundment

Environment Impact Assessment Study: Faunal Analysiswas conducted through Zoological Survey of India,Dehradun in 1992- 93. The study overall established thatthere is no adverse impact on the fauna of the dam, exceptin case of “Mahseer” fish, which though widelydistributed in the other tributaries of Ganges river andalso elsewhere, may not be able to go upstream for

30

spawning purposes. To minimize the possible impact onMahseer fishes, action plan was prepared by the M/sTropical Fisheries Consultants Services (TFCS) , Delhi,and was submitted to the MoEF in June, 94. In complianceto this, Directorate of Coldwater Fisheries Research,Bhimtal (formerly known as National Research Centreon Coldwater Fisheries) was engaged and Mahseer fishhatchery was developed at Koteshwar from where fishseeds of Mahseer and Common Carp were introducedin the upper reaches of the reservoir and also indownstream of reservoir.

b. Post-Impoundment

Post-Impoundment Faunal Survey and Analysis of TehriDam Environs was conducted through H. N. B. GarhwalUniversity (A Central University) , Srinagar. In this study,comparisons between Pre- and Post-impoundment werealso made between status of Freshwater Invertebrates,Fish, Rhopalocera, Amphibian, Reptilian, Avian andMammals, etc.

Overall conclusion drawn from the study is “there is noadverse impact on the fauna in fact Tehri Reservoir createsa new environs which is favorable for the fauna densityand diversity.” Fish diversity and density have alsoincreased.

3. Evaluation of the Catchment Area Treatment Plan underTehri Dam Hydro-electric Project

Evaluation of the Catchment Area Treatment Plan under TehriPower Complex was done by ICFRE, Dehradun and IIFM,Bhopal.

Report established that CAT activities works have improvedthe tangible benefits in the form of environmentalupgradation, carbon sink, soil moisture conservation and noisecontrol, increase in forest cover, protection of soil erosion,enhanced the availability of fuel and fodder for the villagers,new species of plant were introduced, enhanced the naturalregeneration, plan was implemented with the help of localcommunity which resulted in employment gain, developmentof community assets, etc.

31

4. River Water Quality Studies

i. Thermal and Water Quality Modelling of Tehri Reservoirstudy was conducted in 1992 through IIT, Roorkee(formerly known as University of Roorkee).

Report established that higher temperature of waterrelease from Tehri reservoir upto Devprayag is not goingto affect fish culture adversely. Report also States that theDissolved Oxygen level of water released from Tehrireservoir is higher than the one required for various wateruses and is thus not harmful for aquatic life or for otherdownstream uses.

ii. Mathematical Model Studies to investigatehydrodynamics of the Tehri Reservoir was conductedthrough Central Water and Power Research Station(CWPRS), Pune.

The study revealed that during the monsoon period theinflow volume of water nearly equal to the storage belowMinimum Draw Down Level (MDDL), is added toreservoir in just 17 days, thus replenishing the wholestorage below MDDL in 17 days, whereas the grossstorage volume is fed into the reservoir within 67 daysof active monsoon. Hence, Tehri reservoir completes thecycle of replenishment of storage every year.

iii. Self-Purification capacity of river Bhagirathi: Impact ofTehri dam was conducted through NationalEnvironmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI),Nagpur for 02 years (2002 – 2004).

The study concludes that Tehri dam is not affecting thequality or self-preservation property of river Bhagirathi/Ganga, as it mimics a static container which is conducivefor conditions responsible to maintain the water quality.

iv. Water Quality of Bhagirathi/Ganga River in HimalayanRegion was conducted through National EnvironmentalEngineering Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur for3 years (April 2008 - July 2011).

The study concludes that the uniqueness of riverBhagirathi/Ganga lies in its sediment content which ismore radioactive compared to other river and lake water

32

sediments and can release Cu & Cr which havebactericidal properties and can harbour and causeproliferation (under static condition) of coliphages thatreduce and ultimately eliminates coliforms from overlyingwater column. Average annual flow of 258 (with SS conc.29.5 mg/l) and 467 (with SS conc. 32.2 mg/l) cubic meterper second in Bhagirathi and Alaknanda rivers,respectively, and sediments received through Aviral Dharaat Tehri dam and springs in between Tehri and Devprayagcarry enormous sediment particles. Investigation furtherindicated that particulate matters of Alaknanda river haveidentical anti-bacterial property as those of Bhagirathiriver.

v. From Aug., 2003 to June, 2014, Water Quality wasmonitored at 05 different locations. From Sept. 2014onwards, one additional location was added. Watersamples are tested for various Physico-Chemicalparameters and compared with Drinking water standards.It is established that parameters are well within thepermissible limits and is of good quality.”

1.59 When the Committee asked about the barriers/deterrence/drawback in generation of hydro power through run of the river insteadof designing it in a manner best suited for peeking power requirement,the Ministry replied as under:—

“Hydro projects are primarily best suited to meet the peak demandrequirements for which certain pondage is required. Even in casethe project is designed without consideration of peakingrequirements, the project would still involve certain amount ofsubmergence due to requirement of a pool for locating intake (andsome cushion for acting as a water seal) for diversion of water tothe power house for generation.

The Run-of-the River (RoR) projects envisage utilising the real-timeavailable water in the river (to its designed capacity) and wouldgenerate power as base load station. Since the demand of electricityfluctuates during the day, the RoR projects would not be able toprovide the peaking requirement during the deficit generationperiod which would severely impact the grid stability.

In case of RoR projects with limited pondage, a small diversionstructure (dam) is constructed which stores water in the upstreamreservoir for its use in generating power during the demand period.

33

Regarding land requirements, apart from submerged reservoir area,land is required for constructing other components of the projectlike diversion structure, power house, water conductor system,switch yard, colony, stores and roads etc. As such, even if the projectis designed without consideration of peaking requirements, theoverall land requirement may not get substantially reduced.”

1.60 On being asked by the Committee about the study done inregard to flash floods in Uttarakhand in the year 2013, the Ministry ofPower furnished the following information:—

“MoEF constituted an Expert Body (EB) in October, 2013 consistingof representatives of the State Government, WII, Central ElectricityAuthority, Central Water Commission and other expert bodies tomake a detailed study as to whether Hydroelectric Power Projectsexisting and under construction, have contributed to theenvironmental degradation. If so, to what extent and also whetherit has contributed to the present tragedy occurred at Uttarakhandin the month of June, 2013.

The Expert Body (EB) excluding representatives of CEA and CWCsubmitted report to MoEF in April 2014. A separate report wassubmitted by CWC and CEA representatives in EB on the subjectcovering all the related issues.”

1.61 In reply to the specific query of the Committee whether thepower projects in Uttarakhand aggravated the impact of flash floods, theMinistry have stated that it has been concluded in both the reports thatthe Tehri project in Uttarakhand did not aggravate the impact of flashfloods.

1.62 The Committee had been given to understand that the delayin obtaining environmental and forest clearances is the main reason forthe slow development of this sector. When the Committee asked forclarifications on the issue, the representatives of the Ministry ofEnvironment, Forest and Climate Change deposed before the Committeeas under:—

“Regarding the Environment, Forest and Climate Change ministryit was the general perception that there is some delay due to theforest clearance. It would like to place 2-3 facts in front of theCommittee. In the year 2006, EIA notification came and after that72 projects were given environment clearance in the country inwhich 25698 megawatt is under construction for the last 10 yearsand in majority nowhere the work has been started. Though all

34

the States have small hydel power projects but they are mainlyin two States Uttarakhand and Arunachal Pradesh. These are inHimachal, Jammu and Kashmir and in other States there aremultipurpose projects at some or the other places and these havehydel part as well. First of all I would talk about Arunachal Pradesh.As per the identification of Arunachal Pradesh it has potentialof 45,000 megawatt and these are spread over 7 river valleys. Outof this 45,000 megawatt Arunachal Pradesh Government has mostof the allocated total power projects. Out of these 12,000 megawattpower projects have been approved by environment and forestministry. Only 405 megawatt are operational and 2710 megawattare under construction. For the rest 8500 megawatt all the clearanceshave been obtained but no work is going on. The work has noteven started. Currently, out of 45000 megawatts, the request of6600 megawatts of projects is pending with the ministry and thereis no other request pending. Cabinet Secretariat reviews on regularbasis the pending 44 projects of Arunachal Pradesh along withPower Ministry. Out of this 17 are prioritized and all the projectsare on the trek of approval. Around 2010, Ministry had theseproblems that many projects started coming and each project hadseparate configuration. In 2013 the ministry made a new systemthat a river basin study would be conducted and whatever outcomeis there that would be applied commonly on all the projects, whetherit is environmental flaw, dire disaster, litigation or whether it islitigation under biodiversity. Arunachal Pradesh has river basinstudies. Out of these, 4 are complete and out of 45000 megawatts,the approved are 33000 megawatts. The projects which were rejectedbased on the river basin, the total capacity of Siyan river basin was18750 megawatt and were 44 projects, out of this 15 projects wererejected in the beginning but the total megawatt was only 475. Inmany projects, it was proposed to change the configuration basedon environmental flow, inter-project distance for free flowingmovement of the river. Moreover, Power Ministry and ArunachalGovernment has some problems. There have been three meetingsbetween us and the Power Ministry and the three major projectswhich were raised by the Power Ministry, have been sorted out.Regarding Arunachal Pradesh, the situation is that approvals areon time and river basin study four has been completed and therest of the three river basin studies will be completed before 30April. The work of the power construction could not be started.The reasons thereof are not known to me. Our duty is to giveapproval and clearance.”

35

1.63 He further added:—

“Now I will speak about Uttarakhand. There are total 69 projectsin Uttarakhand. BRO has touched two points on wildlife and forestclearance. During the last one and half years the norms gotsystematic for forest clearance included a major approval whereinlinear project was included in the general approval clause. Roadcomes under the linear projects. Every month we conduct forestclearance meeting and we review it and whatever diversion projectswe have these are below 40 hectare. It was earlier so. Earlier, thepower of 5 hectare was with Regional officer and State Governmenthad below 5 hectare. Now, we have given power of diversionsbelow 40 hectare to the Regional Officer, Shillong. Majority ofdiversions are linear in nature. They are below 40 hectares. Noneof these are supposed to come to Delhi office and go into FAC.It is all decentralised. They can sit together and get it clarified withthe State Government. We do not delay the forest clearance. Sincethe land belongs to forest so it is of State Government. The proposalgets originated from the State Government. These are same problemsof reaching from DFO to Chief Conservator of Forest. In order tosort out this issue, Ministry has developed a system of inviolateareas. The forest which has 70% canopic cover, are declared asinviolate areas because these are the dense forests of the country.Apart from that if there are linear projects, medium density or lessdensity or degraded forests then it is only a procedural requirementof getting the diversion, if it is less than 40 hectares, it comes atthe regional office level. If it is more than that, it may take moretime, maybe 6 months more, but it comes to Delhi. As on today,there is rarely a linear project pending for approval in the Ministry.In terms of wild life, prohibition is ESZ of a protected area. If thereis any protected area and has ESZ decided, we cannot accord anyapproval as per the order of Supreme Court. However, in that also,we have kept an exception of road development for the linear. Ifit is bared by ESZ then, there is a very clear cut system. There sa State Board of Wildlife, NBWL. The rate of rejection of projectis only rare except where the rare endangered and threatened speciesare detected as per the wildlife studies. Only then the project isrejected. The rate of periodicity of meeting is every 30 days. Ason today, the pending cases in the Wildlife Division of theMinistry are 36. Majority of them are not for the roads. They arevery rare. Now I will come to Uttarakhand. There are 60 projectsin Uttarakhand. The total capacity of this is 9026 megawatt.Out of which, 17 projects are operational. Out of these, fiveprojects belong to after year 2005 and the others are ofearlier period. Out of the remaining 52 projects, 17 projects are

36

in the process of approval. In Uttarakhand there is a golden wordof 24 projects. On the basis of the Ministry, wildlife had conducteda study in the year 2010. Out of 52 projects, Wildlife Institute ofIndia declared that these 24 projects may be rejected on accountof their serious impact on the biodiversity, terrestrial as well asaquatic. That case is subjudice before the Supreme Court. On thebasis of Supreme Court three Committees have been appointed.Regarding the 6 projects, we have filed latest report in the SupremeCourt. A policy decision has been taken by the Ministry. Minimumone thousand cusec natural stream flow will be there in the threemajor tributaries Alaknanda, Mandakini and Bhagirathi. If any othertributary or sub-tributory has any power project then there is noproblem about its being sanctioned from environmentalconsideration provided it meets disaster management andbiodiversity requirement which is already laid down. This is inrespect of Uttarakhand.”

1.64 He also stated:—

“Crying for environmental clearance of more hydel projects is notvery healthy till you construct, or at least begin the constructionof, those projects you have already got approval for... In the thermalpower, during 2005 to 2013 we gave environmental clearance upto2,07,000 megawatt. The construction has started only for 57,000.Similarly, as I told that out of the 12,000 approvals of ArunachalPradesh, 2705 are under construction and under operation are only200 projects. Similar is the condition of Uttarakhand. There isnecessity of a serious effort from the developer’s side – StateGovernment or Power Ministry — to at least start construction ofthe projects for which approval is there.”

1.65 When the Committee raised the issue of fragility of theHimalayan Region and desired to know the opinion of the MoEF&CC,the representative of the Ministry, during the sitting of the Committee,stated as under:—

“Projects have to be developed. Environment has to be kept intact.The mitigation measures have to be appropriate to reduce andminimise the damages. Where at the stage of appraisal process itis felt that the damage would be irreversible, we do not agree withthat project. Regarding the different opinions being given regardingthe particular 24 projects in Himalayas, around seven expertCommittees have been there. All the experts have different opinions.But there is almost a unanimity that some areas of Himalayas shouldnot be touched. Above 3000 metres in Himalayas, we are not

37

touching. There are pockets in Himalayas where there are rareendangered species of biodiversity. So, we are not touching thatarea. Regarding the import of tunnelling, you can do it in Himalayasor Aravali or Western Ghats, it can be controlled with the newtechnology. There is no problem in it. New technology about damconstruction and design can always minimise the impact. The hydropower, as the hon. Chairman has suggested in the beginning, meetsour requirement which we have committed in Col. 21 in INDC aswell. We have to have a hydro power back up. We cannot livewithout this.”

38

V. Enabling Infrastructure Issues

1.66 Most of the hydro power potential sites identified lie in theremote and border areas where there is no road connectivity. In view ofthis, the developers find it difficult to develop hydro power projects. Ifthey wait for the road to be constructed by the Government agencies,then there is every possibility of long delay. If they themselves constructthe road, there will be cost escalation of the project which will ultimatelybe passed on to consumers in the form of higher tariff.

1.67 The Border Roads Organization (BRO) has been entrusted withthe work of construction of roads to these sites. During examination ofthe subject, the representative of the BRO, while stating the status of theconnecting road projects, deposed before the Committee as under:—

“Under all these projects we have been entrusted with responsibilityof construction of roads. Approximately there are 17 projects inthese four villages i.e. Devang, Siyang, Tawang and Lohit whichare under your privatization constituting road length of around100 km. Out of which 500 Km road is being constructed by NHIDCLand only 600 Km road is being constructed by BRO. Out of this1100 km. If I go valley-wise, there are two main projects of6000 MW capacity – Italin and Devang in Devang Valley. The mainroads in this are Bika, Humli, Anini which is in total is 237 Kmroad and out of this 19 Km road is with BRO and 225 Km is underour charge, however, the responsibility for its development is givento NHIDCL. As far as our road, i.e. 19 Km is concerned, it included19 Km road and two bridges and their was not completed yet.I would like to tell you that work on both the bridges has beenresumed and in case of 19 Km road work have almost beensanctioned. We hope that the work of 19 km road plus bridges willbe completed by the end of this year or mid of the year. We goto next valley that is Siyang there are four projects Tatotu, Siyom,Herong and Naeeng of 3200 MW capacity. Akajan – Likabali roadis 105 km long. Out of this, 20 km road is with BRO and remainingroad is with NHIDCL. We have divided this 20 kim into two parts– one is 12 km and other is 8 km. We have almost completed thework in 12 km road and our resources are now engaged in the next8 km. Work in our 20 km road is in progress and is going as perthe schedule. Other road is Laang, Taato, Mechuka which is 170km long. On this road we have divided our work into three partsfrom 0 to 73 km. First part is 0 to 10 out of which around 10 percent work has been done, Second part is 10 to 45 km, out of whichwe have completed almost 25 per cent work and the we have started

39

the third part just a month back and its progress is approx onepercent.”

1.68 He further added:—

“The third valley is Twang. There are three projects under it namelyTwang Two, Niyamjhungchu and Twang one involving a capacityof two thousand seven hundred eighty megawatt. Two roadsBalipara and Chardwar are affected under it. The length of Twangroad is 317 km. I can approximately say that there are already class9 roads in this road and it is being converted as per NHDLspecifications. There one or two problems in it which I would liketo place before you. Approximately this road is running on board.We intend to convert the road as per NHDL specifications nearlyby 2019. The second is road stretch between Twang and Jimithang.In respect of Twang to Jimithang, actually one road stretch is fromTwang to Jimithang and from Twang to Lumla is for the secondproject. The combined total road length is about 60 km. A surveywas conducted for this. At this stage, decision regarding fundingarrangement for this stretch of 60 km is yet to be taken. Fourthis Lohit Valley under which there is only one project VemwayLower involving 17 hundred megawatt. There is only one roadVemway, Hivilyang, Hiwai. We have about 22 km. stretch of thisroad. The remaining work has been entrusted with NHIDCL. TheDPR for the stretch of 22 km which we have, is under preparation.I would like to tell you broadly that as per the PDC we havedecided, we are trying to construct the road network that havebeen entrusted to BRO by 2019. We have committed to do it verysoon until and unless there is any major disaster or something likethat because these areas are very tough.”

1.69 When the Committee sought clarity on the funding of theseprojects, he further stated:—

“All the funding is done either by the MoD or the MoRTH. As ofnow, no fund either from the Ministry of Power or from thedeveloper has been given. For this particular route, in the lastmonitoring committee there was a discussion and deliberation. Thedecision was given that the NHPC would possibly fund the thing.Then, it has not been clarified. That is why I said about the funding,as of now, there is no clarity as to who is going to fund this 60kilometres of road. We are also funding the road which was in theambit of Defence alongwith the road which we have.”

40

1.70 Replying to the query of the Committee about the challengesfaced by BRO in these projects, the representative of BRO deposed asunder:—

“The biggest challenge is land. I myself have commanded a projectin Jammu-Kashmir, I have been in Bhutan. I have seen three to fourborder road projects. Land is the major problem. As the land belongsto the state, we cannot get land. There are many such cases wherewe acquired land through revenue authority by paying them. Theconcerned amount was disbursed among people but mutation ofland is done in our name even after disbursement of the money.If we do not get land then how a road can be constructed. About20 years ago, the concerns of the Ministry of Environment andForest were comparatively limited. We are conflicting with thosethings. Requirement conflict takes place. If we do not get wild lifeclearance for the place where we want to construct a road and wecommit here to complete the said project within a period of threeyears then what will happen. The period of commitment of threeyears should start after getting the required clearances because wedon’t get clearances as per requirement. The persons holding theconcerned posts get changed. They cannot give answer to youbecause years get exhausted in getting forest, wild life clearances.We face problems in getting labourers in these States specially inArunachal Pradesh because the local people there do not allowlabourers from outside and local labourers are not available. Thisis the biggest problem. We are facing this problem in Jammu andKashmir and in Arunachal Pradesh. If we don’t have quarries thenhow can we prepare construction material, if construction materialis not available how can the roads be constructed. These are basicissues land is not available, quarries is not available. This is justlike a situation where a military man is not having a weapon andhe is being asked to fight. In regard to border road at present, thesame situation prevails.”

1.71 When the Committee enquired about the number of sanctionedprojects which are pending due to forest and wildlife clearances, therepresentative of BRO deposed before the Committee as under:—

“Regarding forest clearance, a very few percentage will be there.The project cannot get started. Our project is road project. It is100 km. road may be that for want of forest clearance the workon 20 km. road may not be under progress. 70 km is working but

41

because of that 20 km, PDC of that 100 km keeps differeing. Thatis the concern which we intend to bring out. 70 km is working butbecause of that 20 km, PDC of that 100 km keeps differing. Thatis the concern which we intend to bring out.”

1.72 When the Committee desired to know whether it will beappropriate to assign all border related work to BRO with the liberty toengage private contractors for completion of work, the representative ofBRO stated as under:—

“Absolutely correct. We are also going in that direction. At present,with the capacity, the vehicle equipment plants and manpower wehave the organization has not the capacity to carry out the concerneddevelopment within the timeframe you want. So, the Organisationhas to look outwards.”

42

PART II

OBSERVATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE

Hydro Power as Renewable Source of Energy

2.1 The Committee note that as per the present policy, hydropower plants upto 25 MW capacities are considered as renewable energysources and are under the purview of the Ministry of New andRenewable Energy, whereas, hydro power plants having capacities morethan 25 MW are considered conventional energy source and are dealtwith by the Ministry of Power. In reply to the query of the Committeeas to why not all the hydro power projects, irrespective of their capacity,cannot be considered as renewable energy sources, the Ministry havestated that as per the Allocation of Business Rules, all matters relatingto Small/Micro Hydel Project of and below 25 MW capacity comesunder the domain of the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy(MNRE) . Declaring all hydro power projects as renewable energy sourceis a policy decision which may involve joint consultation between theMinistry of Power, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, StateGovernments and other stakeholders. The Committee, during theexamination of the subject, have learned that hydro power is a cleanand green source of energy and unlike conventional thermal plantsdoes not emit pollutants into the environment. The Committee alsofound that there is no logic for segregation of hydro power intorenewable energy and conventional energy and also its baseline, viz.25 MW. The Committee wonder if perpetuity of the source and non-emission of pollutants are the criteria for considering a source asrenewable energy, then why cannot hydro power projects havingcapacity of more than 25 MW be also counted as renewable sources.The Committee was informed by the Ministry that in view of theexamination of the subject, the Cabinet has recently approved the newtariff policy in which hydro power has been exempted from therenewable solar power obligation. The result of the new tariff policywill be exemption of hydro power from the account for meeting theobligation of buying solar power. The Committee believe that this isa step in the right direction and will act as an incentive for the hydropower sector. The Committee feel that the spirit of the tariff policy inexempting hydro power from the solar obligation is also an endorsementthat hydro power, irrespective of the capacity, should be treated as

43

renewable sources of energy because solar power obligation is nothingbut equivalent of renewable power obligation and hydro powerexemption signifies that it meets the basic criteria of these obligations.The Committee, therefore, recommend that:—

(i) All types of hydro power should be treated as renewablesources of energy.

(ii) If necessary, legislative provisions may be introduced inthis regard as defining hydro as a renewable source involvesa policy decision and allocation of business in theGovernment as well.

(iii) The exemption of hydro power from solar power obligationin the new tariff policy be made permanent.

(Recommendation Sl. No. 1, Para No. 1)

Evaluation of Hydro Power Sector

2.2 The Committee note that the country has total installed powergeneration capacity of 2,78,884 MW, wherein, the share of hydro poweris only 15% as compared to thermal power, which is 70%. The Committeealso note that the share of hydro power in the total energy mix hasbeen falling ever since 1962-63, when the share of hydro was at itspeak of 51%. The Committee further note that against the total assessedpotential of 1,45,320 MW of hydro power in the country, 37,648 MWcapacity is installed and operational and 11,812 MW capacity is underdevelopment stage, whereas a whopping 95,860 MW capacity is yet tobe developed. In regard to the falling share of hydro, the Ministryhave stated that lack of adequate infrastructure, drying-up of fundingby bilateral/multilateral agencies, increasingly stringent environmentclearance regime for hydro projects after the 1970s due to the worldwidefocus on environmental/ecological/R&R issues and consequent activismagainst the development of hydro projects by NGOs/Environmentalactivists, and greater emphasis on rapid development of thermal powerduring the 1970s for quicker capacity addition in view of large scaleindustrialization have contributed to the slow growth/decline of hydroshare in the subsequent years. In addition, factors like land acquisitionissues, R&R issues, inter-State issues and non-tie-up/non-availabilityof requisite finances on long term basis, etc. have further slowed downthe development of hydro power. The Ministry have stated varioussteps that have been taken by the Government to boost the hydropower sector. However, in the considered view of the Committee, thepresent installed capacity of hydro power proves that they were not

44

effective enough. The Committee have been given to understand thata capacity addition of 1.75 lakh MW of Solar and Wind Power has beenenvisaged by the Government. Since these sources of energy areintermittent in nature, there will be a need for balancing power whichcould start-up and shut down quickly to provide stability to the grid—this could be gas powered thermal power or hydro power. It is a wellknown fact that there are many gas powered power plants which areeither stranded or running way below their optimum PLF due to non-availability of the required amount of gas. Hence, development of hydropower becomes the only option. Moreover, for fulfilling globalcommitments to contain emission levels, choosing hydro power willbe more judicious. Therefore, the Committee believe that we are leftwith no choice but to develop the hydro power sector rapidly. TheCommittee was apprised by the Ministry that owing to detailedexamination of ‘Hydro Power’ subject by this Standing Committee,they have formed two sub-Committees to look into the overall legalregulatory framework and various financing options for hydro power.The Committee are pleased with the prompt action taken by theMinistry and are of the belief that this will go a long way in identifyingand resolving the issues that have been hindering the development ofthe hydro power sector. The Committee recommend that:—

(i) The Government should adopt a holistic approach foroptimum development of the hydro power sector in thecountry and thoroughly revise the present Hydro PowerPolicy, as per the needs of the time.

(ii) The two sub-Committees, formed by the Ministry to lookafter various issues related to the subject should meetregularly and examine the subject intensively andextensively by holding meetings with various Governmentagencies involved and other stakeholders.

(iii) Further, the findings/recommendations of these sub-Committees should be sincerely and promptly implementedby the Government.

(Recommendation Sl. No. 2, Para No. 2)

2.3 The Committee note that out of the total potential of 1,45,320MW assessed in the country. Arunachal Pradesh alone has 46,805 MWof hydro power capacity that is to be developed. The Committee notethat in Arunachal Pradesh, where there is approval for 12,000 MWcapacities, only 2,705 MW capacity is under development and a meager

45

200 MW is under operation. It is a well known fact that the gestationperiod of hydro power projects is comparatively longer, owing to theelaborate process of survey, preparing DPR and obtaining variousclearances and difficulties faced during construction of the project itself,which are mostly in remote and uninhabitable areas. The Committeeare concerned to note that there are 25,962 MW capacities which areyet to be taken up for any development. There is every possibility thatthe projects which are at various stages of development could takeupto 7-8 years or even more to be operational. In this scenario, thefuture of about 26,000 MW capacity which has not been taken up fordevelopment, looks very bleak. It is also a fact that in the long run,hydro power proves cheaper as flowing water is used for its operation;therefore, the sooner we develop and start harnessing hydro power, thelesser will be the per unit cost. The Committee, therefore, stronglyrecommend that:—

(i) All-out efforts should be made by the Government to ensurethat the construction work on the projects which have gotall the clearances should be started without any loss oftime.

(ii) To ensure that the timeline for the projects, which are undervarious stages of development is adhered to, theGovernment should take pre-emptive as well as promptresolution of any issue which may crop up during theirdevelopment.

(iii) The Committee strongly recommend to the Government tomake efforts on priority basis to ensure that the balancecapacity of 25,962 MW, which is yet to be developed, isallocated for development at the earliest.

(Recommendation Sl. No. 3, Para No. 3)

Private Sector in Hydro Power

2.4 The Committee note that out of the total installed hydro powercapacity of 42,433.4 MW, only 3,154 MW capacity, which stands at ameager 7%, belongs to the Private Sector. The Committee further notethat the Private Sector, in the 11th Plan period, could manage to achieveonly 1,292 MW hydro power generation capacity against their mediocretarget of 3,491 MW. Also, during the ongoing 12th Plan, their actualachievement so far is only 595 MW against the target of 3,285 MW. TheCommittee find that this is in sharp contrast with their contribution

46

in the thermal power sector in the 11th and in the ongoing 12th Plan.The Private Sector, in thermal power, during the 11th Plan had achieved21,720 MW against their target of 11,552, a whopping 188% of theirtarget. Even in the ongoing 12th Plan, they have already achieved44,667.5 MW capacities, against the target of 43,540 MW and there isone more year to go for the Plan period to be completed. The Committeeare dismayed over the grim condition of hydro power sector in respectof capacity addition, wherein, even the Private Sector, an outstandingperformer in thermal power, has miserably failed. The above mentionedfigures speak volumes about the hydro power scenario of the country.The Committee, during the examination of the subject, learnt that manyprivate players who have been allocated hydro power projects arefinding it difficult to construct/complete the project due to variousreasons, including their inexperience in the field. It has also been learntthat in some cases, though they have managed to complete the projects,their faulty construction is a cause of concern now. Since hydro powerprojects are site-specific and mostly located in remote areas, theydemand a high level of expertise and quality manpower, whereas mostof the private players are lacking in this aspect. The hydro powersector has been neglected for decades and hardly any effort has beenmade by the Government to ease numerous obstacles in theirdevelopment. This has led to a shift of focus of the private playersto thermal power which is much easier and less risky to develop andthat too with a shorter gestation period. However, the Committee areof the considered view that to bring about a rapid growth in hydropower similar to the thermal sector, it is imperative to involve privateplayers. Since the Government have now put its focus back on hydropower, the Committee feel that the steps taken in regard to revivingthe sector should not become an unproductive exercise but should beconcrete and capable of making this sector attractive for the PrivateSector on sustainable basis.

(i) The Committee, therefore, recommend that the Government,while drawing up the plan and policies to revive the sectorshould also make enabling provisions to attract privateplayers to this sector in a big way.

(ii) The Committee also desire that the Government shouldmake suitable provisions/take steps so that only privateplayers with required capabilities and expertise could beallocated hydro power projects so as to ensure that theallocated projects are developed within the stipulated timeperiod.

(Recommendation Sl. No. 4, Para No. 4)

47

Hydro Power PSUs

2.5 The Committee, in the preceding para, have noted that theperformance of the Private Sector in hydro power has not been up tothe mark for various reasons. The Committee are of the firm belief thatinvolvement of private players in a big way is necessary for thedevelopment of hydro power sector. However, they are not sure whetherthis would happen soon. On the other hand, the Committee find thatthe Government have giant Public Sector Undertakings like NHPC,NEEPCO, THDC, etc., having the required infrastructure, manpowerand expertise, who are also specialized in the development of hydroprojects. Despite all these, these PSUs have not many projects todevelop. The Committee feel that under-utilization of these PSUs isnothing but sheer waste of available resources and expertise. InArunachal Pradesh, after utilizing their expertise to prepare DPRs,many projects have been assigned to private players who are new inthis field. The Committee have also been apprised that hydro powerprojects were allotted in Arunachal Pradesh on payment of upfrontpremium on ‘First come-First served basis’. Since this upfront premiumis not included in the cost of the projects, the same cannot be calculatedfor tariff determination. However, NHPC or Government PSUs cannotpay upfront premium as they do not have provision for the same,because of which all the projects allocated to them were taken backand allocated to private companies who paid upfront premium. TheCommittee, therefore, strongly recommend that:—

(i) It has become imperative to promote PSUs engaged in hydropower by allocating them more and more projects as theyhave the required infrastructure, expertise and resources towork in remote areas; besides, they do not have problemsin arranging finances for projects.

(ii) The Government should take necessary steps to discontinuethe practice of payment of upfront premium for allocationof hydro projects.

(Recommendation Sl. No. 5, Para No. 5)

Pumped Storage System

2.6 The Committee note that 96,524 MW capacity of pumpedstorage scheme has been identified in the country. Out of this, capacityof 4,785.6 MW is under operation and 1,080 MW is under-construction,whereas 1,000 MW projects DPR are prepared and submitted to CEA.The Committee find that development of pumped storage scheme in

48

the country is at a rudimentary stage and its present utilization againstthe total potential is meager. Considering the vast network of electricitygrid in the country and the quantum of electricity demand, it is notdifficult to gauge the range of fluctuation in power demands. Pumpedstorage schemes are meant for storing energy and using at times whendemands for electricity soars. Hence, pumped storage scheme will bequite beneficial for developing ancillary power market and in meetingsudden high demands of electricity. The Committee, therefore,recommend that due attention should also be given to developidentified pumped storage schemes in the country.

(Recommendation Sl. No. 6, Para No. 6)

Technological Advancement

2.7 The Committee note that the development of a hydro powerproject is a long and cumbersome process. It is also a fact that littletechnological advancements have been made in this sector either tocurtail the long gestation period or increase the efficiency of generationof electricity with lesser amount of water. During the examination ofthe subject, the Ministry stated that the major advancements duringrecent years have been the use of advanced Tunnel Boring Machinesfor excavation of tunnels, Tunnel Seismic Prediction machines to predictthe geology ahead of the tunnel face upto 200m, use of advanced DrillJumbos for excavation of tunnels etc. These technologies help inreducing the construction period to some extent. The Committee firmlybelieve that technological advancements can provide further boost tothe distressed hydro power sector. However, not much attention hasbeen paid to this crucial aspect. The advancements as apprised to theCommittee have been limited to the excavation of the land only.Improvement in the size and efficiency of generator, turbines and otherrelated equipment is one area which has not been paid the desiredattention. Improvement in this area with a scientific approach mayopen up new avenues in reducing the time and cost involvements.During the visit to Narmada, the Committee was apprised that a newtechnology, namely, “Screw Technology” has been invented in Germanywhich is capable of running turbines with the flow of only 10% ofwater as compared to the requirement of present day technology. Ifthis technology is found to be successful and effective, it will give afillip to the hydro sector. The Committee, therefore, recommend that:—

(i) Government must give utmost priority to research anddevelopment activities of hydro power.

49

(ii) Emphasis should be on indigenous research anddevelopment relating to hydro power.

(iii) We should also explore the options of collaboration withadvance technologies in this sphere across the world andif needed, latest technologies from advanced countriesshould be adopted.

(Recommendation Sl. No. 7, Para No. 7)

Financial Issues

2.8 The Committee observe that a hydro power project consistsof various assets, e.g. civil, electrical, mechanical and electrical works.The life of civil works, in most of the cases, goes beyond 100 yearswhile the life of other assets ranged between 25 and 50 years. However,banks and financial institutes provide loan to hydro power project forthe 10-12 years only. Therefore, higher cash flow is required in theinitial 10-12 years on account of repayment of debt. To meet theincreased cash flow requirement, a higher rate of depreciation is allowed(5.28%) for the initial period of 12 years for the purpose of determinationof tariff. As a result, the tariff of hydro power is quite high for thefirst 12 years (which is sometimes as high as Rs. 6 per unit). The tariffthen reduces and comes down to less than Rs.1/unit, once the loan isrepaid and the plant is fully depreciated. That being so, the issue ofthe initial higher tariff of hydro power has become one of the biggestconcerns as the same has gone up to Rs. 5-6 per unit. Since thermalpower tariff is still on the lower side, the States are naturally findingtariff of hydro power too high; therefore, they are not ready to purchaseit, causing non-execution of Power Purchase Agreements in someinstances. The Committee are concerned with the State of affairs andfeel that it will be most undesirable for hydro power to becomeunsellable for whatever reasons. Almost all the stake holders haveaccepted this flaw and requested the Committee to review the same.The Committee, therefore, are of the firm opinion that while calculatingthe cost of power for hydro project, the actual life of hydro project beconsidered which as per experts opinion goes beyond 40 years. Theprovision of long term financing will help in levelizing the tariff ofhydro power in place of higher tariff in the first 12 years. TheCommittee, during the examination of the subject, was apprised thattwo financial institutions relating to the power sector, namely, PFC andREC have now modified their policy to extend loans for a longer period

50

of 25 years to hydro power projects. The Committee are happy withthe prompt action taken by the Ministry and further recommend that:—

(i) The provision of providing long term loans should not belimited to these two PSUs but utmost efforts be made bythe Government to make the required provisions andpersuade other financial institutions and banks as well tolend finances to hydro power projects for longer tenure.

(ii) The Committee recommends that the average lifespan ofthe hydro power, for calculation of tariff per unit, be treatedas 30 to 40 years. The Government must change the policyand also ask the financial institutions to give long termfinances to make hydro power affordable and attractive.

(iii) The Committee also recommend that long term bonds withsovereign guarantee should be floated to provide long termfinances to this sector.

(Recommendation Sl. No. 8, Para No. 8)

2.9 The Committee note that there are hydro power projects whichare being delayed due to lack of finances. The Committee also notethat apart from the problem of getting loan only for shorter tenure,the hydro power projects have to pay high rate of interest on the loanamount. The Committee have further noted that the gestation periodof hydro power project, i.e. 8-10 years is longer as compared to thermalplants where it is 4-5 years and solar power plants where it is onlyone year. Therefore, return on the investment made in hydro powerprojects starts to flow only after 8-10 years. This way, given the samerate of return and calculating the overall project life cycle, hydro powerprojects yields a lesser return as compared to thermal and solar powerplants. These financial issues are resulting in higher tariff of hydropower which is ultimately paid by the end users. The Committeestrongly believe that electricity is critical for the economic progress ofthe country. Considering the numerous inherent benefits and in viewof the upcoming huge capacity addition in renewable source, thedevelopment of hydro power sector has become critical. However, sofar, hydro power sector has been neglected and not given the dueattention. Since the Government, for various reasons, has now decidedto focus on hydro power sector, it is important that this sector shouldnot only be provided long term finances but also at more reasonable

51

rate of interest to make tariff of hydro power competitive and sellable.The Committee, therefore, recommend the following:—

(i) Tax free bonds, similar to the infrastructure sector, shouldbe issued for the hydro power sector.

(ii) The Government should sincerely find out ways and meansto provide multilateral funds from international agencies,viz. World Bank, ADB, etc., for the hydro power sector.

(iii) The Government should also explore avenues to providefunds to the hydro power sector by the Life InsuranceCorporation of India (LIC) and Pension Funds.

(iv) Cash rich PSUs of the country should invest in hydro powersector for diversification, as fossil fuels are limited.

(v) Similarly, various PSUs of hydro power should beencouraged to invest in other hydro power projects.

(vi) The Committee also desire that hydro power projects,depending on their importance, may be declared as vitalinfrastructure and should be extended the required supportand benefits to overcome any obstacles in theirdevelopment.

(Recommendation Sl. No. 9, Para No. 9)

2.10 The Committee note that the project financing cycle of hydroprojects is very different from that of the other infrastructure projectslike highways and railways, for the main reason that in a hydro projectthe investigation on the site, pre-investigation survey, as preparationof DPR are far more complex and take a longer time. Secondly, it takestime to obtain environment and forest clearances. Moreover, landacquisition and rehabilitation is a very long third stage process.Normally, DPR is prepared after pre-investigation which, by the timeof obtaining all the clearances, becomes obsolete and requires estimaterevision. Till the time land is acquired, the need for second revisedestimation looms large. At the time of the start of actual constructionwork, these varying estimations create much confusion in variousfinancial calculations. The Committee, therefore, would like torecommend:—

(i) The Ministry should take necessary action in regard toadopting the practice of treating financial appraisal andfinancial approval as two distinct stages.

52

(ii) The activities before the actual start of the constructionwork should be treated as pre-investment activities.Therefore, the financial appraisal at this stage should beapproved as pre-investment activities and not as originalcost estimation.

(iii) The final financial approval taken at the time of actualstart of work should be treated as original cost estimate toadjust cost escalation, if any, so that the need forresubmission of project approval in case of any costescalation does not arise.

(Recommendation Sl. No. 10, Para No. 10)

2.11 The Committee, during the examination of the subject, wasapprised that recently some States have imposed heavy water cess,which has affected the viability of hydro power projects due to increaseof tariff by more than one rupee. The Committee feel that this issuewill only exacerbate the grim scenario of hydro power sector of thecountry. They desire the Government to take up this matter with theStates concerned and find out some solution to this problem so thatthe already distressed hydro power sector is exempted from theadditional burden in the form of water cess. The Committee, therefore,recommend that:—

(i) There should be no retrospective charges like cess on waterreallocation of DPR rate projects for want of upfrontpremium or any other kind of levy which is likely to impactthe competence of the tariff of hydro power.

(ii) The State Governments concerned may be taken on boardin this regard so as to ensure that such lateral super-imposition retrospectively is not taken recourse to for anyreason.

(Recommendation Sl. No. 11, Para No. 11)

Clearances and Environmental Issues

2.12 The Committee, during the examination of the subject, havefound that hydro power projects get delayed due to various reasons,which causes cost overrun and ultimately results in increased tariff.The main reason cited for the extended delay is obtaining ofenvironmental clearances, which has been cited as the biggest roadblock in the development of hydro power sector. To bring clarity on

53

the issue, the Committee heard the views of the Ministry ofEnvironment, Forest and Climate Change. It was stated that since thenotification of EIA in 2006, environmental clearances have already beenaccorded to numerous hydro power projects. However, in a majorityof cases, construction work is yet to be started. Further, out of theassessed hydro power capacity of 45,000 MW in Arunachal Pradesh,only 405 MW capacity is operational and 2,710 MW capacity is underconstruction. In case of 8,500 MW capacity projects which have all theclearances, the development work has not started yet. In regard topendency of hydro projects before MoEF&CC for clearance, it was statedthat out of 45,000 MW, projects of 6,600 MW only are pending withthem. They further stated that they have started to undertake studyof various river basins. The outcome of these studies will commonlybe applied to all the projects in that basin for the purpose ofenvironmental flow, litigation related to disaster and bio-diversity. Inregard to hydro power development in the Himalayan region, theystated that certain pockets and area above 3,000 meter are not beingtouched in view of the risk of damages to environment and biodiversity.Scrutinizing all the related facts and figures and considering thediffering views in regard to environmental clearances, the Committeeare of the view that the perception that environmental clearances arethe biggest roadblock in the development of the hydro power sectordoes not hold water. The Committee note that there are various projectswhich have been accorded all the environmental clearances, even afterwhich they are not being developed. The Committee are also ofconsidered view that both environment and the development of thecountry are of utmost importance and hence there is an urgent needto strike the light balance between the two. The Committee whileendorsing the concept of river basin study, recommend that:—

(i) The work related to study of the remaining river basinsshould be completed expeditiously.

(ii) The Committee are of the firm view that certain sensitiveareas in respect of environment and bio-diversity shouldnot be touched; however, in rest of the areas there is a needto make the process of granting environmental clearancesin a more expeditious and hassle free manner for hydropower projects.

(iii) The Committee further recommend to the Ministry ofEnvironment, Forests and Climate Change to prepare anddisseminate clear cut guidelines in respect of grantingclearances to all concerned.

54

(iv) The Committee also recommend that the CEA shouldfurther streamline the process of granting clearances to fasttrack hydro power projects.

(Recommendation Sl. No. 12, Para No. 12)

2.13 The Committee note that there is an urgent need to fasttrack hydro electric projects by the CEA. Though it has been statedthat the mechanism has been streamlined, yet much more requires tobe done with the coordination of various agencies which are involvedin the process of according clearance for the projects. The Central WaterCommission, Geological Survey of India, Central Soil and MineralResearch Station and several divisions of The Central ElectricityAuthority take their own time, leading up to several years, before aclearance is given for the project. This unnecessarily leads to hugeescalation in cost estimation. The Committee have been informed thatbefore formal taking up of DPR for concurrence, clearances are givenfor various chapters by CEA. Thereafter, DPR is taken up for appraisalby CEA and a time period of 150 days is required for getting thefinancial appraisal, lay out and other issues. The Committee feel thatthis process consumes too much time, which is avoidable. Once chaptersare approved with the guidance of CEA and discussed extensively thenthe time limit of 150 days for CEA to accord approval appears to bea bit longer which requires rationalisation. The Committee, therefore,recommend that:—

(i) The entire process of approval of various stages before thecommencement of the DPR requires to be streamlined, witha view to reducing the time frame involved therein.

(ii) The time limit of 150 days for CEA to accord approval toDPR should be curtailed to not more than 60 days as allthe pre-requisites are already completed with theknowledge and concurrence of various divisions of CEA.

(Recommendation Sl. No. 13, Para No. 13)

Enabling Infrastructure Issues

2.14 The Committee note that most of the hydro power potentiallies in far-flung and remote areas. The access to these sites and theirdevelopment, in the absence of any connecting road and enablinginfrastructure, is an issue. In these conditions developers face muchdifficulties in developing these projects. The Border Roads Organization(BRO) has been entrusted with the work of constructing roads to these

55

sites. During the examination of the subject, when the Committee askedfor the reasons for delays in their road projects, the BRO have statedthat the major roadblock in development of road projects is acquisitionof land. Land being a State subject, lot of problems are being faced.In many cases, even after compensation money was given by BRO torevenue authorities and the same has been disbursed to affected people,mutation of the land has not been done. Secondly, obtaining forest andwildlife clearances takes years leading to further delays in road projects.Also, lack of labourers, especially in the States of Arunachal Pradeshand Jammu and Kashmir, further aggravates the problem. Moreover,the Committee note that the BRO does not have sufficient capacity toconstruct roads at a required pace and in a definite time-frame. TheCommittee feel that these road projects are important enabling elementsof hydro power projects; hence they should also be given the dueattention. The Committee believe that delay in these road projects willhave a cascading effect on the developmental timeline of hydro powerprojects and results in cost overrun. It is obvious that any cost overrunwill ultimately increase the tariff. The Committee, therefore, recommendthat:—

(i) The Government should take up the matter of landacquisition issue affecting the BRO road projects with therespective State Governments at appropriate level with aview to finding amicable and lasting solutions. They shouldalso persuade the States which are endowed with hydropower, to grant forest and wildlife clearance to BRO roadprojects more expeditiously and liberally as the time bounddevelopment of many hydro power projects are dependenton the timely completion of these connecting roads.

(ii) The BRO should make utmost efforts to expedite theexecution pace of the allocated road projects. The Committeealso recommend to the Government to consider the issueof augmenting the capacity of BRO or make provisions toallow them to engage private contractors for the time-bounddevelopment of these crucial projects, subject to stringentquality control.

(Recommendation Sl. No. 14, Para No. 14)

NEW DELHI; DR. KIRIT SOMAIYA,05 May, 2016 Chairperson,15 Vaisakha, 1938 (Saka) Standing Committee on Energy.

56

ANNEXURE I

LIST OF HYDRO PROJECTS UNDER-CONSTRUCTION WITHNO MAJOR CONSTRAINTS [PARA 1.18]

Total- 8,190 MW = (Central Sector-4,144 MW + State Sector-3,036 MW+ Private Sector-1010 MW)

Sl. Project Name Developer State Capacity TargetedNo. (MW) Completion

1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Teesta Low NHPC West 160 2015-16 (Q4)Dam IV Bengal and 2016-17(4x40 MW) (Q1)

2. Kameng HEP NEEPCO Arunachal 600 2016-17(4x150 MW) Pradesh (Q4)

3. Tuirial HEP NEEPCO Mizoram 60 2016-17 (Q4)(2x30 MW)

4. Pare HEP NEEPCO Arunachal 110 2016-17 (03)(2x55 MW) Pradesh

5. Kishan Ganga NHPC Jammu and 330 2016-17 (Q3)HEP Kashmir(3x110 MW)

6. Parbati-II HEP NHPC Himachal 800 2018-19(4x200 MW) Pradesh

7. Tapovan Vishnugad NTPC Uttarakhand 520 2018-19HEP(4x130 MW)

8. Vishnugad THDC Uttarakhand 444 2018-19Pipalkoti(4x111 MW)

9. Tehri PSS THDC Uttarakhand 1000 2018-19(4x250 MW)

10. Ramman III NTPC West Bengal 120 2018-19(2x60 MW)

Total 4,144(Central Sector)

11. Lower Jurala HEP TSGENCO Telangana 200 2015-16(6x40 MW)* (Q3 and 4)

57

12. Nagarjuna Sagar APGENCO Andhra 50 2015-16 (Q3)TR HEP Pradesh(2x25 MW)

13. Pulichintala HEP TSGENCO Andhra 120 2016-17(4x60 MW) Pradesh (Q2 and 3)

14. Uhl-III HEP BVPC, HP Himachal 100 2017-18(2x50 MW) Pradesh

15. Kashang-I HEP HPPCL Himachal 65 2015-16 (Q4)(65 MW) Pradesh

16. Sainj HEP HPPCL Himachal 100 2016-17(2x50 MW) Pradesh (Q3 and 4)

17. Sawara Kuddu HEP HPPCL Himachal 111 2017-18(3x37 MW) Pradesh

18. Baglihar-II HEP JKPDCL Jammu and 300 2015-16(3x150 MW) Kashmir (Q3 and 4)

19. Pallivasal HEP KSEB Kerala 60 2017-18(2x30 MW)

20. Thottiar HEP KSEB Kerala 40 2017-18(lx30 MW+1x10 MW)

21. New Umtru HEP MeECL Meghalaya 40 2016-17 (Q3)(2x20 MW)

22. Shongtong Karcham HPPCL Himachal 450 2018-19(3x150 MW) Pradesh

23. Koyna Left Bank WRD, Maharashtra 80 2017-18PSS Maha.(2x40 MW)

24. Teesta III Teesta Urja Sikkim 1200 2016-17(6x200 MW) (Q3 and 4)

25. Vyasi UJVNL Uttarakhand 120 2018-19(2x60 MW)

Total (State Sector) 3,036

26. Bhasmey Gati Sikkim 51 2017-18(3x17 MW)

27. Sorang HSPL Himachal 100 2015-16 (Q3)(2x50 MW) Pradesh

28. Tidong-I N S L Himachal 100 2017-18(2x50 MW) Tidong Pradesh

29. Tangnu Romai-I Tangnu Himachal 44 2017-18(2x22 MW) Romai Pradesh

1 2 3 4 5 6

58

1 2 3 4 5 6

30. Bajoli Holi GMR Bajoli Himachal 180 2017-18(3x60 MW) Holi HPPL Pradesh

31. Chanju-I IA Energy Himachal 36 2017-18(3x12 MW) Pradesh

32. Tashiding Shiga Sikkim 97 2017-18(2x48.5 MW) Energy Pvt.

33. Dikchu Sneha Sikkim 96 2017-18(3x32 MW) Kinetic

Power

34. Rangit-II Sikkim Sikkim 66 2017-18(2x33 MW) Hydro

Pvt. Ltd.

35. Rongnichu Madhya Sikkim 96 2017-18(2x48 MW) Bharat PCL

36. Gongri Dirang Arunachal 144 2018-19(2x72 MW) Energy Pradesh

Total 1,010(Private Sector)

Grand Total 8,190(Central + State+ Private Sector)

59

ANNEXURE II

LIST OF HYDRO PROJECTS UNDER-CONSTRUCTION HAVINGMAJOR CONSTRAINTS [PARA 1.18]

Sl. Project Name Deve- State Capa- Issues/ReasonsNo. loper city for hold

(MW)

1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Subansiri Lower NHPC Aruna- 2000 Anti-dam agitation(4x250) chal since Dec.’11

Pradesh

2. Lata Tapovan NTPC Uttara- 171 Hon’ble SC Directive(3x57 MW) khand due to env. concern

Total Central 2171

3. Kashang II and III HPPCL Hima- 130 Agitation by locals-(2x65 MW) chal matter subjudice.

Pradesh

4. Shahpurkandi Irr. Dept. Punjab 206 Inter-State dispute(3x33+3x33+1 and between Punjab andx8 MW) PSPCL Jammu and Kashmir

Total State 336

5. Rangit-IV Jal PCL Sikkim 120 Financial crunch(3x40 MW)

6. Singoli Bhatwari L&T Uttara- 99 Slow progress of works(3x33 MW) UHPL khand

7. Teesta-VI Lanco Sikkim 500 Financial Crunch(4xl25 MW)

8. Phata Byung Lanco Uttara- 76 Flash floods+(2x38 MW) khand financial crunch

9. Maheshwar SMHPCL Madhya 400 Financial crunch. 3(10x40 MW) Pradesh Units ready for spinning

since Nov.,11.

10. Ratle RHEPPL Jammu 850 Financial crunch(4x205+1x30 MW) and

Kashmir

60

11. Panan Himagiri Sikkim 300 Wildlife Clearance(4x75 MW)

Total Private 2,345

Cumulative 4,852

1 2 3 4 5 6

61

ANNEXURE III

LIST OF PROPOSED HYDRO PROJECTS ATDPR/EARLY STAGES [PARA 1.18]

Total - 24,025 MW = (Central Sector - 7,778 MW +State Sector - 1,233 MW + Private Sector - 15,014 MW)

Sl. Project Name Developer State Status of ClearancesNo.

1 2 3 4 5

1. Kotlibhel-St-1A NHPC Uttarakhand No FC (SC Order), DPR(195 MW) validity expired in 10/14

2. Devsari SJVNL Uttarakhand No EC & FC(252 MW)

3. Rupsiyabagar NTPC Uttarakhand No FCKhasiyabara(261 MW)

4. Kolodyne St-II NTPC Mizoram No EC & FC(460 MW)

5. Pakal Dul CVPP Jammu and DPR validity expired(1000- MW) (NHPCJV) Kashmir in 10/14

6. Teesta St-IV NHPC Sikkim DPR validity expired(520 MW) in 5/15

7. Loktak D/S LDHCL Manipur DPR validity expired(66 MW) (NHPCJV) in 11/14

8. Tawang-I NHPC Arunachal FC awaited and DPR(600 MW) Pradesh validity expired in 10/16

9. Tawang-II NHPC Arunachal No FC & DPR validity(800 MW) Pradesh expired in 9/16

10. Dibang NHPC Arunachal No FC & DPR validity(2880 MW) Pradesh expired in 1/14

11. Kiru CVPP Jammu and No EC & FC & DPR(624 MW) (NHPC JV) Kashmir not concurred

Total – 7,778 MW(Central Sector)

12. New Ganderwal JKPDC Jammu and No FC(93 MW) Kashmir

62

13. Indira Sagar APID Andhra No EC & FC(960 MW) Pradesh(Pollavaram MPP)

14. Matnar CSPCPL Chhattisgarh No EC & FC(60 MW)

15. Lower Kopilli APGCL Assam No EC & FC(120 MW)

Total – 1233 MW(State Sector)

16. Nafra SEW Arunachal(120 MW) Pradesh

17. Dibbin KSK Arunachal No FC(120 MW) Pradesh

18. Dikhu Manu Nagaland No EC & FC(186 MW) Energy

19. Chango MPCL Himachal No EC & FCYangthang Pradesh(180 MW)

20. Kutehr JSW Himachal(240 MW) Pradesh

21. Talong Londa GMR Arunachal No EC & FC(225 MW) Pradesh

22. Demwe Lower Athena Arunachal DPR validity extension(1750 MW) Demwe Pradesh under process

23. Nyamjunchhu Bhilwara Arunachal No FC(780 MW) Energy Ltd. Pradesh

24. Alaknanda GMR Uttarakhand DPR concurrence(300 MW) expired in 8/13

25. Tato-II Reliance Arunachal No FC(700 MW) Enegy Ltd. Pradesh

26. Naying NDSCPL Arunachal No EC & FC(1000 MW) Pradesh

27. Chhatru DSC Himachal No EC & FC(126 MW) Pradesh

28. Hirong JAPL Arunachal No EC & FC(500 MW) Pradesh

29. Etalin EHEPCL Arunachal No EC & FC(3097 MW) Pradesh

30. Kynshi-I AKPPL Meghalaya No EC & FC(270 MW)

1 2 3 4 5

63

1 2 3 4 5

31. Kalai-II Kalai PPL Arunachal No EC & FC(1200 MW) Pradesh

32. Miyar MHPCL Himachal No FC(120 MW) Pradesh

33. Siyom SHPPPL Arunachal No EC & FC(1000 MW) Pradesh

34. Lower Siang JAVL Arunachal No EC & FC(2700 MW) Pradesh

35. Seli (400 MW) SHPCL Himachal No EC, DPR concurrencePradesh under process

Total 15,014 MW(Private Sector

Grand Total (Central - 7,778 MW + State - 1,233 + Private - 15,014 MW) =24,025 MW

64 ANNEXURE IV

THE DETAIL OF HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECTS COMMISSIONED AND LIKELY TO BE COMMISSIONED IN THEREMAINING PERIOD OF 12TH PLAN AND BEYOND [PARA 1.23]

As on 30.09.2015Sl. No. Project Name State Developer I.C. Year wise Cap. Addition

(No.xMW) 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Slipping Total

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

A. CommissionedCentral Sector

1. Chamera-III Himachal Pradesh NHPC 3x77 231 231

2. Chutak Jammu and Kashmir NHPC 4x11 44 44

3. Teesta Low Dam-III West Bengal NHPC 4x33 99 33 132

4. Uri-II Jammu and Kashmir NHPC 4x60 240 240

5. Nimoo Bazgo Jammu and Kashmir NHPC 3x15 45 45

6. Parabati-III Himachal Pradesh NHPC 4x130 390 130 520

7. Rampur HEP Himachal Pradesh SJVNL 6x68.67 206 206 412

8. Kol Dam HEP Himachal Pradesh NTPC 4x200 400 400 800

Sub Total: Central Sector 374 914 736 400 2424

State Sector

9. Bhawani Barrage-II Tamil Nadu TANGEDCO 2x15 30 30

10. Bhawani Barrage-III Tamil Nadu TANGEDCO 2x15 15 15 30

11. Myntdu-I addl. Unit Meghalaya MePGCL 1x42 42 42

12a. Baglihar-II Jammu and Kashmir JKPDC 3x150 300 300

13a. Lower Jurala Telangana TSGENCO 6x40 40 40

Sub Total: State Sector 57 45 340 442

Private Sector

14. Budhil Himachal Pradesh LANCO. 2x35 70 70

15. Chujachen Sikkim GATI 2x49.5 99 99

16. Srinagar Uttarakhand AHP Co. Ltd. 4x82.5 330 330

17. Jorethang Loop Sikkim DANS Pvt. Ltd. 2x48 96 96

Sub Total: Private Sector 70 99 426 595

Sub Total ‘A’: Commissioned 501 1058 736 1166 3461

B. Under ConstructionCentral Sector

18. Pare HEP Arunachal Pradesh NEEPCO 2x55 110 110

19. Kameng HEP (Critical) Arunachal Pradesh NEEPCO 4x150 600 600

20. Subansiri Lower HEP Arunachal Pradesh NHPC 8x250 1000 1000

21. Parbati-II HEP Himachal Pradesh NHPC 4x200 800 800

22. Kishan Ganga (Critical) Jammu and Kashmir NHPC 3x110 330 330

23. Tuirial (Critical) Mizoram NEEPCO 2x30 60 60

24. Tapovan Vishnugad Uttarakhand NTPC 4x130 520 520

65

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

25. Teesta Low Dam-IV West Bengal NHPC 4x40 80 80 160

Sub Total: Central Sector 0 0 80 1180 2320 3580State Sector

13b. Lower Jurala Telengana TSGENCO 6x40 120 80 200

26. Pulichintala Telengana TSGENCO 4x30 120 120

27. Nagarjuna Sagar TR Andhra Pradesh APGENCO 2x25 50 50

28. Kashang -I Himachal Pradesh HPPCL 1x65 65 65

29. Uhl-III Himachal Pradesh, BVPC 3x33.33 100 100

30. Sawra Kuddu Himachal Pradesh HPPCL 3x37 111 111

31. Kashang II and III Himachal Pradesh HPPCL 2x65 130 130

32. Sainj Himachal Pradesh HPPCL 2x50 100 100

12b. Baglihar-II Jammu and Kashmir JKPDC 3x150 150 150

33. Thottiar Kerala KSEB 1x30 40 40+ 1x10

34. Pallivasal Kerala KSEB 2x30 60 60

35. New Umtru Meghalaya MePGCL 2x20 40 40

Sub Total: State Sector 0 0 385 340 441 1166

Private Sector

36. Tidong-I Himachal Pradesh NSL Tidong 2x50 100 100Power Gen. Ltd.

37. Sorang Himachal Pradesh Himachal Sorang 2x50 100 100Power Pvt. Ltd.

66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

38. Tangnu Romai-I Himachal Pradesh Tangnu Romai 2x22 44 44Power Gen. Ltd.

39. Maheshwar Madhya Pradesh SMHPCL 10x40 0 400 400

40. Bhasmey Sikkim GATI 2x25.5 51 51

41. Rangit-IV Sikkim Jal Power 3x40 120 120

42. Teesta-VI Sikkim LANCO 4x125 500 500

43. Teesta-III Sikkim Teesta Urja 6x200 0 1200 1200

44. Singoli Bhatwari Uttarakhand L&T 3x33 99 99

45. Phata Byung Uttarakhand LANCO 2x38 76 76

Sub Total: Private Sector 0 0 100 1200 1390 2690

Sub Total ‘B’: Under 0 0 565 2720 4151 7436Construction

Total- 12th Plan (A + B ) 501 1058 736 1731 2720 4151 10897

Likely in 12th Plan 6746

67

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Note: Critical projects aggregate to 990 MW.

ANNEXURE V

TIME/COST OVERRUN OF CENTRAL SECTOR H.E. PROJECTS (ABOVE 25 MW) COMMISSIONEDDURING 12TH PLAN [PARA 1.26]

Sl. Name of Project Date of Commissioning Time Project cost Cost Reason for time and cost over runNo. Capacity/ Government schedule over run Rupees in Crores over run

Agency/ Approval/ Original Actual Months Original Latest (Rs. Crs.)State investment

decision

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Central Sector

1. Chutak 24.08.2006 Feb.11 Jan.13 23 621.26 913.25 291.99 • Short Working Season in extreme weather conditions.(4x11 MW) • Difficulty in transportation due to difficult terrain.NHPC • Delay in Supplies of E&M and HM parts.Jammu and • Shortage of Man power by BHEL.Kashmir • Evacuation of Power.

• Commissioning delayed due to insufficient load.

2. Chamera-III 01.09.2005 Aug.10 June.12 22 1405.63 2084.01 678.38 • Murder of 3 persons/damage to equipment in June 2006.(3x77 MW) • Washing away of Coffer dam during flash flood in July 2007.NHPC HP • Shut down of main crusher plant by State Government.

• Shortage of Man power by HCC.• Cavity in Lower Expansion Gallery.• Heavy rain and snowfall in Feb. 2012.• Plugging of Diversion Tunnel.

3. Teesta Low 30.10.2003 Mar.07 Apr.13 73 768.92 1628.00 859.08 • Delay in obtaining Forest clearance.Dam-III • Power house hill slope failure.(4x33=132 MW) • Flash flood in July, 2007, May, 2009 and July, 2010.NHPC WB • Gorkha Jan Mukti agitations/bandhs.

68

• Delay in Erection of spillway Gates.• Delay in Completion of evacuation system.

4. Nimoo Bazgo 24.08.2006 Aug.10 Nov.13 39 611.01 985.15 374.14 • Short working season in extreme cold weather conditions.(3x15=45 MW) • Difficulty in transportation of material due to difficult terrain.NHPC • Shortage of manpower for E&M works.Jammu and • Evacuation of power/availability of sufficient load.Kashmir

5. Uri-II 01.09.2005 Nov.09 Feb.14 51 1724.80 2321.53 596.73 • Lack of resources and cash flow crunch of HCC.(4x60=240 MW) • Breaching/overtopping of Coffer Dam in May, 10 and April,NHPC 11 due to heavy rain.Jammu and • Disturbance in Valley since June, 2010.Kashmir • Problem faced during erection of Surge Shaft Gate.

• Delay in Diversion Tunnel Plugging works.• Works stopped by locals from Mar, 2012 to June, 2012

demanding employment in NHPC.

6. Parbati-III 09.11.2005 Nov.10 May.14 42 2304.56 2716.00 411.44 • Poor geology in HRT.(4x130 MW) • Delay in completion of E&M works.NHPC HP • Flash flood on 16th August, 2011.

• Delay in supply of material and erection of units by BHEL.Stoppage of work by locals.

• Forest clearance for transmission line received in June, 2012.• Termination of XLPE Cable.

7. Rampur 25.01.2007 2011-12 2014-15 36 2047.03 3288.28 1241.25 • Poor geology in HRT.(6x68.67 MW) (Dec. 2014) • Slope failure in Power House area.SJVNL HP • Intermittent disturbance by local people.

• Fault in Generator Transformer.

8. Kol Dam 28.10.2002 2008-09 2015-16 84 4527.15 7220.00 2692.85 • Slow progress of clay/earth filling of dam, Grouting of dam(4x200 MW) (Jun. 15) galleries, Concreting of Spillway.NTPC HP • Contractual issues.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

69

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

• Delay in procurement of steel.• Right bank failure due to poor geology, seepage

at foundation of clay core.• %Seepage in diversion tunnel during reservoir impounding.• FCA clearance for 44 ha. Land for reservoir impounding

beyond EL 574.

70

ANNEXURE VI

THE DETAILS OF PROJECTS PENDING WITH CEA FOR APPROVAL [PARA 1.51]

Sl. No. Scheme State Sector Units x MW Installed Capacity Month of(MW) Receipt of DPR

1. Kim Jammu and Kashmir Joint Venture 4x156 624 08/12

2. Kwar Jammu and Kashmir Joint Venture 4x135 540 05/14

3. Sawalkote Jammu and Kashmir State 6x225+1x56 +2x225 1856 01/14

4. Seli Himachal Pradesh Private 4x100 400 12/11

5. Sach Khas Himachal Pradesh Private 3x86.67+1x7 267 01/13

6. Jelam Tamak Uttarakhand Central 3x36 108 12/12

7. Bowala Nand Paryag Uttarakhand State 4x75 300 08/12

8. Dagamara Bihar State 17x7.65 130 04/12

9. Umngot Meghalaya State 3x70 210 3/13

10. Subansiri Middle (Kamla) Arunachal Pradesh Private 8x216+2x36 1800 10/13

11. Tagurshit Arunachal Pradesh Private 3x24.67 74 07/12

12. Attunli HEP Arunachal Pradesh Private 4x170 680 10/14

Total 6989

71

ANNEXURE VII

LIST OF DPRS CONCURRED BY CEA FROM 2002-03 ONWARDS [PARA 1.54]

Sl. No. Name of Scheme State Sector Installed Capacity Date of Receipt Date of Clearance Time taken for

Units x MW MW by CEA by CEA clearance(months)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

During 10th Plan

2002-03

1. Kol Dam Himachal Pradesh Central 4x200 800 6/2001 30.06.2002 12

2. Allain Duhangan Himachal Pradesh Private 2x96 192 3/2002 20.08.2002 5

3. Uhl St-III Himachal Pradesh State 2x50 100 8/2001 19.09.2002 13

4. Sewa Stage II Jammu and Kashmir Central 3x40 120 6/2002 18.10.2002 4

5. Teesta Low Dam-III WB Central 4x33 132 06/2002 28.11.2002 5

6. Subansiri Lower Arunachal Pradesh Central 8x250 2000 6/2001 13.01.2003 19

7. Jalaput Dam Toe Orissa/AP Private 3x6 18 2/2002 31.01.2003 11

8. Karcham Wangtoo Himachal Pradesh Private 4x250 1000 12/2000 31.03.2003 27

Sub-Total 8 4362 Average time 12 months

2003-04

9. Tipaimukh Manipur Central 6x250 1500 2/2002 02.07.2003 17

10. Chamera St-III Himachal Pradesh Central 3x77 231 6/2003 10.10.2003 4

11. Parbati St-III Himachal Pradesh Central 4x130 520 8/2003 12.11.2003 3

72

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

12. Teesta Low Dam-IV West Bengal Central 4x40 160 9/2003 23.12.2003 3

13. Uri-II Jammu and Kashmir Central 4x60 240 8/2003 11.02.2004 6

14. Nimoo Bazgo Jammu and Kashmir Central 3x15 45 12/2003 16.03.2004 3

Sub-Total 6 2696 Average time 6 months

2004-05

15. Chutak Jammu and Kashmir Central 4x11 44 1/2004 23.04.2004 3

16. Loharinag Pala Uttarakhand Central 4x150 600 7/2004 11.08.2004 1

17. Tapovan Vishnugad Uttarakhand Central 4x130 520 7/2004 11.08.2004 1

18. Matnar Chhattisgarh State 3x20 60 7/2004 19.08.2004 1

19. Athirappilly Kerala State 2x80+2x1.5 163 12/2004 31.03.2005 3

Sub-Total 5 1387 Average time 1.8 months

2005-06

20. Kishanganga Jammu and Kashmir Central 3x110 330 7/2005 31.08.2005 1

21. Rampur Himachal Pradesh Central 6x68.67 412 06/2005 16.12.2005 6

22. Lata Tapovan Uttarakhand Central 3x57 171 7/2005 08.02.2006 7

Sub-Total 3 913 Average time 4.7 months

2006-07

23. Teesta- III Sikkim Private 6x200 1200 2/2006 12.05.2006 3

24. Pakal Dul Jammu and Kashmir Central 4x250 1000 07/2005 03.10.2006 15

25. Vishnugad Pipalkoti Uttarakhand Central 4x111 444 04/2006 21.9.2006 5

73

26. Rammam -III W.B. Central 3x40 120 03/2006 12.09.2006 6

27. Kotlibhel - IA Uttarakhand Central 3x65 195 01/2006 03.10.2006 9

28. Kotlibhel-IB Uttarakhand Central 4x80 320 01/2006 31.10.2006 9

29. Kotlibhel-II Uttarakhand Central 8x66.25 530 04/2006 30.11.2006 7

30. Loktak Downstream Mani. Central 2x33 66 11/2006 15.11.2006 1

31. Teesta -VI Sikkim Private 4x125 500 03/2006 27.12.2006 9

32. Pala Maneri Uttarakhand State 4x120 480 12/2006 23.02.2007 2

Sub-Total 10 4855 Average time 6.6 months

During 11th Plan

2007-08

33. Lower Jurala Andhra Pradesh State 6x40 240 07/2006 24.07.2007 1

34. Rangit -IV Sikkim Private 3x40 120 1/2006 06.07.2007 18

35. Pare Arunachal Pradesh Central 2x55 110 06/07 24.09.2007 3

36. Dibang Arunachal Pradesh Central 12x250 3000 06/07 23.01.2008 7

Sub-Total 4 3470 Average time 7.3 months

2008-09

37. Gundia Karnataka State 1x200 200 3/08 25.04.2008 2

38. Singoli Bhatwari Uttarakhand Private 3x33 99 10/07 11.07.2008 12

39. Alaknanda Uttarakhand Private 3x100 300 01/08 08.8.2008 7

40. Rupsiyabagar Khasiyabara Uttarakhand Central 3x87 261 10/07 16.10.2008 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

74

Sub-Total 4 860 Average time 8.3 months

2009-10

41. De MWe Lower Arunachal Pradesh Private 5x342+1x40 1750 11/09 20.11.2009 1

42. Dibbin Arunachal Pradesh Private 2x60 120 06/09 04.12.2009 6

43. Lower Siang Arunachal Pradesh Private 9x300 2700 08/09 16.02.2010 6

Sub-Total 3 4570 Average time 4.3 months

2010-11

44. Teesta - IV Sikkim Central 4x130 520 12/09 13.05.2010 6

45. Kutehr Himachal Pradesh Private 3x80 240 08/09 31.08.2010 12

46. Baglihar- II Jammu and Kashmir State 3x150 450 05/10 29.12.2010 7

47. Sainj Himachal Pradesh State 2x50 100 09/09 29.12.2010 15

48. Panan Sikkim Private 4x75 300 12/09 07.03.2011 17

49. Nafra Arunachal Pradesh Private 2x60 120 08/10 11.02.2011 6

50. Nyamjang Chhu Arunachal Pradesh Private 6x130 780 07/10 24.03.2011 8

Sub-Total 7 2510 Average time 10.1 months

2011-12

51. Kolodyne St-II Mizoram Central 4x115 460 02/10 14.09.2011 19

52. Tawang St-I Arunachal Pradesh Central 3x200 600 06/10 10.10.2011 16

53. Tawang St-II Arunachal Pradesh Central 4x200 800 05/10 22.09.2011 11

54. Vyasi Uttarakhand State 2x60 120 07/10 25.10.2011 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

75

55. Indirasagar (Polavaram) Andhra Pradesh State 12x80 960 10/09 21.02.2012 28

56. Bajoli Holi Himachal Pradesh Private 3x60 180 11/09 30.12.2011 25

Sub-Total 6 3120 Average time 19 months

During 12th plan

2012-13

57. Tato-II Arunachal Pradesh Private 4x175 700 9/10 22.5.2012 20

58. Devsari/SJVNL Uttarakhand Central 3x84 252 10/11 07.8.2012 10

59. Shongtong Karcham/ Himachal State 3x150 450 01/11 16.08.2012 19HPPCL Pradesh/Kinnaur

60. Ratle/GVKRHEPPL Jammu and Kashmir Pvt. 4x205+ 1x30 850 05/12 19.12.2012 7

61. Gongri Arunachal Pradesh Pvt. 2x72 144 07/11 04.02.2013 19

62. Miyar Himachal Pradesh Pvt. 3x40 120 04/11 07.02.2013 22

Sub-Total 6 2516 Average time 16.2 months

2013-14

63. Hirong Arunachal Pradesh Pvt. 4x125 500 05/11 10.04.2013 23

64. Etalin Arunachal Pradesh Pvt. 10x307+1x19.6+1x7.4 3097 02/12 12.07.2013 17

65. Talong Londa Arunachal Pradesh Pvt. 3x75 225 09/10 16.08.2013 35

66. Naying Arunachal Pradesh Pvt. 4x250 1000 05/11 11.09.2013 28

67. Siyom Arunachal Pradesh Pvt. 6x166.67 1000 12/10 17.12.2013 36

68. Chango Yangthang Himachal Pradesh Pvt. 3x60 180 11/13 31.03.2014 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

76

69. Dikhu Nagaland Pvt. 3x62 186 04/12 31.03.2014 23

Sub-Total 7 6188 Average time 23.7 months

2014-15

70. New Ganderwal Jammu and Kashmir State 3x31 93 10/12 10.6.2014 20

71. Chhatru HP Private 3x42 126 4/12 15.1.2015 33

72. Kalai-II Arunachal Pradesh/ Private 5x190+1 x190+1x 60 1200 04/12 27.3.2015 35Anjaw

73. Kynshi-I Meghalaya Private 2x135 270 02/13 31.3.2015 25

Sub Total 4 1689 Average time 28.3 months

2015-16

74. Heo Arunachal Pradesh Private 3x80 240 07/13 28.07.2015 24

75. Tato-I Arunachal Pradesh Private 3x62 186 05/13 28.10.2015 29

76. Lower Kopili Arunachal Pradesh State 2x55 +1x5 +2x2.5 120 03/13 Concurrencemeeting heldon 24.08.2015

Sub-Total 3 546

Grand Total 76 39682

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

77

78

ANNEXURE VIII

MINUTES OF THE SEVENTH SITTING OF THE STANDING COMMITTEEON ENERGY (2015-16) HELD ON 16TH NOVEMBER, 2015

IN COMMITTEE ROOM ‘E’, PARLIAMENT HOUSEANNEXE, NEW DELHI

The Committee met from 1500 hrs. to 1700 hrs.

PRESENT

Dr. Kirit Somaiya — Chairperson

MEMBERS

Lok Sabha

2. Shri Ashwini Kumar Chaubey

3. Shri Harish Dwivedi

4. Shri Saumitra Khan

5. Dr. Arun Kumar

6. Dr. Pritam Gopinath Munde

7. Shri Jagdambika Pal

8. Shrimati Krishna Raj

9. Shri M.B. Rajesh

10. Shri Vinayak Bhaurao Raut

11. Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh Verma

Rajya Sabha

12. Shri Oscar Fernandes

13. Shri Pyarimohan Mohapatra

14. Shri Javed Ali Khan

15. Dr. K.P. Ramalingam

79

16. Shri Ananda Bhaskar Rapolu

17. Dr. Anil Kumar Sahani

SECRETARIAT

1. Shri K. Vijayakrishnan — Additional Secretary2. Shri N.K. Pandey — Director

LIST OF REPRESENTATIVES

Ministry of Power

1. Shri P.K. Pujari Secretary

2. Shri B.P. Pandey Addl. Secretary

3. Shri Aniruddha Kumar Joint Secretary

CEA/PSUs/Autonomous Bodies/Statutory Bodies

4. Shri Major Singh Chairperson, CEA

5. Shri K.M. Singh CMD, NHPC

6. Shri R.S.T. Sai CMD, THDC

7. Shri R.N. Mishra CMD, SJVNL

8. Shri S.K. Sharma Chairman, BBMB

9. Shri P.C. Pankaj CMD, NEEPCO

2. At the outset, the Chairperson welcomed the Members of theCommittee and the representatives of the Ministry of Power to the sittingof the Committee and apprised them of the agenda and focus area forthe discussion and the provisions of Directions 55(1) and 58 of theDirections by the Speaker.

3. Thereafter, the Secretary, Ministry of Power, while expressinggratitude for taking up this important subject for detailed examination,briefed the Committee of the issues relating to the subject — views andcounter views for hydro power, falling share of hydro power and thenecessity to develop hydro power in the present scenario.

4. During the discussion, the representatives of the Ministry madea power-point presentation on the subject which inter-alia covered ‘Installedpower generation capacity of the Country and declining share of hydropower, need and status of hydro power development, major issues andchallenges and initiatives taken by the Ministry to prioritization of hydropower projects’.

80

5. The Committee then inter-alia, discussed the following points:—

(i) Installed power generation capacity in the country — shareof hydro power, reasons responsible for it.

(ii) Obstacles faced in development of hydro power sector —environmental issues, various clearances, public agitations,land acquisition, financial crunch, etc.

(iii) Necessity to speedily develop hydro power — its need as abalancing power in the wake of 1.75 GW of renewable energyplanned.

(iv) Issue of upfront payment for allotment of hydro powerprojects in Arunachal Pradesh.

(v) Financial issues relating to hydro power projects — financialcrunch faced by developers, higher tariff due to delay,

(vi) Need for development of Pumped Storage Schemes in thecountry.

During the discussion, the Members sought clarifications on variousissues relating to the subject and the representatives of the Ministry repliedto them.

6. The verbatim proceedings of the sitting of the Committee werekept on record.

The Committee, then, adjourned.

81

ANNEXURE IX

MINUTES OF THE TENTH SITTING OF THE STANDING COMMITTEEON ENERGY (2015-16) HELD ON 11TH JANUARY, 2016

IN COMMITTEE ROOM ‘B’, PARLIAMENT HOUSEANNEXE, NEW DELHI

The Committee met from 1500 hrs. to 1630 hrs.

PRESENT

Dr. Kirit Somaiya — Chairperson

MEMBERS

Lok Sabha

2. Shri Ashwini Kumar Chaubey

3. Shri Harish Dwivedi

4. Shri Saumitra Khan

5. Shri Deepender Singh Hooda

6. Shri Bhagat Singh Koshyari

7. Kunwar Sarvesh Kumar

8. Dr. Arun Kumar

9. Shri R.P. Marutharajaa

10. Shri Jagdambika Pal

11. Shri Ravindra Kumar Pandey

12. Shrimati Krishna Raj

13. Shri M.B. Rajesh

Rajya Sabha

14. Shri Oscar Fernandes

15. Shri S. Muthukaruppan

82

16. Shri Javed Ali Khan

17. Shri Ananda Bhaskar Rapolu

18. Dr. Anil Kumar Sahani

19. Smt. Viplove Thakur

SECRETARIAT

1. Shri K. Vijayakrishnan — Additional Secretary2. Shri N.K. Pandey — Director

LIST OF REPRESENTATIVES

Ministry of Power

1. Shri P.K. Pujari Secretary

2. Shri B.P. Pandey Additional Secretary

3. Shri Aniruddha Kumar Joint Secretary

CEA/PSUs/Autonomous Bodies/Statutory Bodies

4. Shri Major Singh Chairperson, CEA

5. Shri S.D. Dubey Member, Hydro

6. Shri K.M. Singh CMD, NHPC

7. Shri R.S.T. Sad CMD, THDC

8. Shri P.C. Pankaj CMD, NEECO

9. Shri R.N. Misra CMD, SJVNL

10. Shri S.K. Sharma Chairman, BBMB

11. Shri Bhuvnesh Nauhria Joint Secretary, BBMB

12. Shri Sushanta Chatterjee Joint Chief(Regulatory Affairs), CERC

13. Shri Deepak Amitabh CMD, PTC

2. At the outset, the Chairperson welcomed the Members of theCommittee and the representatives of the Ministry of Power to the sittingof the Committee and apprised them of the agenda and focus area forthe discussion and the provisions of Directions 55(1) and 58 of theDirections by the Speaker.

3. During the discussion, the Secretary, Ministry of Power,apprised the Committee of various factors that are hindering

83

the pace of Hydro Power development and enumerated the followingissues:—

(i) Delay in obtaining various clearances including environmentalclearances.

(ii) Cost escalation of projects due to execution delay, buildingenabling infrastructure.

(iii) Higher tariff of hydro projects in the initial years due to lackof long term finances.

(iv) Partial implementation of the time of the day tariff.

(v) Imposition of water cess by some States.

(vi) Rehabilitation and Resettlement relating to the hydro projects.

4. The Secretary, Ministry of Power, further apprised the Committeethat there is a proposal that will provide first right of refusal to the StateGovernment to extend the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) beyond35 years to allow them to reap the benefit of cheaper cost of hydro powerin the long run. In regard to the reasons for higher initial tariff of hydropower, the Committee were informed that loan tenure for the hydropower projects is 10-12 years only; therefore the cost of the project isrecovered in 12 parts which increases its initial tariff. Once the loan ispaid after 10-12 years, the tariff of hydro power falls as there is no fuelcost. The Ministry also informed the Committee that there is scope ofsubstantial decrease of hydro power tariff through extending the loantenure and alignment of rate of depreciation accordingly, issuance of tax-free bonds, etc.

5. During the discussion, the Committee raised the issue of declaringall hydro power projects, irrespective of their capacity, as renewable energysources. They also desired to know the efforts of the Government topromote hydro power. The representatives of the Ministry informed thatthey are in the process of bringing provisions of Renewable PurchaseObligation (RPO) and Renewable Generation Obligation (RGO) in thepolicy. They further informed that they are revisiting the whole hydropolicy as the importance of hydro power as a grid stabilizer has increasedin the wake of the proposed 175 GW of renewable energy capacity additionand it will also be helpful in fulfilling country’s global emission relatedcommitments.

6. The Committee also decided to have discussion with the Ministryof Finance with regard to exploring the avenue for providing long term

84

loans to hydro projects, provision of collateral fund, depreciation rate ofhydro project, issuance of hydro power tax-free bond, treating hydropower projects as vital infrastructure projects, providing other incentivesto hydro projects, etc.

During the discussion, the Members sought clarifications on variousissues relating to the subject and the representatives of the Ministry repliedto them.

7. The verbatim proceedings of the sitting of the Committee werekept on record.

The Committee then adjourned.

85

ANNEXURE X

MINUTES OF THE TWELFTH SITTING OF THE STANDING COMMITTEEON ENERGY (2015-16) HELD ON 25TH JANUARY, 2016

IN COMMITTEE ROOM ‘B’, PARLIAMENTHOUSE ANNEXE, NEW DELHI

The Committee met from 1100 hrs. to 1230 hrs.

PRESENT

Dr. Kirit Somaiya — Chairperson

MEMBERS

Lok Sabha

2. Shri Harish Dwivedi

3. Shri Bhagat Singh Koshyari

4. Dr. Arun Kumar

5. Shri Jagdambika Pal

6. Shri Vinayak Bhaurao Raut

7. Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh Verma

Rajya Sabha

8. Shri V.P. Singh Badnore

9. Shri Oscar Fernandes

10. Shri Javed Ali Khan

11. Shri Ananda Bhaskar Rapolu

12. Dr. Anil Kumar Sahani

13. Smt. Viplove Thakur

SECRETARIAT

1. Shri K. Vijayakrishnan — Additional Secretary2. Shri N.K. Pandey — Director

86

LIST OF REPRESENTATIVES

Ministry of Finance

1. Shri Ratan P. Watal Secretary

2. Dr. Arunish Chawla Joint Secretary

Ministry of Power

3. Shri Aniruddha Kumar Joint Secretary

2. At the outset, the Chairperson welcomed the Members of theCommittee and the representatives of the Ministry of Power to the sittingof the Committee and apprised them of the agenda and focus area forthe discussion and the provisions of Directions 55 (1) and 58 of theDirections by the Speaker.

3. During the discussion, inter-alia, the following points werediscussed:—

(i) Importance of hydro power—the proposed augmenting targetof 1.75 lakh MW of Solar and Wind energy will requirematching hydro power capacity to balance the grid.

(ii) Need for levelised tariff of hydro power by providing longterm finances—hydro power projects are presently able toget loan for 10-12 years only, whereas their life span is morethan 50 years. Shorter loan repayment period results in highertariff initially, but reduces substantially once the loan is fullypaid. Therefore, these projects should also be provided longterm loan for 25-30 years period.

(iii) Need for clarity in regard to fixing rate of depreciation ofhydro power projects and its relation with their loan periods,and suitable tariff policy for hydro power.

(iv) Need for separation of financial appraisal and final approvalto adjust cost escalation, if any, and avoid repetition of theprocess of project approval.

(v) Providing adequate finances to hydro power projects, use ofvarious instruments, viz., issuance of long term infrastructurebonds, collateral loans, bonds with sovereign guarantee,funding by LIC, Pension Funds, etc., may be explored.

(vi) Need to focus on hydro power PSUs having adequateinfrastructure and expertise for expeditious and

87

optimal harnessing of hydro power available in thecountry.

(vii) Various cash rich Oil Companies should be encouraged todiversify not only in the field of renewable energy but alsoin hydro power. Similarly, hydro power PSUs should beencouraged to diversify in the field of gas based powergeneration as the same can also be used as grid balancingpower.

(viii) It was also discussed that Ladakh region has immense scopefor hydro and solar power, therefore, ways and means mustbe explored to harness the same.

4. During the discussion, the Members sought clarifications onvarious issues relating to the subject and the representatives of the Ministryreplied to them. Further, the Ministry stated to send the details of someof the points which were not available with them at that time.

5. The verbatim proceedings of the sitting of the Committee werekept on record.

The Committee then adjourned.

88

ANNEXURE XI

MINUTES OF THE THIRTEENTH SITTING OF THE STANDINGCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY (2015-16) HELD ON 11TH FEBRUARY,

2016 IN COMMITTEE ROOM ‘B’, PARLIAMENT HOUSEANNEXE, NEW DELHI

The Committee met from 1100 hrs. to 1230 hrs.

PRESENT

Dr. Kirit Somaiya — Chairperson

MEMBERS

Lok Sabha

2. Shri Ashwini Kumar Chaubey

3. Shri Saumitra Khan

4. Shri Bhagat Singh Koshyari

5. Dr. Arun Kumar

6. Shri Jagdambika Pal

7. Shri Ravindra Kumar Pandey

8. Smt Krishna Raj

9. Shri Gutha Sukender Reddy

10. Shri Purno Agitok Sangma

11. Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh Verma

Rajya Sabha

12. Shri Oscar Fernandes

13. Shri Javed Ali Khan

14. Dr. K.P. Ramalingam

15. Shri Ananda Bhaskar Rapolu

89

16. Dr. Anil Kumar Sahani

17. Smt. Viplove Thakur

SECRETARIAT

1. Shri K. Vijayakrishnan — Additional Secretary

2. Shri N.K. Pandey — Director

LIST OF REPRESENTATIVES

Ministry of Power

1. Shri Aniruddha Kumar Joint Secretary

CEA/PSUs/Autonomous Bodies/Statutory Bodies

2. Smt. Subha Sharma Secretary, CERC

3. Shri Major Singh Chairperson, CEA

4. Shri S.D. Dubey Member (Hydro) , CEA

5. Shri K.M. Singh CMD, NHPC

6. Shri P.C. Pankaj CMD, NEEPCO

7. Shri R.N. Misra CMD, SJVNL

8. Shri Bhuvnesh Nauhria Joint Secretary, BBMB

Ministry of New and Renewable Energy

9. Ms. Varsha Joshi Jt. Secretary

10. Dr. N.P. Singh Sr. Consultant

Border Roads Organisation

11. Lt. Gen. Suresh Sharma DGBR

12. Brig. Rajkumar Sharma DDG (TP)

Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change

13. Shri Bishwanath Sinha Joint Secretary

2. At the outset, the Chairperson welcomed the Members of theCommittee and the representatives of the Ministry of Power to the sittingof the Committee and apprised them of the agenda and focus area forthe discussion and the provisions of Directions 55 (1) and 58 of theDirections by the Speaker. Further, he reminded the Committee of theprevious interactions with various Departments and Agencies on the

90

subject ‘Hydro Power’. He also informed the Committee that the Ministryof Power has taken note of these interactions and observations, and theyhave appointed two sub-committees on hydro power.

3. During the discussion, inter-alia, the following points werediscussed:—

(i) Time-frame and terms of reference of the two sub-committeesconstituted by the Ministry of Power.

(ii) New tariff policy for hydro power - exemption of hydropower from Renewable Purchase Obligation (RPO).

(iii) Long term loan for hydro projects by Rural ElectrificationCorporation and Power Finance Corporation -change in rateof depreciation accordingly.

(iv) Status of work relating to road connectivity for hydro powerprojects in remote and border areas — lack of contractors,labour, difficult terrain, process of various clearances, funding,involvement of private contractors.

(v) Environmental and Forest Clearances for connecting roads—projects pending with MoEF for clearance, reasons for notstarting development work despite getting all the clearances,status of river basin study.

4. During the discussion, Members sought clarifications on variousissues relating to the subject and the representatives of the Ministry repliedto them. The Committee further desired that the details of the issueswhich were not available with the representatives of the Ministry mayalso be sent to them in due course.

5. The verbatim proceedings of the sitting of the Committee werekept on record.

The Committee then adjourned.

91

ANNEXURE XII

MINUTES OF THE TWENTIETH SITTING OF THE STANDINGCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY (2015-16) HELD ON 27TH APRIL,

2016, IN COMMITTEE ROOM ‘B’, PARLIAMENTHOUSE ANNEXE, NEW DELHI

The Committee met from 1600 hrs. to 1700 hrs.

PRESENT

Dr. Kirit Somaiya — Chairperson

MEMBERS

Lok Sabha

2. Shri Harish Dwivedi

3. Shri Bhagat Singh Koshyari

4. Dr. Pritam Gopinath Munde

5. Smt. Krishna Raj

6. Shri Vinayak Bhaurao Raut

7. Shri Gutha Sukender Reddy

8. Shri Devendra Singh alias Bhole Singh

9. Shri Malyadri Sriram

Rajya Sabha

10. Shri V.P. Singh Badnore

11. Shri Oscar Fernandes

12. Shri Pyarimohan Mohapatra

13. Dr. K.P. Ramalingam

14. Shri Ananda Bhaskar Rapolu

92

SECRETARIAT

1. Shri K. Vijayakrishnan — Additional Secretary2. Shri N.K. Pandey — Director3. Smt. L. Nemjalhing Haokip — Under Secretary

LIST OF WITNESSES

*** *** *** *** ***

2. At the outset, the Chairman welcomed the Members and apprisedthem of the agenda for the sitting. The Committee then took up forconsideration the following draft Reports:—

(i) Hydro Power — A Sustainable, Clean and Green Alternative.

(ii) Action Taken on the recommendations contained in the6th Report (16th Lok Sabha) on Demands for Grants of theMinistry of New and Renewable Energy for the year 2015-16.

(iii) Action Taken on the recommendations contained in the 7thReport (16th Lok Sabha) on ‘Energy Conservation.

(iv) Demands for Grants of the Ministry of Power for the year2016-17.

(v) Demands for Grants of the Ministry of New and RenewableEnergy for the year 2016-17.

3. After discussing the contents of the Reports in detail, theCommittee adopted the aforementioned draft Reports without any change.The Committee authorized the Chairperson to finalize these Reports andpresent the same to both the Houses of Parliament in the current Session.

4. *** *** *** *** ***

5. *** *** *** *** ***

6. *** *** *** *** ***

7. *** *** *** *** ***

8. *** *** *** *** ***

The Committee then adjourned.

* Not related to this report.

“All Parliamentary Publications including DRSC Reports are available on sale at the Sales Counter, Reception, Parliament House (Tel. Nos. 23034726, 23034495, 23034496), Agents appointed by Lok Sabha Secretariat and Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi (Tel. Nos. 24367260, 24365610) and their outlets. The said information is available on website ‘www.parliamentofindia.nic.in’.

The Souvenir Items with logo of Parliament are also available at Sales Counter, Reception, Parliament House, New Delhi. The Souvenir items with Parliament Museum logo are available for sale at Souvenir Shop (Tel. No. 23035323), Parliament Museum, Parliament Library Building, New Delhi. List of these items are available on the website mentioned above.”