(Updated on 9/1/2013)
Following are the recently appeared Newspaper articles written by Mr. Asoka Abeygunawardana, Executive Director of the Energy Forum. Please visit the publication category for the archives.
(Updated on 1/9/2013)
The United Nations, since the collapse of Soviet Russia (USSR) and the end of cold war was more or less functioning as an arm of United States of America. During the last 20 years this situation prevailed at the UN climate Change negotiations as well.
Climate Change threatens all living species on earth. The climate negotiations started way back in 1990 and climate talks continued for a 20 year period across 17 climate summits without any significant progress.
The United States of America was at the center of the climate negotiations as it was the main culprit contributing to climate change. Although the US is home to only 4 percent of the world’s population, the United States has been responsible for 29 percent of carbon emissions over the past 150 years. This is three times as much as China’s contribution. On average, each person in the US emitted 720 tons of CO2 per year from 1960 to 2005. That is almost 14 times India’s per capita emissions, 55 times Sri Lanka's per capita emissions and ninety times the per capita emissions of the people of Kenya during the same period. Even today the emission of an average American is about 27 times that of a Sri Lanka. Despite having only a 4% of global population America was the world's largest carbon emitter till 2006 and is still the second highest CO2 emitter in the world next to China which has 20% of the world population.
The principle agreed at the very beginning of the climate change negotiations is "common but differentiated responsibility". This means that all countries need to act to mitigate climate change but certain countries have a greater responsibility. Why is this? When the carbon in fossil fuels is released to the atmosphere while burning, the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere increases. When carbon concentration increases the global temperature increases. If the global temperature increase is to be limited to 2 degrees centigrade against pre-industrial levels then the total amount that can be emitted needs to be limited. This limit is called 'the carbon budget'. As there is a limitation the issue of equity emerges. If it is a limited volume that can be emitted then all should have a fair share of it.
The developed countries had been burning fossil fuels and releasing carbon for a longer period than the developing countries and even at present the per capita emission level of developed countries is very high. Hence the developing countries should be allowed to occupy a larger share of the remaining carbon space over developed countries. That is why the developed countries have a greater responsibility to mitigate. Being the largest emitter, the US is the country that should lead the mitigation process from the front. Unfortunately it is not country that has a track record for fairness and justice and is the biggest climate terrorist in the world.
The United Nations has tried to curb this specific nation for the last 20 years. In 1997 the UN managed to tame America and convince them that they should take aggressive measures to reduce their carbon emissions by 17% during the period 2008-2012 against their 1997 level. However the expectations were short lived as Gorge W. Bush withdrew from Kyoto Protocol even before the start of the commitment period. Instead of reducing their emissions level by 17% as agreed at Kyoto, the US continued to increase its level by a further 5% by 2007. On the other hand, the 4th Assessment report of the IPCC published in 2007 highlighted that the US should reduce its carbon emissions by 30-50% by 2020 against its 2007 level if humankind is to limit global warming to 2 degrees centigrade and thereby have fighting chance for survival.
It is clear that the US is robbing the carbon space of developing countries in direct violation of UN climate change decisions. Fortunately due to the financial crisis that occurred in the US it could not further increase its emissions level since 2007. Now the US is using its veto power to avoid taking decisions at climate change conferences. This veto power is vested in them not due to being a member of Security Council of the UN but due to being the largest polluter in the world.
The developing world during this period continued their efforts and tried to negotiate with US at the UN conferences to protect their environmental space without much success. UN had a last try to get the commitment of US to agree to emission reduction target at the recently concluded Durban climate conference. The United States blocked these moves and undermined progressive countries from taking action. The US played the "quiet man" role at the Durban summit and refused to commit to set dates for legally binding emissions reduction targets.
An extraordinary move was needed to prevent a climate catastrophe. At Durban, the European Union together with the Alliance of Small Island States (Aosis), the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and some other developing countries who are vulnerable to climate change tried their best to get a result at Durban. The emerging economies of Brazil and the host South Africa supported the move.
Canada which should have reduced its emissions by 6% against its 1990 level has by 2009 increased its emissions by 20% and acted contrary to what was agreed at Kyoto. Canada had no other option but to speak against a Kyoto second commitment period and to take most of the heat at the Durban conference on behalf of US as the US was barely visible, at the negotiating table. Without the active participation of America the climate talks reached its official deadline without any conclusion. It was clear then that UN climate talks cannot proceed any further with US.
It was the time to think of a UN without US. The developing world led by China and India took the bold decision of addressing the issue of climate change without the world's biggest polluter - the US at the expense of climate justice. Finally, thirty-six hours after the climate change conference official closing time, the developing countries together with the EU agreed to ignore US and to proceed towards climate compatible development.
At the end a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol was agreed upon even though the major polluters US, Japan, Canada and Russia were not participating. Further all developing countries led by China and India agreed to work towards a legally binding targets though they will miss the opportunity to have fair share of carbon emissions forever.
The European Union will place its current emission-cutting pledges inside the legally-binding Kyoto Protocol, a key demand of developing countries. Talks on a new legal deal covering all countries will begin next year and end by 2015, coming into effect by 2020. Management of a fund for climate aid to poor countries has also been agreed, though how to raise the money has not.
Is this a win for America? At a glance it is so; however in the long run it is defeat for US as it got geopolitically isolated on climate in Durban. Isolating the US does not mean giving them power but significantly suggests that the rest of the world can move without them. The US was demolishing the climate talks and continuing the blame game by pointing fingers at China and India. For America it’s an immense failure of leadership and loss of prestige as a leader in global attempts to deal with catastrophic global warming. President Barak Obama proved once again that for America "Change- No they can't": It is now clear that there is no future for America without a change.
Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), had to say this: “The tragedy of the position that the U.S. is taking is that not only does it act here in Durban in a way that is not particularly ambitious, but the more tragic part about it is that the U.S. is cutting off its possibilities to be a leader in this field, to be a leader in green technology [and thus] to create jobs. … The U.S. is losing leadership to China.”
Compromise made by the developing countries is not a weakness but it is going to be their strength. The developing world has realized that their development path is no more laid along emitting more and more carbon by burning fossil fuels. In the future the developing world will establish not the fossil fuel infrastructure but climate compatible infrastructure. The developing world will no more follow the footsteps of the developed world but bypass the fossil fuel route and will be pioneering the technologies of the new era. China has already started that and others will soon follow. Step by step it will become a battle between the US and the rest of the world where the weaker opponent will undoubtedly be the US. Imposing sanctions on the US compelling it to mitigate climate change may be a reality in the years to come. Durban is not the end but a beginning of a new era of climate talks.
(Updated on 1/9/2013)
The only significant milestone in the 20 years-long UN Climate Change negotiations was the Kyoto Protocol (KP) signed in 1997. The first commitment period of the KP for Green House Emissions reduction is coming to an end by the end of 2012 (next year). The steps relating to the post Kyoto commitment period, need to be discussed and finalized at the upcoming United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change - 17th Conference of Parties (UNFCCC - COP 17) to be held from 27th Nov. to 9th December 2011 in Durban in South Africa. The Sri Lankan delegation for this UN conference will be led by Hon. Anura Priyadarshana Yapa - Minister of Environmental Affairs, Hon. Patali Champika Ranawaka - Minister of Power & Energy and Hon. Mahinda Amaraweera - Minister of Disaster Management.
The Climate Change negotiations started at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio in 1992. One of the major outcomes of the UNCED was the establishment of the UNFCCC. Since then the world leaders discussed whether Climate Change is real or not and what measures need to be taken to mitigate climate change. After a series of discussions the world leaders finally agreed to sign the Kyoto Protocol during COP-3 in 1997.
The major distinction between the Kyoto Protocol and the United Nations Framework Convention is that while the Convention encouraged industrialized countries to stabilize GHG emissions, the protocol commitsthem to do so. Recognizing that developed countries are principally responsible for the current high levels of Green House Gas (GHG) emissions in the atmosphere as a result of more than 150 years of industrial activity (their historical responsibility), the protocol places a heavier burden on developed nations under the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities". The major feature of the Kyoto Protocol was that it set binding targets for 37 industrialized countries (also known as Annex 1 parties) for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The percentage of emissions of Annex I Parties is 63.7% of the total global emissions. The percentage reduction of the Kyoto binding targets is an average of - 5% against 1990 levels of those countries. This target is to be achieved during 2008-2012 period. The Protocol was ratified and entered into force only in February 2005 with not less than 55 countries including Annex I countries which accounted in total for at least 55 % of the total carbon dioxide emissions.
Under the Treaty, countries must meet their targets primarily through national measures. However, the Kyoto Protocol offered them an additional means of meeting their targets by way of three market-based mechanisms. The Kyoto mechanisms were: Emissions trading – known as “the carbon market", Clean development mechanism (CDM), and Joint implementation (JI). Out of the 37 industrialized countries the United States of America, the biggest carbon emitter in the world, refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol. As a result the USA has become the major culprit in the world carrying the world towards climate catastrophe.
By 2009, the Annex I countries which signed the Kyoto Protocol managed to reduce their carbon emissions level by -15% against their 1990 levels. On the other hand, the main carbon emitter - the USA - which was the Annex I country which did not sign the protocol increased its emissions by +7% in 2009 against its 1990 level. Under protocol the US was supposed to reduce its carbon emissions by -7% during the period from 2008-2012. The resultant average emissions reductions made by all Annex I countries including US was +5% in 2009 against their 1990 level. Does this indicate that the Annex I countries are on target to avoid climate catastrophe despite the hindrances created by the USA? Unfortunately the answer is no. Let us investigate why.
The climate negotiations started way back in 1992 and the legally binding targets of the Kyoto Protocol were discussed and finalized in 1997. However a dramatic turn took place in 2007 when the Fourth Assessment report of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was made public. The report which was compiled in consultation with over 3000 scientists around the world stated that the -5% reduction by developed countries was simply not adequate to avoid climate catastrophe. It stated that the mean global temperature has already increased by 0.74oC during the period 1906-2005. The report stated that even with the most stringent controls, the world could only limit the global mean temperature increasing to 2 - 2.4C above pre-industrial level. Even that level of control would require world emissions to peak by 2015 the latest and decline by -50% compared to 1990 emissions by 2050. As a result the target suggested for Annex I countries increased to a -20%-40% reduction by 2020 and an -80% reduction by 2050. This is a drastic increase in responsibility when compared to Kyoto target of -5% reduction. Further, the developing world too should take measures to control its carbon emissions rate and reduce their emissions level to -30% by 2050 against their 1990 level. The Bali Roadmap was the outcome of the Bali UNFCCC conference held in 2007 to meet this much more aggressive revised target.
The Bali Action Plan, launched a comprehensive process to enable the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention through long-term cooperative action, now, up to and beyond 2012, in order to reach an agreed outcome and adopt a decision at its fifteenth session in Copenhagen in December 2009. However the world’s leaders tragically failed to achieve this critically important 2009 target agreed to in Bali.
So what is going to happen after the Kyoto Protocol’s first commitment period which terminates at the end of 2012? The Bali Action Plan established an Ad Hoc Working Group on further Commitments for Annex I countries under the Kyoto Protocol. The working group should have aim to complete its work and have its results adopted by the UNFCCC in time to ensure that there is no gap between the first and second commitment periods. After five and a half years of negotiations the working group reflected only on country positions and their concerns, but did not resolve them, most notably, the central issue of the second commitment period. The negotiations have reached a dead-end and further progress is not possible without clarity on overarching political decisions.
The developed countries should have had a higher level of commitment and political will to achieve mitigation targets and need to ensure the continuation of climate related market-based mechanisms, especially the clean development mechanism. However reaching consensus for a second commitment period by the beginning of 2013 does not appear achievable and smooth continuity of the Kyoto Protocol beyond the end of 2012 is an unlikely event. Some developed countries have already declared that they will not take mitigation commitments under the Kyoto Protocol in a second commitment period. The negative approach of USA and the never ending carbon emissions growth in the developing world which increased its carbon emissions by 130% in 2009 against its 1990 levels has led the Annex I countries to this unfortunate non-binding situation.
The Ad hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action was working towards a shared vision for long-term cooperative action since the Bali conference of 2007. This group was working towards enhanced action on mitigation; nationally appropriate mitigation commitments by developed and developing countries; enhanced action on adaptation; finance for mitigation and adaptation in developing countries; technology development and transfer to developing countries and capacity-building for over 5 years - all without success.
The Kyoto Protocol, in its current form, is out of date. Delegates from nearly 200 countries meet in Durban South Africa from November 28th onwards for major climate talks. However these talks will deliver neither an extension of the Kyoto commitment period with updated binding targets nor a second commitment period nor a new mechanism to mitigate climate change. It is likely that the existing Kyoto targets for the 2008-12 period may be merely extended for a couple of years. Kyoto can still survive, only for regular reporting of emissions, market mechanisms that allow emissions trading and compliance. Many of the provisions can still function without new targets.
The U.N.-led climate talks wanted an agreement from all big polluting nations on stronger emissions curbs amidst soaring greenhouse gas emissions and a string of weather disasters across the globe. Some countries now say a new deal will not be in place until after 2020. The most likely outcome would be only a modest step toward a broader deal to cut greenhouse gas pollution to fight climate change. Scientists say global pledges to curb carbon pollution won't prevent the planet heating up beyond two degrees Celsius, a threshold scientists say risks wilder weather, crop failures, melting ice caps and major floods. This will increase the stress on the poor and they will be struggling for survival under catastrophic climatic conditions in the near future. Man-made climate change results in 2 million premature deaths worldwide every year and threatens water and food security - especially among those ‘bottom 3 billion’. A sustainable future based on the continued extraction of coal, oil and gas in the ‘business-as-usual mode’ will not be possible because of both resource depletion and environmental damages.
Evidently, these are not great problems for decision makers and power-brokers around the planet. They are happy to maintain the existing status-quo for self-gain alone and as such, the world after 20 years of never ending talk fests has shamed itself by literally paying only lip-service to a globe threatening crisis. That successive world leaders have all trod this selfish path to doom is a damning indictment of both their vision and their ability to lead the world’s peoples.
(Updated on 1/9/2013)
The electricity tariff is to be revised twice a year. This is on the 1st of January and the 1st of July each year. Accordingly there was a tariff revision made on 1st of Jan 2011. There was no adjustment made on the 1st of July this year but a tariff revision will be made on the 1st of January 2012 and studies relating to the revision are currently under way.
Revising the electricity tariff does not always imply a tariff increase. It is an adjustment made to the tariff based on the actual cost of electricity. In most instances the tariff increases but there is the possibility of a drop due to decrease in fuel prices. The government has introduced a transparent mechanism to review and revise the tariff since the beginning of 2011.
Each year the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB) formulates an expenditure estimate for the coming year and submits it to the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL) and to the Ministry of Power and Energy. Both the Ministry of Power and Energy and the PUCSL (which is the independent power sector regulator) carefully study the estimates, conduct discussions with the CEB and make necessary revisions accordingly. Here the role of the PUCSL is to ensure that the costs are reasonable and corruption and inefficiencies are minimized.
Next it is necessary to formulate a tariff structure to recover the costs to make the CEB financially sustainable. Firstly the PUCSL calculates the estimated total income of the CEB under the existing tariff for the coming year. If revenue is estimated to be higher than expenditure then the PUCSL will reduce the consumer tariff while making the CEB breakeven financially. On the other hand if the estimated revenue is lower than the estimated expenditure then the consumer tariff will be increased to ensure that the CEB breaks even.
If the CEB is to run at a loss then the Treasury has to inject money to bridge the gap. As the Treasury is generating revenue from different forms of taxes it will be the general public that has to settle the bill finally. This is not a favorable situation as the people who do not have access to grid electricity and those who are consuming very small amounts of electricity will also be forced to pay for those who consume more. This is an injustice to those segments of society. Therefore it is the duty of the PUCSL to ensure that the full cost of electricity will be charged from electricity consumers.
Another duty of the PUCSL is to ascertain whether the cost estimates of the previous year were accurate. If there is a difference between the actual values and estimated values then these should be adjusted for the forthcoming year. If the estimated values were higher than the actual values then that implies that the CEB has charged more from the consumers during the previous year. Accordingly, the consumer bill for the forthcoming year will be lowered. On the other hand if the estimated value is lower than the actual value during the previous year then the CEB has charged less from the consumers during previous year. Accordingly, the consumer bill for the forthcoming year will be raised.
A full review of the electricity tariff is planned to be made in 2015. However as the new tariff structure was introduced only last year the PUCSL has decided to entertain public comments this year too to rectify if there are any weaknesses in the existing tariff structure.
The PUCSL after analyzing the estimated costs and revenues for the year 2012 will present the outcomes to the government and the general public. These PUCSL proposals are then reviewed by the General Treasury and the Ministry of Power and Energy. If the government is not satisfied with the proposals of the PUCSL then the Government can introduce new policies so that both the objectives of the PUCSL and the Government can be achieved at the same time. A clear example for this is a possible subsidy given for fuel to be used for power generation. In that case the total cost of the power sector is reduced and the benefit the CEB gets will be passed onto electricity consumers. The government should arrive at such decisions by carefully weighing the pros and cons of such decisions.
The negotiations between the CEB and the PUCSL on the 2012 cost estimates are now concluded. The PUCSL has already formulated their tariff options for the next year and submitted the same to the government and is awaiting its response. After getting the consent of the government for the proposed tariffs, the PUCSL will make a public announcement to obtain citizen responses.
The CEB annual cost for 2011 as estimated at the beginning of 2011 was Rs. 160 billion. However, in order to reduce costs, and improve overall performance of the CEB, the Hon. Patali Champika Ranawaka, Minister of Power and Energy recently introduced new management tools to make internal processes more efficient and transparent. Accordingly, based on instructions by the Ministry of Power and Energy, the CEB has taken steps to introduce '5S', 'Balance scorecard', Management by Objectives (MBO) and ISO 9001 process management tools for improving its performance. As a result of these measures, cost estimates were reduced to Rs. 145 billion for 2011. If the total estimated cost were to be charged from the consumers then the electricity bill was to be increased by 30% against the previous year. However His Excellency the president Mahinda Rajapakse advised the treasury to provide a subsidy of Rs. 15 billion to the CEB so that a marginal increase of the electricity bill was adequate to make the CEB breakeven financially. The expected revenue of CEB for the year was about Rs. 130 billion and no electricity tariff increase was applied to domestic sector consumers consuming less than 120 units per month. CEB sources claim that they have not yet received their treasury grant entitled for 2011.
It is now clear that the cost estimations made for 2011 at the beginning of the year were much less than the actual cost. The reason for this difference was the failure of the south-west monsoon rainfall to the catchment areas of the hydro power plants from May- July. Due to dry conditions prevailed during that period the CEB was forced to generate power from expensive oil fired power plants to provide an uninterrupted power supply to the consumers.
The CEB cost estimates for the coming year exceeds Rs 210 billion. However with the interventions made by the Hon. Minister of Power and Energy and the PUCSL, the CEB has agreed to reduce the overall cost by Rs. 20 billion. Accordingly the revised cost estimates is in the range of Rs. 190 billion.
According to these revisions, the expenditure for the coming year is calculated as follows: The estimated number of units of electricity to be purchased from private power plants is 4300 Giga Watt Hours (GWh). The amount to be paid to the private firms to purchase that electricity is about Rs. 80 billion. The CEB owned LakWijaya coal power plant is estimated to produce 1750 GWh at a cost of about Rs. 13 billion. The CEB’s oil fired power plants are supposed to produce about 1700 GWh at a cost of about Rs. 40 billion. This amount will be mainly paid to the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) for purchasing fuel for oil fired power plants. If the CPC is to increase the price of oil supplied for power generation in 2012, then this estimated amount will be further increased. The hydro power sector is expected to produce 3340 GWh and the estimated cost of production is estimated at Rs. 10 billion. Cost of purchasing renewable energy from private sector is estimated at Rs. 8 billion. Accordingly, the total cost of power generation will be about Rs. 150 billion. In addition, for power transmission, the CEB is expected to spend Rs. 7.5 billion and for distribution the expenditure would be Rs. 27.5 billion. The total cost of salaries and wages of CEB employees for the coming year is about Rs. 15 billion.
The total cost for the CEB will be increased from Rs. 145 billion in 2011 to Rs. 190 billion in 2012. There are a number of reasons for this increase. Firstly, the electricity demand of the country is expected to increase by 8% against the previous year. This additional demand will be met using expensive oil fired power plants. The other reason for the increase in the total cost is a salary increase to be given to the employees of the CEB which is estimated to cost a further 2 billion. According to the Meteorological department the coming year is expected to be a relatively drier year. This is also a reason for expected cost increase as the units generated from hydropower will be reduced from 3500 in 2011 to 3330 in 2012. This reduction of 170 GWh is to be generated from expensive oil and coal power plants increasing the total cost of production.
The next challenge to be faced by the CEB is the increases in fuel prices. The price of coal will be increased from USD 115 per ton in 2010-11 to USD 145 per ton in 2011-12. It will be a 20% increase. Accordingly the CEB has to pay an additional Rs. 2 billion for purchasing coal. Further the price of oil in the world market has increased by 38% against the previous year. The CPC sells the oil to the CEB at market prices and if the government decides to pass the additional cost to the CEB then the total cost of CEB may be further increased by about Rs. 16 billion. Further, due to changes in the exchange rate, the capital repayments of power plants may increase by another Rs. 2 billion. If all these unfavorable conditions occur in 2012 then the PUCSL needs to find ways and means of bridging this gap.
In 2011 the estimated average cost of a unit of electricity was Rs. 14.89. The unit rate charged from domestic sector consumers using below 160 units per month is lower than this average value. This segment covers 95% of the total domestic sector consumers. Further, industrial and hotel consumers get electricity at a subsidized rate. Thus, if the CPC is providing oil at a subsided rate to the CEB then it is clear that it is passed onto these consumers. Further, the average rate of sales of the CEB in 2011 was Rs. 13.67 implying that CEB losses Rs.1.22 from each unit sold to the consumers. The CEB spends about Rs. 12-15 billion annually for extending the national grid to remote locations of the country, for enhancing transmission and for generation expansion projects. This amount is more than the subsidy given by the CPC to the CEB while purchasing heavy fuel oil.
In this context it will be necessary for the PUCSL to increase the electricity tariff or for the Treasury to provide an adequate subsidy to bridge the gap and ensure financial stability for the CEB. Accordingly the general public must come up with new ideas and suggestions for formulating a better tariff policy for Sri Lanka. As there will be a public hearing to provide such inputs in the coming weeks the people should utilize this opportunity optimally for the benefit of both the power sector and the electricity consumers of Sri Lanka.
(Updated on 1/9/2013)
Following are the recently appeared Newspaper articles written by Mr. Asoka Abeygunawardana, Executive Director of the Energy Forum. Please visit the publication category for the archives.
(Updated on 9/23/2011)
The power crisis has become a hot topic these days. The experts and politicians are accusing each other for the crisis situation. As certain issues are highly technical, it is necessary to analyze the data carefully in the proper context to understand the real situation.
At present the annual electricity requirement in Sri Lanka is about 11,000 GWh and the installed power plant capacity is about 2700 MW. This installed capacity consists of 1200 MW of hydro power and 1500 MW of thermal power. The thermal power plants generate electricity by firing coal, Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) and diesel. The cheapest option for power generation is hydropower as it has no fuel cost involved. The most expensive option is diesel and the costs of HFO & coal are in between these two.
The total electricity requirement in the country is about 33 GWh/day at present. The power requirement varies during the day and the day time (from 6.30 am – 6.30 pm) demand is about 1200-1400 MW. The demand increases and reaches a peak of about 2000 MW during the night from 6.30 pm -9.30 pm. Again it drops to about 800 MW during the night bay which is from 9.30 pm -6.30 am. The utility has the responsibility of providing uninterrupted power supply to this varying daily demand.
The CEB needs to prioritize and operate the power plants owned by both the CEB and IPPs (Independent Power Producers) to minimize the cost of generation while ensuring uninterrupted power supply to the consumers. During the rainy seasons the hydro power plants are utilized to the optimum to minimize the cost of generation. If those plants are not utilized adequately during the rainy season then ponds and reservoirs spill and water is released without generating power. On the other hand during the dry season the hydro power is used for peaking purposes only to minimize operating expensive diesel power plants. Some of the hydro power plants are used during the day time as spinning reserves to absorb the load fluctuations and hence to stabilize the system. As the peak load is about 2000 MW at present it is not possible to meet the peak demand purely using thermal power plants as the installed thermal power plant capacity is only 1500 MW. The balance should be supplied from hydropower.
In early 1990’s Hydro power contributed to generate over 90% of annual electricity requirement, however due to increase in demand the situation has changed drastically. Hydro power contribution is now reduced to 40-50%. The 2011 estimated hydro power supply is, about 4100 GWh. At present if the total consumption is to be satisfied using hydro power, then hydropower will be adequate only for 133 days. On the other hand the hydro power alone cannot meet the peak demand as the peak is higher than the installed hydro capacity.
Currently 90% of power is generated from thermal power plants and the residual 10% is generated from hydropower. The capacity of the coal power plant is 300 MW and it is at present generating about 6 GWh/day. This is about 20% of the daily electricity need. The HFO contributes to generate about 16 GWh/day (50% of total) with a capacity of about 700 MW and the Diesel contribution is about 7 GWh/day (20% of the total) having a capacity of about 300 MW. The balance 4 GWh/day (10% of the total) is generated from hydropower plants. As hydro power is seasonal, the present effective hydropower plant capacity is only about 500 MW. During this period of the year hydro power generation mainly comes from Laxapana Complex (about 3 GWh) as it gets benefitted from the South West monsoon. Kukule generates about 0.5 GWh and the Mahaweli reservoirs collectively generate only 0.5 GWh.
The year 2011 recorded the decade’s lowest South West monsoon rain fall to the catchment areas of hydro power reservoirs. The water inflow to the hydro power reservoirs during the period from May to September was only 865 GWh; the lowest of the decade.
It is also note worthy that the electricity demand in Sri Lanka was rising at a rate of 7% per annum during the last two decades. In 2000 the annual electricity demand was only 6700 GWh and by 2010 it had increased to 10,700 GWh. This year it is expected to increase it to 11,200 GWh (see graph 2). The hydro power plant capacity has not changed significantly as almost all the large hydro power potential is already tapped. In this context it is not possible to adopt the same old tactics to manage the system.
Taking into consideration the average amount of rains experienced during the month of June there is a decline of 70% in rainfall this year. Generally for a 30 year average Castlereagh receives 631 mm of rains, but this time it was limited to 230 mm. Maussakale average is 530 mm however it received only 170 mm this year. This situation arose especially during the months of May and June. Moreover monsoon rainfall was experienced not in the higher elevation areas which feeds the ponds but in the low lying populated areas. Meteorologists have cited the changes in the wind pattern for this difference. As a result of low rainfalls during the South West monsoon the hydro power storage in the reservoirs reduced to about 300 GWh by the end of August. This is around 25% of the total reservoir capacity. This water level is the lowest recorded during the last decade.
Some argue that this situation occurred due to mismanagement of water in the reservoirs. Their argument is based on the fact that the 2010 North East monsoon and the rain-fall in the first quarter of 2011was higher than the average. It is true that the rainfall during that period was high however it is also true that the storage level at the beginning of May was higher than the previous years (see graph 3). It is not recommended to maintain the water level at an unnecessarily higher level at the beginning of the May as there is a possibility that the ponds and reservoirs may spill when the flash rains occur at the beginning of the South West monsoon. It is clear that the CEB has kept the water at appropriate levels at the start of May and hence it is not a matter of mismanagement.
The officials were expecting heavy rainfalls as usual at the beginning of the South West monsoon and kept the water levels at the start of May at a reasonably higher level when compared with last 2 years (see graph 3). Soon the CEB officials realized that the expected heavy showers are unlikely and decided to use the water sparingly.
The water in the reservoirs is used for multi-purposes: water supply, irrigation and power. The decisions regarding releasing the water in the reservoirs are taken by the CEB, irrigation, Mahaweli Authority and Water Secretariat officials collectively. The priority is always given to irrigation as that affects the Mahaweli farmers and food production in Sri Lanka. Issuing of water for cultivation in the Yala season was essential. Even with the reduction in rainfall, with the influx of farmers seeking to cultivate their land after the war, adequate amounts of water had to be released to meet their agricultural requirements.
The situation worsened with the inability to generate the anticipated power output from the Puttalam “Lakwijaya” coal power station and the Kerawalapitiya combined cycle power plant. While the Lakwijaya power plant was scheduled to commence operation at the beginning of this year, it was expected to add 720 GWh of power to the National Grid during the first 6 months of this year, but due to the delay in commencement and the technical faults experienced it was only able to add 265 GWh of energy to the National Grid.
Furthermore due to fuel supply related issues which arose at the Kerawalapitiya combined cycle Power plant, of the 670 GWh power generation expected from this power plant, only 275 GWh of energy was generated. The CEB is bound to purchase oil from the CPC. The recent delays of CPC on purchasing oil affected the operation of the Kerawalapitiya Power plant. The CPC tender for purchasing oil for Kerawalapitiya plant was cancelled on 5 occasions. As the situation worsened the CEB insisted the CPC to supply HFO immediately. The CPC accepted that it was their fault and hence they finally agreed to the supply Diesel instead of low sulphur HFO, not at the diesel price but at the HFO price until HFO is supplied to the Kerawalapitiya power plant. The CPC is responsible for this situation and there is no way that they can put the blame on the others.
Recently there was another allegation made against the CEB officials regarding releasing water from the Rantambe pond without generating electricity. The news item highlighted that the water released in Rantambe is equivalent to 15 GWh of electricity. The system control officials of the CEB claim that this news item is factually incorrect and misleading. What actually occurred at Rantambe is that the CEB on a request made by the Mahaweli Authority has released water equivalent to 0.14 GWh through the bottom outlet when the water level of the pond is not capable of generating power. This water release was done to ascertain dam safety issues and to inspect the extensive repair works carried out to intake screen three years ago which could be inspected when the pond is emptied.
As the electricity demand in Sri Lanka is increasing at an annual growth rate of about 7% it is necessary to double the generation in every 10 years. It is necessary to add 200 MW of new power plants each year to meet this increasing demand. The governments that ruled the country before 2005 are responsible for the present crisis as it takes over 5-10 years to establish power plants in a systematic way. The UNP parliamentarians cannot put the blame on the present government for the power crisis we are experiencing today, as they failed to implement appropriate long term generation expansion plans while they were in power.
The challenges facing the present government are enormous. They have to manage the crisis situation carefully. Necessary short term measures should be taken to ensure uninterrupted power supply at the lowest possible cost. In the years to come: oil price hikes are a reality and it will have a huge impact on the oil fired power plants; Climate change is a reality and it will have a huge impact on both coal fired power and hydro power. Unlike previous governments the present government should take necessary steps to formulate and implement appropriate long term generation expansion plans to meet this increasing demand.
(Updated on 2/23/2011)
The annual electricity demand growth rate in Sri Lanka is 6-7% at present. In order to meet this increasing demand the electricity generation capacity needs to be doubled every ten years. This never ending growth cannot be sustained forever as the fossil fuel era has reached its ultimate dead-end. It is likely that we may have to name this new era as REEE era (Era of Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency). Hence while exploring the possibilities of developing sustainable energy resources, similar attention should be paid to demand side management as well during this transition period.
The existing electricity system does not support both demand side management and decentralized power generation. The system we have today was built in the 1950's. The Minister of Power and Energy has recently given instructions to the CEB and the LECO to explore the possibilities of up scaling the existing electricity grid to a Smarter Grid and of introducing electronic meters. In the Indian subcontinent, Pakistan Electric Power Company (Pepco) and Lahore Electric Supply Company (Lesco) have already announced plans to install smart meters. It is reported that in Pakistan the smart meter deployment could save billions of rupees. In India officials estimate that electricity theft can be reduced by almost 60 percent, potentially saving IRs. 30 billion a year.
The mostly used electricity meter in Sri Lanka is the electromechanical induction watt-hour meter. These meters operate by counting the revolutions of an aluminium disc which is made to rotate at a speed proportional to energy usage. The recently introduced electronic meters display the energy used on an LCD or LED display. In addition to measuring energy used, electronic meters can also record other parameters of the load and supply such as maximum demand, power factor and reactive power used etc. These meters can transmit readings to remote places. Hence the load profile data can be processed for billing and planning purposes. Automatic Meter Reading and Remote Meter Reading allow meters to be checked without the need to send a meter reader out. Modern electronic meters, in conjunction with smart cards, have removed the disadvantage of earlier meters used for customers considered to be a poor credit risk. Pre-paid systems are possible with electronic meters and when the available credit is exhausted the supply of electricity can be cut off by a relay.
The electric industry is poised to make the transformation from a centralized, producer-controlled network to a decentralized and more consumer-interactive one to meet future challenges. A smart meter is a good example of an enabling technology that makes it possible to extract value from two-way communication in support of distributed technologies and consumer participation. The move to a smarter grid promises to change the industry’s entire business model and its relationship with all stakeholders. They can support time-of-use billing, for example, recording the amount of energy used during on-peak and off-peak hours. The meters can store the entire usage profiles with time stamps and relay them at the click of a button. Real-time load monitoring provides consumers with the ability to use electricity more efficiently and provides utilities with the ability to detect problems on their systems and operate them more efficiently.
The electricity tariff scheme introduced for 2011 in Sri Lanka includes the Time of Use (TOU) tariff for the industries. Accordingly energy is priced on what it costs in near real-time. With the introduction of the Smart Grid in the future the price signals can be relayed to “smart” controllers attached the industries. The price related signals can be sent to the major energy consuming devices like thermostats, washer/dryers, and refrigerators that are used by the domestic sector high end-consumers as well. The devices, in turn, process the information based on consumers' wishes. Because of this interaction there will be dramatic savings on energy that would otherwise be consumed during the peak hours.
Smart Grid is capable of sensing system overloads and rerouting power to prevent or minimize a potential outage; of working autonomously when conditions require resolution faster than humans can respond. It is also capable of meeting increased consumer demand without adding infrastructure. The Smart Grid is capable of delivering the power quality necessary free of sags, spikes, disturbances, and interruptions.
Most importantly Smart Grid can accept energy from virtually any fuel source including solar and wind as easily and transparently as coal and oil; capable of integrating any and all better ideas and technologies such as energy storage technologies. The grid also encompasses myriads of local area networks that use distributed energy resources to serve local loads and/or to meet specific application requirements for remote power, village or district power, premium power, and critical loads protection.
It will allow customers to manage their electricity demand in a way they can’t today. The new devices allow residential customers to monitor their usage in hourly increments from a computer, cell phone or other device. Hence electricity consumption can be minimized by the occupants as they would then be more aware of the usage. Further they can generate power from their surroundings and supply it to the national grid when they are generating excess power. Smart Grid may spur the kind of transformation that the internet has brought to the way we live, work, play, and learn. A smarter grid applies technologies, tools, and techniques ensuring its reliability to degrees never before possible, fully accommodating renewable and traditional energy sources, and potentially reducing the carbon footprint. Smart grid is the power grid of REEE Era. It is the high time for the government to take necessary steps to convert the existing grid to a smarter grid to meet the challenges of the post fossil fuel era.