The year 2012 sits uncomfortably at crossroads of three ambitious energy development plans. Overlapping and, in some cases, impeding the larger objective, these plans -- Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission, ’Power to all by 2012’ and Rajeev Gandhi Vidyutikaran Yojana -- have been struggling to meet their individual targets. 2011 in perspective revealed the gaps in our planning, implementation and governance in the renewable energy sector. So, inherently the wish-list of 2012 suggests an extension of the frontiers of these multiple programmes by drawing upon the conterminous objectives.
First and foremost, the 11th Five Year Plan (2007-12) targeted capacity addition of 58,000 MW (according to the mid-term review) revised from the 78,700 MW proposed earlier. With the annual growth in power generation recorded at 5.56%, only 67.9% of the target has been realised yet. Desolately enough, besides the apparent constraints like delay in commissioning of projects, long outages, huge transmission and distribution losses (27%), the other factors that are impeding the growth in the power sector are constantly being overlooked.
Are there more intrinsic factors underpinning the situation which are being persistently ignored while reforming policies? Yes, the political structure and administrative debacle is one such factor with others attached to the allocation politics in terms of subsidy distribution as well as supply. It is apparent that failure to recognize them will lead to more challenges of ’rising expectations’ from the subsequent plans.
Under the purview of the 11th Five Year Plan, Government of India set another ambitious plan to provide ’Power to All by 2012’. It requires that the total installed capacity to be at least 2,00,000 MW by 2012 from the present level of 1,85,496 MW (as on 31.11.2011). Falling short of the capacity addition targeted in the past year, the transmission and distribution of the electricity produced hasn’t been very successful either. Despite the ’integrated system planning’ designed under this plan, India faced a 12.5% deficit on an average throughout the country. With a 26%
1 of households still lacking electricity connection, questioning our approach is surely a prerequisite for 2012 to challenge the old failed process and try not to run itself into the non-productive vicious circle.
Second, the Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojana (RGGVY) was set out to meet the rural electricification objectives by utilising both conventional and non-conventional energy resources (grid connected and off-grid). The end of 2011 was marked by about 47% of the rural households (including Below Poverty Line) being provided with electricity connection. Launched in April 2005, the programme has been fast approaching its number, but the challenge remains of how the ’electricification’ of the rural household is being carried out and is reported. A mere transmission pole in the village wouldn’t necessarily meet the purpose of electricification unless there is regular and adequate power supply and a connection to each of the household. Lack of availability of data on the progress, monitoring and evaluation report has added to the ambiguity of the situation. With most of the surveys (like NSS data) conducted independently pointing towards 34%
2 of the rural households still lacking electricity connection, the reports of RGGVY raises certain doubts in their approach, implementation and progress. This is definitely not to say that the program didn’t work or has failed, but its effectiveness can be challenged at many levels.
Third, the Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission (JNNSM), one of the most debated and discussed plan in the year 2011, will bring its phase I to end in 2012. As against the higher expectations, JNNSM was seen under-performing last year with anticipated continuation of the issues related to bankability, financial closures and technical feasibilities of some projects, in 2012. A parliamentary panel dismissed the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy’s (MNRE) approach to be ’disappointing’ and ’lackadaisical’. To add fuel to fire, recent disclosure by the Centre for Science and Environment blaming the Batch I bidding process to be unfair and favouring certain developers have further dissolved the idealistic and notional perceptions of the JNNSM. Should we wait and expect any more of these scams? The Ministry definitely doesn’t want to do so as it is evident from the fact that it progressed quickly into the bidding process for batch II last year. A premature euphoria was felt when the bidding rates dropped by 27% (as compared to Batch I); notwithstanding the number of projects that did not acquire financial closure, performance evaluation of the projects implemented or assessment of the projects missing their deadlines. Despite MNRE’s active role in proposing various incentives, reforms and programs to boost renewable energy development, the key issues plaguing the industry are still being ignored in policies and practices. If only, they were more strategic and effectively implemented, the growth trajectory of renewable energy would shoot up. However, on a positive note, the off-grid solar program was seen making some progress in 2011. Off-grid programs are constantly being experimented with innovation and practicality. Of the many successful case studies across India, community based and projects targeting industrial space seem most plausible. A trial and error method for implementation of off-grid solar requires both flexible policies as well as more broad incentive scheme.
In perspective, evaluating each of the above power development programmes, it is evident that the foundation fundamentals of these three flagship projects are pointing towards three basic goals: one, electrification of all households (rural and urban) in India; two, improving the quality and supply of electricity; three, boosting the renewable energy input in both grid and off gird electricity generation.
Now, the challenges that plague our routine Five Year Plans for energy seem to be duplicating themselves in other power reform schemes as well. One, bankability of the energy projects and hence their delay in commissioning; two, infrastructural deficiency - namely evacuation facilities, technology and transmission and distribution; third, political interference and influence in designing policies and reforms. The first two can be more or less dealt technically and administratively, what remains is the third challenge of bureaucratic pressure and power plays. Does our political and administrative structure perceive future without the sense of sight? Here lies the biggest differentiation between ’vision and delusion’. The lessons learnt from reviewing past year have the potential to reveal the gaps in our planning, implementation and governance in the conventional and alternative energy sector. Hopefully, 2012 would strive to reduce this disparity by identifying key common objectives and supplementing each other in meeting the larger goal of energy security.
(Sonali Mittra is a Research Assistant at Observer Research Foundation)
1 NSS 66th Round - 2009-10
2 NSS Round 66th - 2009 - 2010
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
PREV
