The power regulator invited comments on the latest version of “Indicative Generation Capacity Expansion Plan 2047 (IGCEP).” And there is no shortage of comments it seems, as the 1362-page IGCEP report has led to 240 pages of suggestions, comments and feedback, from stakeholders. Reading a document as hefty does take a lot, and commenting takes big stakes, and deep understanding as well.
There is no pretense that the IGCEP report has been read in full or even close to that, for writing this piece. The sifting has been limited to the executive summary and key demand forecasts. Note that the report has a lot of data, based on certain software, that runs one scenario after another, producing loads of very detailed tables, consuming a lot of space.
One of the commentators, in the reply submitted to Nepra, termed the report, perhaps harshly, as a “university assignment”, which runs 12 different scenarios without much regard to multiple other factors. This may be too harsh and undermines the effort put by a team of 12 qualified and dedicated engineers from the NTDC. And that is also part of the problem. All the respect for the engineers, and they should rightly be the bigger part of any such planning around power generation – but a handful of experts on market and economics, would have surely helped.
The first draft is not a binding on the planners but given the extent of discontent that the stakeholders have shown, the whole exercise may need to be redone. Some stakeholders fear the Central Power Purchasing Agency (CPPA) has often cited similar reports for decisions surrounding power load forecast and purchasing plan for future.
It does sound disturbing if coal-based generation is supposed to have more say in the dependable base load than hydropower in the longer run. Having coal-based generation as a short-term or even a medium-term basis is one thing, prioritizing it over any other fuel type over a very long-term is entirely another. This has naturally irked many a player involved in some degree in the hydropower business, seeking massive changes in the draft.
What makes matters worse is that the report caps useful life for hydropower plants at just 60 years, whereas that for nuclear plants at 70. It is common knowledge that hydropower plants go to a standard 100 useful years and beyond – and that in fact is the biggest selling point. Capping the useful life at 50 years puts hydropower at a disadvantage and sends it down the pecking order.
This is one of the many shortcomings that are very obvious in the report. Some of more technical nature have also been pointed out by others. It can be said with some degree of certitude that this report will undergo massive changes. But this should also be lesson for the NTDC to learn from where they went wrong and do better next time. Consulting in advance for once and having people on board from more diversified backgrounds for the other – should be a good starting point.
Comments
Comments are closed.