බලාගාර ආශ්‍රිත ජලාශ වල ජල මට්ටම පහළට – අඛණ්ඩ විදුලි සැපයුමට බාධා – හදිසි විදුලි මිලදී ගැනීමකට රජයේ අවධානය

NEWSNOW |COLOMBO – ????? ????? ???????? ??????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ????????, ??????? ?? ???????? ??????? ??????????? ???? ??????.

??? ?????? ???????? ??????? ??????? ???? ??????? ??? ?? ?? ??? ??????? ????????? ?????????? ??????? ????????? ??? ?????????? ????? ???.

????? ?????? ????????? ?????????? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ?????????? ??????? ??????????? ?????.

??? ?????? ???????? ??????? ??????? ???? ????? ???, ?? ?? ??? ????? ?????? 48% ?? ????? ??? ???? ??? ????.

??? ??????? ?????, ????? ?????? ?????? ????????? ?? ????? ? ??? ??????? ??? ?.

??????? ??????? ???? ????? ???, ?? ??????? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ??????? ?????????? ???????????? ?????? ????? ??? ????.

????? ??????? ???????? ??????? ?????, ??????? ?????????????? ????? ???????? ????????? ??? ????? ????? ?? ? ???????? ?? ?????????? ??????? ???????????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ??????? ???? ??????? ??? ?.

?? ??? ???????????? ?? ??????? ???? ??????? ?????????? ??? ??? ??????? ???????? ???????? ???? ??? ????? ???????.

???????? ???? ???????????? ? ??????????? ????? ?????????? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ??????.

ලංකා විදුලි මණ්ඩලය සහ ගුවන් හමුදාවෙන් කෘත්‍රීම වැසි

??????????? ?? ???? ?????????  ????? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ????????? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ????? ?? (22) ????????? ????? ?????.

????? ???? ????? ??????? ??? 12 ????? ?????? ??????????? ?????? ?????? ??? 8000 ?????? ?? ?????????? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ???????? ??????????? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ????? ???.

????? ??????? ???? ??????????? ???? ?????? ??????? ????? ???????? ??? ?? ????? ????? ?? ?? ???12 ????? ??????? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ??? 8000 ?????? ?? ??????? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? 45  ?????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????  ??????? ?? ???????? ????????? ???? ??? ??? ????.

???? ?????? ?? ??????? ???????? ?? ?????????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ??????????? ??????? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ????????? ??????????? ???? ??????.

1980 ????? ??????? ?? ??????????? ?? ???? ????????? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ??????????? ??????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ??????????? ???? ???????.

????? ??? ????????? ?????? ??????????? ?? ???? ????????? ?????? ?? ???????  ??????? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ????????? ??????? ??????? ??? ??????? ????? ????? ?? ??????? ????? ???.

– ????? ?????? ???????

[The Island] Power cuts now inevitable due to govt dithering

By Rathindra Kuruwita

Power-cuts would have been inevitable even if the 2nd generator of the Norochcholai Coal Power Plant had not breakdown, yesterday, Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB) sources said adding that the government had to decide whether it would purchase emergency power or continue with extended power-cuts.

He said: “Power-cuts were scheduled anyway because there wasn’t adequate generation. The matter was only compounded by the breakdown of the 2nd generator. Now the government has to decide whether to purchase emergency power, at high costs that would lead to further losses for CEB or to cut power on a daily basis. It’s a loss situation either way.”

Commenting on the issue, CEB Engineers’ Union President Saumya Kumarawadu said that they had been warning the government for years that the country would face a crisis in 2019 because major low cost power plants were not set up since 2014. “There were plans to add another 500 megawatts to the system by 2019 but none of those plants were built. Not only is the CEB making losses because of this, Rs. 80 billion last year, but will now greatly inconvenience the people,” he said.

Meanwhile the engineers attached to the Norochcholai Coal Power Plant were not able to identify where the fault lay even by 9 pm last night. Indrajith Gallage, assistant general manager, of the Power Plant told The Island that they were still conducting inspections to determine how long it would take them to fix the 2nd generator that had to be shut down due to a technical issue. “It’s an electrical issue, so we have to see where the fault lies. This is an exhaustive process,” he said.

Due to the shutdown, power outages were reported from a number of areas across the country. “We are looking at the matter and we should be able to tell how long it will take to restore it. Hopefully we should be able to get the plant running soon,” he said. The unit that was shut down generated 270 MWs to the national grid. Thus there might be restrictions on power supply until the unit was restored, CEB Spokesperson, Sulakshana Jayawardane said.

Meanwhile industry experts expressed surprise at the fact that there was a failure at the 2nd generator that was overhauled by a Chinese team last year. “The system was overhauled mid-2018. This means that there has been a breakdown within 7 months. This raises serious questions, did the Chinese team mess the overhaul or did our guys mess it up?” he said.

Usually Coal Power Plants need to be overhauled once in four years. The 2nd generator, which was brought online in 2014, was overhauled last year.

http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=201254

Ada [19/03/2019] අනිවාර්යයෙන්ම තව වසර 4ක් 5ක් විදුලි අර්බුදයෙන් පීඩා විදින්න සිදු වෙනවා

??????????? ??? ??????? ?? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ????? ????? ????????

Sunday Times: LNG contract: Ministry extends deadline for companies to counter Korean offer

By Namini Wijedasa

The Power and Energy Ministry extended for a second time the deadline for companies to counter a Korean bid for an offshore floating storage and regasification unit (FSRU), pipeline and liquefied natural gas (LNG).

Bidders have now been given until February 28 to submit counter proposals under the Swiss Challenge procedure for the project, which will serve the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB). The first extension ended on Thursday. The Ministry initially advertised the contract in October last year, amidst political turmoil, granting prospective bidders just five weeks to apply.

The decision to extend was influenced by pressure from the CEB, Ministry sources said. Three members of the CEB resigned this week from the Swiss Challenge technical evaluation committee (TEC) protesting what they claimed were Ministry Secretary Suren Batagoda’s “high-handedness” and imposition of “ad hoc procedures”.

Earlier, the utility’s General Manager and its union of engineers had written to Ministry Secretary Suren Batagoda opposing moves to award the 20-year take-or-pay contract for LNG to a single entity. Both Mr A K Samarasinghe and the CEB Engineers’ Union (CEBEU) urge that the bid be “unbundled” into separate contracts for LNG supply and LNG infrastructure development.

“The unbundling of these two contracts is an absolute necessity to ensure more competition, transparency and best possible prices,” the CEBEU says. It calls for the Ministry to follow a competitive bidding process — rather than a Swiss Challenge — to procure LNG and to develop LNG infrastructure based on a “proper” request for proposals (RFP) document to ensure “transparency, fair competition and the maximum benefit at minimum cost to the country”.

It is also proposed that, instead of tying the country down to a 20-year deal, to limit LNG to a 10-year medium-term contract “due to the unpredictable LNG ecosystems in the world”. The CEBEU has warned that the value of the agreement, even in the medium term, could “easily go into trillions of rupees”.

The unsolicited bid first came from South Korea’s M/s SK E&S Company Ltd. The Ministry opened it out to other bidders “in order to allow this proposal to compete with other possible investors”. “If the original proponent is unable to match the counter proposal, the tender will be awarded to the prospective bidder, provided the agreement to pay the development cost of the original proponent,” the Ministry’s advertisement said.

The project includes the design, construction and installation of an FSRU to be moored approximately 9 km north-northwest of the Colombo Port entrance; supply of LNG (including transportation) by LNG carrier vessel to be moored near the FSRU; LNG to be re-gassified on board the FSRU with re-gassified LNG sent into two subsea pipelines. Each pipeline will then be routed to the power plants located at Kelanitissa and Kerawalapitiya.

The CEB has opposed the Swiss Challenge, saying such procedures are usually recommended where the buyer — in this case, the utility — is not capable of developing an RFP or where the seller is proposing an “extraordinary solution” having clear advantages over standard procedure. LNG procurement does not fall into either category. The utility maintains that it can develop a proper RFP with the assistance of a consultant.
“We also understand that there are a few other unsolicited proposals in the guise of Government-to-Government offers such as proposals from India/Japan/Sri Lanka and China/Sri Lanka joint partnerships to deploy LNG in Sri Lanka,” the CEBEU tells the Ministry, urging the Secretary not to proceed with them. “These proposals drastically deviate from the above detailed guidelines.”

However, new Power and Energy Minister Ravi Karunanayake (who was briefly in Singapore this week) has shown eagerness to proceed with the Korean Swiss Challenge. A cabinet paper is being prepared to nudge the process along, authoritative sources said.

Dr Batagoda also defends the project. He said, while the contracts could be unbundled into two, the Korean proposal ensures that the CEB gets the FSRU and pipeline for free. A joint venture will be formed for management in which the utility will hold a 49 percent stake. But ownership will be Sri Lanka’s “from day one”.
The CEB contends, however, that it must not be held hostage to this proposal as “the cost of the LNG terminal is almost negligible” when compared with the financial value of a 20-year LNG supply deal.

Daily Mirror: MOVE TO PURCHASE 100 MW ELECTRICITY IS VIOLATION OF ACT AND PROCUREMENT GUIDELINES

Power and Energy Minister Ravi Karunanayake submitted Cabinet memorandum on January 22 seeking approval to purchase 100 megawatts of supplementary electrical power

The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has informed the Cabinet Appointed Standing Procurement Committee that the move to purchase 100 megawatts of electricity was a gross violation of the Sri Lanka Electricity Act No 20 of 2009 and the Electricity (Procurement) Rules No 2 of 2016, it is learnt.

Power and Energy Minister Ravi Karunanayake submitted Cabinet memorandum on January 22 seeking approval to purchase 100 megawatts of supplementary electrical power. The tender was supposed to be called within ten days after.

According to engineers of the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB), such a purchase of electrical power from the private sector will cost Rs. 20 billion per year. The CEB is slated to incur a loss of Rs.80 billion this year. According to experts in the field, there is no such additional demand for power that warrants such purchases at this hour.

They said it was possible to strike a balance between the supply and demand at this moment, and therefore there could be the involvement of huge commissions in the move to make additional power purchases.

The CEB has now called for tenders to make the purchase. CEB Engineers Union President Saumya Kumarawadu said his organization was opposed to the move to purchase supplementary electricity at a higher cost at this hour.

Daily FT: Power play

  • Ministry calls for tenders for emergency power sans PUCSL approval 
  • Emergency power wanted as experts predict low rainfall 
  • Expensive stopgap as Govt. has failed to implement power projects since 2015
  • Earlier plan of purchasing power from IPPs discarded but could be cheaper 

By Chathuri Dissanayake

As the Government has failed to implement any new power projects over the past three years, the Power and Energy Ministry has decided to purchase emergency powerin 2019 sans approval from the Public Utilities Commission Sri Lanka (PUCSL),as an expensive stopgap measure to offset predictions of low rainfall.

The Ministry has called for bids to purchase 100MW of emergency power, terming it as ‘supplementary power’, without obtaining prior approval from PUCSL, a requirement under Sri Lanka Electricity (Amendment) Act No. 31 of 2013, to meet the demand in coming months, following predictions of low rainfall in February and March.  The PUCSL is yet to receive any request from CEB to procure emergency power, Daily FT learnt.

“The rainfall is expected be low in the coming months and already our Hydropower is running at low capacity. We cannot meet the demand of 2500 MW of power with the existing capacity, so we have to go in for emergency purchases. There is a growing demand at a rate of 5%-6% a year and we have not added any new plants,” Ceylon Electricity Board spokesperson Sulakshana Jayawardena explained.

The situation has been worsened following the retirement of two Independent Power Producers (IPPs),24 MW Ace Power Plant Matara, and 51 MW Asia Power Plant, Jayawardena said.

Although approval from Cabinet was given to extend the agreements of three IPPs by another three years, the CEB, under pressure, shelved the decision for two.However, the CEB renewed the agreement with third IPP Ace Embilipitiya, which has a capacity of 100MW, till 2020, as it is crucial to provide uninterrupted power to the South.

However, the Ministry may commission the plants again if purchasing power is more cost effective than buying emergency power, Power and Energy Ministry Secretary Dr. B. M. S. Batagoda told Daily FT.

“The Ministry will compare the cheaper options after the bids for emergency power are evaluated. And if the IPPs that we had supplying electricity are cheaper, then we will negotiate with them,” he said.

According to him, these plants remain the cheapest at present, with capacity cost at Rs. 1.50 per unit for Ace Embilipitiya, Rs. 2.40 for Ace Power Plant Matara and Rs. 2.60 for the Asia Power Plant.

“Last year we floated a tender for emergency power, and it cost Rs. 28 per unit with a capacity cost of about Rs.3 per unit. The fuel costs would be almost the same. If we buy from a bigger plant then we will have to pay capacity cost of around Rs.4 for a unit to retain the plant.So it would be best to renew the agreements with the IPPs through negotiation if the new purchases are more expensive,” he explained.

The need for purchase of emergency power has increased as the CEB has failed to commission new power plants to cater to the growing demand. Despite Cabinet approval being given to call for bids for a number of projects, no new plant has been commissioned by the CEB. Among the projects to be commissioned are tenders for a 100 MW barge-mounted HFO power plant in Galle; 4x24MW Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) plants included in generation plans since 2015, which are yet to be tendered;and a 300MW LNG Plant has been tendered, but has run into controversy.

The CEB Engineers Union has maintained its opposition to emergency power purchases, as it is only a temporary measure and an expensive way to addressing shortages in capacity to meet demand.

“We are against temporary power purchases like this, as it is done at a very high price and this does not address issues of long-term generation capacity,” CEB Engineers’ Union President Saumya Kumarawadu told Daily FT.

LankaCNews: ලංවිම ණය කෝටි 40,000 පනී.. පාඩුව තවත් දෙතුන් ගුණයකින් වැඩිවෙන්න ලගයි..

??? ??? ????? ??????? (Emergency Power) ??? ??????

??? ?????? ?? ?????? ???????? ???? ?????? ???????? ????? ???

2014 ?????? ?????????? ????? ????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ????????? ??? ????????? ????????? ????????? ???? ?????? ???? ??????? ???? ?? ????? ???????? ??????????? ??????? ???????? ????????? ????? ??. ??????? ???? ???????? ?????? ??.??.?. ??????? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ??????? ??????? ??????? ???????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ??????????? ????? ?????. ??? ?????? ??????? ???????, ??????????? ??? ?????????, ?????????? ????????? ???????? ??????? ????? ??????????? ?? ????????? ??? ???????? ??????? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ????????.

????? ????? ????? ?????

?????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???????? ??????? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ????? ?????? ????? “ ????? ????? ????????? ?????? ??? ???????” ???? ????. ??? ??????? ??.??.?. ??????? ??????????? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ???????? ?????? ????? ???????. ??? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ??????? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ?????????????? ????? ??? ?????? ???????? ???? ?????? ???.

??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ??????? ??????????? ???? ?? ?????????? ???? 2015 ??? ???? ?????? ??? ???????? ????? ???????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ???????? ??????? ???????? ??? ???????? ???????? ?????? ????????????. ??? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ???????? ????????? ???? ????????? ??????? ?????? ????? ??????? ???? ????? ????????? ???? ?????? ????? ??????? ???????? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ??????? ?????.


??????????? ???? ????????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ????????

?????????? ???????? ???? ??.??,?. ?????????? ???? ??????? ??????? ?????? ???????? ??????? 500MW ???????? ????????. ?? 2020 ?? ??? ??? ????????? ????? ?????? ???????? ???????. ????? ???? ????? ?????????? ?????? ????????? ??????????? ???? ??? ??????? ??????? ????? ??????? ??????? ???????. ??? ???? ???????? ???? ?????? ???????? ??? CCEM ??, ???????? ?????? ???, ?? ??????????? ???? ????????? ?? ???? ???????? ?????? ??? ????????? ????????? ?????????? ??????? ?? ??????? ?????? ?????????????? ???? ??????? ???.

2034 ????? ??.??.?. ????? 20 ??????? ??? ??????? 2015 ???. 06 ??? ???????? ??????? ????????? ?????? ?????????? ???????? ???? ?????? ??????? ?????? ????? ???? ??????  ??????? ????? ????? ???????? ?????? ????? ??????? ???????? ???????????? ??? 2016 ????. 15  ??? ?? ??????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ????? ????? ?? ????. ???? ????????  ?????? ????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ????? ?????? ????????? ??.??.?. ? ?????? ????????? ?????? ???? ??????? ???????? ???.

???????? ???? ????????? ????????? ????? ??? 5???? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ????? ??????? ???? 20,000 ?? (?????? 200??) ??? ????. ??????? ?????? ???? ??????? 4 ?? ?????? ? ????? ????????? ??????? ????????? ????? ??? ???????? ??? ??.

??????? ??? ???? ????? 300MW ???????? ???? (LNG) ??????? ??????? ??? ?

??? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ???????? ????????? ?????? 2019 ??????. ?? ???? ?????? 7?? ??????? ???????? ???? ??? ??????? ?????? ??????? ????? ????? ?????? ???????? ????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ??????? ??? ????? ?? ???????? ????? ????????? ???????.  ????? ????? ??????? ????????? ??????? ????, ??????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ??????????? ????? ??? ??????????? ?????????? ?????????? ???? ??? ???????? ????? ??????? ??????? ????? ??. ??? ??????? ???? ??????? ????? ?? ????????? ???????????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ??????? ????????? ?????????? ??????? ????? ???? ????????. ?? ???? ????????? ?????? ??????? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ??????? ??????? ???????????? ?????? ????? ??????? ?? ??????????? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ?? ??????? ????????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ???????.

?? ??? ?????, ???????? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ????? 500MW  ?????? 02?? ?? 400MW ? LNG ????????? ?????? ??? ????? ????.  ????? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?????? 500MW ????? ??? ??????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ??? ???????? ????????? ????????? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ????????? ????? ???????? 300MW ??.

??? ?????? ????? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ??????? ????? ???????? ???????? ??? ??????? ?????? ??? ??????? ?????? ????????? ?? ?????? ????? ?????. ???????? ??? ???? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ???????? ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ???.

?????? ??? ????? ?????????? ???????

?????? ???????? ??????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? (Emergency Power) ????????? ??.??.?. ??????? ?? 100 MW ?? 24×4 MW ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ????? ?????????? ?????? ??? ??? ????. ???????? ???? ?????? ??? ???????? ?????? ????????????????  ????????? ???? ??? ??? ???????? ????? ???????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??????. ????? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ???????? ?? LNG ?????? ?????????? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ???????? (HFO) ?????? ????? ????????? ????????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? (Emergency Power) ?????? ?????????.

?????? ??? ?????? ??????? ?????? Emergency Power ?????? ???????

????? ????????? ?????? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ?? ??????? ?????? ????? ???????? 2019 ??? ???? ??????? ??? ?????????? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ?????? (Emergency Diesel Power) ???? ?????? ??????? ?????? ????? ???. 100 MW ? Emergency Power ???? ??????? ???????? ??? ???????? ???????? ????????? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ??. ??.?. ???????? ????????? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ??????? ????? ??.??.?. ??? ??????? ?????? 50 ?? ???? ???????? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ????????? ??????? ???? ??????? ??.

??????? ??.??.?. ? ??? ???? ?? ???????? ??????? ?????? 400 ?? (???? 40,000) ?????. ???????? ???????? ?? ????????? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ??? 5? ???? ??? ??.??.?. ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ??. ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ????????? ??????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ???????? ??????? ??.

– ??.??.?. ???????? ?????

ලංවිම ණය කෝටි 40,000 පනී.. පාඩුව තවත් දෙතුන් ගුණයකින් වැඩිවෙන්න ලගයි..


The Island: Power mafia throttles country with costly emergency power purchases for CEB

article_image

by Rathindra Kuruwita

 

A decision to purchase emergency power, at significantly higher cost, would only increase the losses incurred by the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB), the Ceylon Electricity Board Engineers’ Union (CEBEU) said, yesterday.

CEB Engineers’ Union President Saumya Kumarawadu said yesterday “After the Norochcholai Power Plant was built in 2014, the generation cost of one unit of electricity dropped to Rs. 15.07 and the government was able to reduce the electricity bill by 25%. Since then however no low cost thermal power plants has been added to the system though each year the demand went up by 200 MWs. The cost of one unit of electricity went up to Rs 21.32 in 2017.”

As a result the CEB lost Rs 45 billion in 2017 and the loss increased to Rs. 50 billion in 2018.

“Given the fact that there are delays in the construction of the 300 MW LNG power plant, we will incur more losses in 2019,”he said.

“Bureaucrats and politicians are engaged in a  tug of war to ensure that their allies get the deal. On the other hand, the government is attempting to build two 500MW and one 400 MW LNG plant through Japanese, Indian and Chinese companies. But given the size of our system, the maximum connectable single machine in order to maintain the stability is 300MW.”

The CEBEU head said that the total outstanding loans of the CEB was Rs. 400 billion and that things would continue to get worse for the next six to seven years unless a major low cost power plant was set up.

An energy sector source said that although the CEB had announced that bids were open for emergency power, the relevant officials had not even finalized the tender documents. He added that on average emergency power was procured at around Rs. 30, which is at least Rs. 7 more than the most expensive diesel power electricity unit procured by the CEB.

http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=198301

The Morning: Power on low voltage

•Delays in implementing mid to long-term solutions

Norochcholai power plant
?Everyone is running a business and they want to earn commissions. Nobody thinks about the public. The majority of high profile employees are corrupt and those who reveal the corruption will ultimately lose their jobsCeylon Electricity Board Employees’ Union (CEBEU) Convener Ranjan Jayalal
By Maheesha Mudugamuwa

A crisis in the power sector threatens to place the country in darkness in the event of failure to resolve the issue soon.

Sri Lanka is in urgent need of approximately 300 megawatts (MW) of electricity to meet current consumer demand, and failure to meet this demand could likely plunge parts of the country into darkness between the years 2020-2030.

Minister of Power and Renewable Energy Ravi Karunanayake sought Cabinet approval to obtain emergency power purchasing proposals.

The ministry confirmed that Cabinet approval was granted, but that the President instructed the minister to reconsider the move as it could prove expensive. He was instead advised to consider other ways of mitigating the issue.

Ministry sources said that Minister Karunanayake and the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB) Engineers’ Union were holding talks to reach a solution to the crisis before looking at purchasing emergency power.

However, sources said that the ministry was unable to make a concrete decision as the CEB was running without a board of directors.

The proposal seeking the approval of the Cabinet to purchase emergency power was submitted by Minister Ravi Karunanayake on 14 January, 2019.

The main objective of the proposal was to procure 100 MW power generators on a lease basis for a period of one year and to call tenders for 75 MW of thermal power for a period of two years, according to the Ministry of Power and Renewable Energy Director (Development) Sulakshana Jayawardena.

He told The Sunday Morning that Cabinet approval was already granted for the proposal.

“This year, the authorities forecast that there will be a dry period from January to April, and therefore, there would be restrictions on hydro power generation. To mitigate that, the CEB has recommended adding 100 MW on a supplementary basis,” he explained.

“We are going to call for tenders and the price per unit will be decided later,” Jayawardena noted.

Growing concern

Meanwhile, Minister Karunanayake’s decision to purchase emergency power from private companies raised concerns among energy experts, as they say that it would negatively impact the CEB due to potential losses that may be incurred by the board, as a result of emergency power purchasing agreements.

They stressed that it was now time for the Government to put politics aside and seriously consider the Long Term Generation Expansion Plan 2018-2037 prepared by the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB) and approved by the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL).

This plan was drawn up to safeguard the country against the crippling effects of temporarily expensive decisions taken by the authorities.

According to CEB Engineers’ Union President Athula Wanniarachchi, use of emergency power was expensive as the generators that would be utilised would run on diesel, for which the capacity charge would be around Rs. 5 per unit, which would have to be covered for the entire period agreed upon, even if the generators are unused. As a result, the CEB would have to spend a huge sum of money for the emergency purchases.

“For example, if a litre of diesel costs Rs. 100 and we can produce only four units with it, the fuel cost per unit would translate to Rs. 25. In addition, we would need to pay the capital cost. Therefore, all together, the cost of a unit would be around Rs. 30,” Eng. Wanniarachchi stressed.

Highlighting the situation of thermal power generation, he stressed: “Machines also need timely maintenance, for which they need to be stopped. However, since we don’t have enough machines, we are unable to stop them for routine maintenance.

“The country needs an additional 300 MW to operate the machines comfortably without any interruption and without the risk of power cuts,” Eng. Wanniarachchi noted.

Continuous delays

According to CEB statistics, around 70% of the energy requirement of the country is currently provided through thermal power (coal and oil) and the rest is provided through hydro power, with a very small amount of power generated by wind power.

Due to the lack of proper power plants, the country’s entire electricity system is dependent on the Norochcholai Power Plant.

The union stated that if that power plant experienced a breakdown, the situation would take a turn for the worst.

“During last year’s dry season, the Norochcholai Power Plant operated well and didn’t cause any big issues. As of now, the condition of the plant is better. But even now, one machine’s operations are halted for routine maintenance,” he added.

According to the CEB’s plan, three power plants (70 MW, 100 MW, and 150MW) were proposed to meet the demand from 2018 until major power plants are implemented.

Even though the plan was scheduled to be implemented from 2018, the CEB is behind the scheduled plan so far. The CEB Engineers’ Union puts the blame on the PUCSL as they claimed it was the PUCSL which delayed its approval and as a result, the implementation was not executed by the board as expected.

Explaining the situation, Wanniarachchi said: “The CEB’s generation plan was not approved on time by the PUCSL. There are many delays in implementation. They approved it after taking one-and-a-half years to review it – that is the base of the issue.”

Below are additional reasons for the energy crisis, cited by the CEB Eng. Union:

•No steps were taken to set up a large thermal power station after commissioning Stage III of the Norochcholai Power Plant in 2014

•The state of the already tendered 300 MW LNG Power Plant in Kerawalapitiya was pending in court

•No medium-term decision in the form of a solution was taken regarding the planned 100 MW Diesel Power Plant

Eng. Wanniarachchi stressed that thermal power, either coal or LNG, would be less costly than diesel power, and as successive governments failed to push towards that, there’s a deficit of about 300 MW of power at present.

Commenting on the proposed Kerawalapitiya LNG Power Plant, he said: “The blame should be placed on the Government as they handled it poorly. We were planning to tender for a medium-term solution until we procure the big power plants, some diesel power plants, or the 100 MW power plants.

“Those power plants will also be cheaper than emergency power,” he said, adding that those tenders were also discussed without any end in sight, as the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) continuously requests changes.

“We’re unhappy that no steps have been taken with a long-term goal in mind, even though they speak of long-term solutions annually, revisiting the topic at the beginning of every year. As such, we are very dissatisfied as a union.

Explaining how most politicians prefer to play the blame game, Wanniarachchi went on to state that the execution of a viable low-cost solution for the country would require at least five to six years of planning, which no one is willing to take responsibility for.

Running out of time

Justifying the Ministry’s decision to opt for emergency power purchasing, the Ministry’s Director (Development) Jayawardena said: “Now as per the CEB’s plan, some of the plants won’t be developed. However, the growth in annual demand is approximately 5-6%, and it depends on weather conditions, other developments, and construction.”

“They have forecast a dry period, as usual, from January to end-April. In terms of capacity, there will be restrictions on hydro generation and we will not be able to generate hydro power as planned.

“In order to mitigate these sorts of issues, the CEB recommended adding 100 MW of short-term power capacity to meet demand during the period, which resulted in adding it on a supplementary basis.

“We are going to call for tenders, and depending on the result and the outcome of the tenders the Minister is to decide on whether or not to continue these sorts of ad-hoc measures to meet demand,” he added.

When asked whether the CEB was far behind the schedule in the generation plan, Jayawardena stressed that there were certain issues and barriers but that the CEB has planned to have a 300 MW power plant by 2019 and another LNG power plant by 2029.

“Last year, there was a battle between the CEB and PUCSL on getting approval for the long-term power generation plan. Now that it’s approved, they need to overcome their differences and work towards achieving the target, along with all power sector stakeholders,” he explained.

Elaborating on the process of purchasing emergency power, Director Jayawardene said: “Last year, there was an issue with extending the terms of private companies, and after much debate, the Cabinet approved the extension of the term of ACE Power Embiliptiya for a period of three years after considering the electricity requirements in the Southern Province, and is scheduled to expire in 2020. However, the terms of ACE Power Matara and Asia Power Sapugaskanda were not extended; they are still in the system but can’t add to supply as their terms are over.

“Therefore, the CEB needs to call fresh tenders, and after negotiations, the price of a unit would be decided. Usually, the prices vary, but the capacity charges will have to be incurred even if we didn’t run the plan.” He also added that while it’s in use, fuel charges would have to be incurred.

Meanwhile, the PUCSL said the CEB could purchase emergency power only in case of a calamity and that the Cabinet is required to make that decision, and not the PUCSL, further stating that in all other instances, the commission’s approval was necessary.

On inquiry of whether they were aware of the recent cabinet proposal, the commission’s Director Corporate Communications Jayanat Herath said that they were unaware of such a decision.

“The issues between the PUCSL and CEB are over and we approved the CEB’s Long Term Generation Plan last year,” he said.

Last week, Minister Karunanayake sought Canadian and French assistance to find solutions to the expected energy crisis the world, including Sri Lanka, will face in 2020. Ceylon Electricity Board Employees’ Union (CEBEU) Convener Ranjan Jayalal stressed that issues of the CEB were getting worse and that there was no solution for it.

“Everyone is running a business and they want to earn commissions. Nobody thinks about the public. The majority of high profile employees are corrupt and those who reveal the corruption will ultimately lose their jobs,” he said.

Jayalal also alleged that there was a hidden plan to separate the generation division from the CEB and to give it to the private sector, thereby burdening the general public with higher costs.

http://epaper.themorning.lk/Home/ShareArticle?OrgId=f907b495&imageview=0

 

Why Swiss Challenge LNG deal is disaster for Lanka

By Namini Wijedasa
Experts claim the multibillion dollar South Korean project is disadvantageous to Sri Lanka and like the infamous hedging affair; express concern over take-or- pay terms; say losses could be in billions

Oil, gas and electricity experts have torn into a Power and Energy Ministry call to international bidders to match an unsolicited Korean proposal for a 20-year supply of liquefied natural gas (LNG), pipeline and floating storage and regasification unit (FSRU) in just a matter of weeks.

File pic of a floating storage and regasification unit (FSRU)

The Swiss Challenge was advertised on November 5, days after the sacking of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, and the industry was given five weeks to bid, extended by a mere seven weeks after media exposure.

The original bid was submitted by the South Korean Government-backed SK E&S Company and first presented to the Cabinet in December 2017 by President Maithripala Sirisena. A Swiss Challenge grants advantage to the initial proposer with an opportunity to match whatever anybody else tenders.

This is to be Sri Lanka’s largest single Government tender, worth an estimated US$ 10bn in LNG orders alone. And the arbitrary manner in which the Ministry manoeuvred the process drew widespread speculation and criticism.

Now, more experts—many with decades of experience in their respective fields—are weighing in. Some did not wish to be quoted owing to contractual obligations. All unanimously questioned the manner in which the “tender” was devised. And the spectre of Sri Lanka’s disastrous hedging deal was roundly evoked.

Sri Lanka will enter into a long-term take-or-pay LNG supply contract, they pointed out. Yet both the Cabinet Appointed Negotiating Committee (CANC) and Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) comprise “well-meaning but unqualified Sri Lankan officials who are provided with tender documents of unknown origin”. They will shape the direction of a US$ 10bn sovereign commitment.

“We even accept that project proponents may view the proposal as truly beneficial to Sri Lanka,” said an international source who has worked nearly forty years in oil and gas technology and floating systems. “But as with all complex oil and gas transactions, in which companies pass on as much risk as possible to unsuspecting host Governments, the devil is in the detail.”

Lack of expertise

There is no qualified business consultant to safeguard Sri Lanka’s interests. “A TEC and a CANC of non-relevant professionals are responsible for making an untutored recommendation based on what is, at best, a hazardous procurement practice never before undertaken in this country,” he warned.

“It must be systematic,” insisted Tilak Siyambalapitiya, a senior energy consultant. “Bangladesh started the process in the proper way in 2015 and has now got the terminal up and running. Sri Lanka does not even want to issue a formal solicitation and expects friends of the Prime Minister to build one terminal, friends of the President to build another terminal, friends of you-know-who to build more terminals. This is all a farce for someone to push a project in, avoiding all bidding procedures.”

An “unusual” condition of this Swiss Challenge is that US$ 10mn is mandated to SK E&S (for having submitted an unsolicited proposal with limited technical information) should a competitor’s bid be accepted. “The invitation to tender has most instructions on how and when this US$ 10mn payment has to be made, immediately and guaranteed to SK&E and the Government of Sri Lanka,” the expert said.

Sri Lanka needs LNG as a common, lower cost and “relatively environmentally benign” energy source. But any gas procured must power not only electricity generation but industrial thermal needs and transport. This has not been taken into account. The country’s LNG requirements have not even been identified.

There must be an open-technology solution where the infrastructure investors derive their return in a predictable manner, such as tolling charges for use of the facility. It must not be tied to the supply of gas, industry professionals urged.

But according to a cabinet memorandum presented in 2017, “A company backed by the Government of South Korea has agreed to provide an LNG terminal free of charge subject to the condition that compulsory purchase of 500,000 MT per annum during the first 5 years and 1,000,000 MT per annum during subsequent 20 years under the prices prevail in the international market.”

There was universal criticism about the proposed mode of purchase. “The contract they are said to be negotiating is a disastrous one—take-or-pay,” said Dr Siyambalapitiya. “So when our hydro, wind and solar are good and demand does not grow, we have to pay for unused gas in their tanks, as well.”

The rationale for a Swiss Challenge was repeatedly questioned. “Such a strategic procurement, with high ramifications to our energy security and long-term economic development, should be structured professionally and tendered globally along conventional lines,” said Saliya Wickramasuriya, former head of the Petroleum Resources Development Secretariat (PRDS) and independent consultant.

“It may be argued that Swiss Challenge is quicker, but with limited competition pricing lots of risk into their bid, at what cost?” he asked. “And why on earth does the long-term supply of LNG to Sri Lanka need to be an unsolicited proposal?”

For the Swiss Challenge to even work, the Korean proposal should have been vetted by competent technical consultants for all aspects of viability. “It is not clear who did this and it appears not to have gone through a valid process,” Mr Wickramasuriya said.” We are aware some Government institutions have pointed out serious concerns of the original proposal, but these do not seem to have been heeded.”

The project, several inside sources revealed, is “being pushed from the highest levels even ignoring the concerns raised by CANC”. The tender preparers briefed neither the CANC nor the TEC. The documents were merely handed over.

There are no Petroleum Resources Development Ministry (PRDM) or Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) officials represented in the two bodies. And if the matter ends up in court, as did the hedging deal, the TEC and the CANC are likely to be censured.

Company has no experience

An important element of the Korean contract is the supply and operation of an offshore FSRU. SK E&S has no experience of ever running one.

“And because of this, the tender also does not seek the same from other bidders,” said Mr Wickramasuriya. “It merely asks if the ship-builder has experience.”

“This is pure madness from our side,” he said. “We have become guinea pigs for some operator to experiment if they can operate an FSRU while dumping their expensive gas into our country at high price.”

Who drafted the tender documents? The Power and Energy Ministry, while authorised by Cabinet to hire consultants, did not do so. The Korean company drew them up at its own cost. It is difficult to see how this process safeguards the interests of Sri Lanka and the public.

“The notes pertaining to the preparation of these documents need to be made public, as well as the selection process and experience of the preparers,” Mr Wickramasuriya said. Everything must be thoroughly vetted by the PRDS, among others.

If Sri Lanka receives any bids within the stipulated two months, evaluation “categorically needs expert guidance”. “The current set of officials may face serious reprimand in the future for taking the responsibility of making untutored recommendations if the outcome does not meet expectations of either time or cost,” he warned.

“Why doesn’t the Government simply not call for competitive bids for an ‘X’ amount of natural gas at this maximum price, for this long, starting from this date, and leave the industry to work out how to make it happen?” he asked. “What we need is gas, not an FSRU! Not only are we over-prescribing this tender, we are playing to someone else’s music.”

A properly executed tender would take a year to prepare and six to 12 months to respond to, professionals said. Not only is there a lack of material in this tender. There are constraints on the solution: A newly-built FSRU will take over two years to commission unless the proposers already have one in the pipeline, which would raise separate questions. A successful challenge within the allotted time frame, therefore, seems unlikely.

“A lot of focus is on the FSRU being free of charge,” said one expert. “This is a false narrative on multiple counts. There is a tolling agreement specified, but not included in the tender documents or Korean proposal, which will be negotiated later. So any claims of a free FSRU is premature, to say the least.”

Also, the FSRU cost (approximately US$ 300mn) is insignificant—less than five percent—when compared with the size of the supply contract.

“Since we believe the pricing contract to be unfavourable to Sri Lanka, even if they throw in the FSRU for free, we will pay more,” he pointed out.

“We are merely avoiding the capital cost of the FSRU upfront. That could’ve been done with a standard lease agreement.”

Environmental impact

There has been no environmental impact assessment (EIA) despite the proposed facility requiring pressurised, highly-explosive, gas pipelines to run under densely populated areas. “Natural gas lines are in a different league in terms of hazards,” he warned. “Even minor leaks result in major fatalities and many projects are delayed through public protest in affected areas, despite land being acquired.”

There have also been no met ocean studies, soil studies and bathymetry or pipeline route surveys. It usually takes six months or more to choose suitable location, said the international expert earlier quoted. The full impact of the monsoon will also be felt on the offshore FSRU.

The proposed location–about 9km outside the Colombo Port beyond an exclusion zone defined by the Sri Lanka Ports Authority–has not been reviewed against all hazards. A navigational simulation was done to define the exclusion zone but there has been no comprehensive safety study.

The tender envisages the purchase of LNG at a price indexed to oil. Professionals say this is deeply problematic. From being just ten percent a decade ago, the world spot market has grown to 50 percent of volume traded. This indicates significant uncontracted fuel in the market.

“That, in turn, gives rise to price arbitrage opportunities between markets, which could both reduce and increase parcel price depending on circumstances,” the international expert said. “However, the trend is that the spot market will most often offer a price advantage over term.”

Having a price indexed to crude oil will prevent Sri Lanka from taking advantage of this in future, when the country’s demand has stabilised and procurement practices have matured.

“The proposed contract will lock Sri Lanka for 20 years to an uneconomical price with a glut in the LNG market,” he warned. “Soon, 50 percent of LNG will be sold in the spot market to which Sri Lanka will not have access. But the same deal provides for SK E&S to procure the gas in the spot market and sell to Sri Lanka on take-or-pay terms. I expect the loss here to be in the billions.”

Sunday TIMES: CEB, Power and Energy Ministry at loggerheads over LNG purchase

The Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB) is opposing Power and Energy Ministry moves to award a 20-year take-or-pay contract for Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) to a single entity, saying the high possibility of the Mannar Basin gas reserves being developed made it prudent to sign for just 10 years, and on a different business model.

The Ministry, in October, advertised a Swiss Challenge for an offshore Floating Storage and Re-gasification Unit (FSRU), pipeline and 20-year supply of LNG. The original bid came from the Korean SK E&S company, but was redesigned as a Request for Proposals (RFP). For nearly 2 years, its terms and conditions were negotiated by a team that included CEB representatives.

The closing date for the RFP was extended from December 12 last year to January 31 this year. Nine parties have taken applications, said Power and Energy Ministry Secretary Dr Suren Batagoda.

But the CEB’s General Manager has now written to Dr Batagoda proposing that the bid be “unbundled” into 2 contracts: an LNG supply contract and an LNG infrastructure development contract. Engineer A. K. Samarasinghe also maintained that the RFP under the Swiss Challenge procedure needed extensive changes “to harness the requirement benefits of the deployment of LNG for power generation in Sri Lanka”.

Earlier this month, the Ministry of Petroleum Resources Development also called for international competitive bids for exploration and development activities in Block M2, Mannar Basin, which has 2 gas discoveries–Dorado and Barracuda–and a number of undrilled prospects. Bidders are expected to consider both development of the discoveries and exploration of the rest of the block. The closing date is in May.

The CEB General Manager said a committee set up by the utility had discussed the Power and Energy Ministry’s proposal and RFP in December. They had understood “the associated financial, technical, legal and other risks embedded in the process and are of the opinion that necessary initiatives should be taken to minimise the possible risks, in order to achieve the required benefit to the country”.

“As a matter of fact, the value of the Swiss Challenge tender is about US$ 7 billion and it will be the largest tender ever in this country,” Mr Samarasinghe wrote to Power and Energy Ministry Secretary Suren Batagoda on January 2.

He said: “In that context, it is appropriate to extensively deliberate the risks and benefits, and also legal and commercial aspects of the deployment methodology of the LNG for power generation in the country, while establishing the transparency and competition in the process to harness the required benefits of LNG deployment to the country.”

The CEB committee has called, rather belatedly, for an LNG policy for power generation in Sri Lanka. The utility agrees with the Government’s intention to deploy gas, but observes that a Joint Cabinet Memorandum on the matter dated August 2017, envisages the establishment of a gas receiving terminal and procurement of LNG as 2 separate projects.

Cabinet subsequently opted for one investor for both due to the urgency of LNG requirement. The first consignments were initially expected this year. However, there is a delay in building two new LNG power plants. Without them, the usage of LNG for existing Colombo-based power plants would be just 300,000 MTPA (million tonnes per annum)–half the quantity envisaged in the proposed SK E&S tender.

The CEB says the terms of the LNG supply contract should be carefully decided, as it is governed by take-or-pay principles. This is a provision under which Sri Lanka will be obliged to take delivery of the goods or pay a specified amount. The RFP places LNG demand at 0.6 MTPA (or 600,000), increasing to a million MTPA in 2 years.

But the CEB demand forecast is only 0.6 MTPA and includes the 2 (now delayed) power plants in Kerawalapitiya. If these are not built in time, the envisaged quantity of LNG will be reduced by 50%, “and will cause huge financial losses to the country due to the ‘take-or-pay’ nature of the contract”, Mr Samarasinghe writes.

If the CEB fails to buy at least 50% of the annual contract quantity for 2 consecutive years, the seller can terminate the contract, claiming huge termination fees including debt, equity, financial cost and equity returns.

thumbnail of Sunday Times 20-01-19
Click to Read the article.

The Koreans put forward their original bid on Sri Lanka’s request, made during President Maithripala Sirisena’s official visit to Seoul in 2017. While it came as a bilateral, Government-to-Government project, the Power and Energy Ministry insisted on having it redrafted as an RFP and floating it as a Swiss Challenge, said Dr Batagoda. WorleyParsons, an Australian energy consulting company, was hired along with Allen & Overy, an international Law firm. Sri Lanka’s interests were represented by a local Law firm.

The consultants were paid by SK E&S but should the contract be awarded to another bidder, the winner will have to meet these fees. “The Swiss Challenge procedure is that, the development cost and RFP preparation cost has to be borne by whoever wins,” Dr Batagoda said.

SK E&S were nominated by the Korean Government, the Secretary said. Their proposal was negotiated and vetted over a period of nearly 2 years by a Joint Working Group that included all stakeholders, including the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) and CEB.

“Every single point was negotiated,” he said. “Every term was debated and fought over till this was converted into an international RFP. It was not biased towards Korea. The idea was to have an open tender.”

Days after the RFP was advertised, Dr Batagoda said, a pre-bid meeting was called, which was attended by, among others, American and Norwegian entities. “We asked the prospective bidders to tell us anything which might be biased towards the Koreans,” he said.

One objection was that the financial capacity required of the bidder was too high. It was agreed to lower this. It was also accepted to change the requirement from a “new” FSRU to any other, provided the vessel was certified by a body such as Lloyds Register as having a minimum, 20-year lifespan.

Dr Batagoda said it was coincidental that the Swiss Challenge was advertised just days after President Sirisena sacked Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. Negotiations had just ended, so the Ministry went ahead. Also, when parties at the pre-bid meeting requested a one-month extension, it was granted.

Meanwhile, the Petroleum Resources Development Ministry was separately engaging with Indian and Japanese parties for another FSRU and LNG supply contract. Dr Batagoda contradicted widespread industry views that the country does not need two FSRUs. The India-Japan one would feed gas to 2 LNG power plants they were building.

“We need 2 terminals,” he insisted. “Why? If one terminal breaks down, what do you do? If 1 terminal is under maintenance or service, what do you do? Do you close the power plants? No. Who cares about 2 terminals, 3 terminals? They’re invested by a private company. We don’t invest. We are not worried about 1 terminal or 2 terminals. We are worried about the rate levied on turning LNG to gas. We have said we will not pay more than what India or Pakistan or Bangladesh pays for it.”

The Swiss Challenge was being opposed by “businessmen who want to get a monopoly,” Dr Batagoda insisted. He also said takeor-pay contracts were common in the Power and Energy industry. The CPC ordered 6 shipments of diesel for power plants last year. “Then we got enough rain and were using hydro, so we didn’t need the diesel,” he said. “But we had to pay. We didn’t buy the diesel, but we had to pay. If you order, you have to pay.”

If the CEB was not taking some of the LNG that is being ordered, the joint venture company being set up under the contract could choose to re-sell it “or do something to make sure nobody pays money for nothing,” Dr Batagoda said.

CT- Govt causing delays in constructing major power plants – CEBEU

Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB) engineers accused the Government of obstructing the construction of major power plants, in order to purchase emergency power on a short-term basis, at very high prices, from the beginning of the drought season every year.

They also alleged that the Ministry of Power, Energy and Business Development is not granting approval for the five 100 MW and 24 x 4 MW Diesel Power Plants which have been proposed as a medium-term solution to the power demand.

“The Ministry is not approving the Tender Book, which was prepared on the five 100 MW and 24 x 4 MW Diesel Power Plants and is only engaging in pointing out faults. We cannot make draft a Tender Book or change specifications according to the needs of businessmen,” Executive Committee member of the CEB Engineers Union (CEBEU) Athula Wanniarachchi said.

This accusation comes following the Cabinet, last Monday, approving the purchase of 100 MW of emergency power in order to supply electricity without interruption to the people during the drought period, which begins in February/March.

It has been decided to purchase 100 MW of emergency power for one year as a solution to the power deficit of 300 MW which exists at present and until such time, major power plants are constructed. However, if power is needs to be purchased during the second year, those prices too have been queried through the Tender papers.

“That means even if they say it is for one year only, it is apparent that they are preparing to purchase emergency power continuously. However, what we have to do is not purchase emergency power every year by February and March but to build large scale power plants. Nevertheless, what the government is doing is joining the business mafia and bringing various obstructions to constructing major plants,” he said further.

However, Ministry Media Spokesman Sulakshana Jayawardena said that the Ministry was not intentionally causing delays. He said, the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) appointed for the 100MW barge diesel power plant to be established in Galle was appointed only on 28 July 2017. Similarly the TEC for the 24MW x 4 power plants was appointed only on 11 August 2017.

Yet, engineers point out that although the 100MW barge and the 24MW x 4 are Diesel Power plants, they can be connected to high voltages. But, they said that if emergency power is necessary to be connected to any required places, it would not be possible due to technical reasons.

Since no major power plant was constructed subsequent to the third phase of the Norochcholai Coal Power Plant being completed in 2013, energy experts continuously warned that a serious crisis will arise in the energy sector.

There is a case being heard in Court regarding the awarding of the Tender regarding the 300 MW LNG Power Plant, which was scheduled to be constructed at Kerawalapitiya as a solution to this crisis. Although it was due to have been added to the National Power Grid in 2019 that will not happen now.

At the same time, engineers allege that the government is delaying releasing lands required for the Clean Coal Power Plant of 300 MW to be constructed at Fowl Point in Trincomalee.

NIRANJALA ARIYAWANSHA

 JAN 21 2019

Daily Mirror: The Other Power Struggle

This country didn’t have a Power Generation Plan (Power Plant Construction Plan) from 2014 to 2018. Loss to the nation due to not having a plan and cancellation of Sampur Power Plant is Rs 650 Billion
We are demanding people with professional integrity for the key positions of Public Utilities Commission.


Daily Mirror| CEB Engineers highlight alleged misdeeds of corrupt PUCSL officials

The Engineers Union of the CEB yesterday castigated the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL) that the actions and policies of the power monitor has jeopardized the Power Generation Plan and the damage cost was a whopping Rs. 650 billion to the country.

Engineers charged that corrupt officials at PUCSL who have formed an unholy alliance were wreaking havoc on the Electrical Power Industry.

Mr. Athula Wanniarachchi, highlighting alleged misdeed of the PUCSL said among those who scuttle the implementation of the Long Term Least Cost Power Generation Plan noted that among surreptitious elements there were foreign funded non-governmental organizations.

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE: http://tinyurl.com/yc6ulwh5


Gloomy days are ahead due to the impending power crisis solely due to the intentional delaying in granting approval of 20 year Least Cost Long Term Generation Expansion Plan (LCLTGEP). The country was left without a generation plan for nearly four years 2014-2018.This inevitably resulted in losing a number of low cost power plants which would have been in operation, had the approval been granted on due time. This blunder would cost the nations dearly by an enormous power crisis in the near future which would also place CEB under immense economical turmoil. It is estimated that the chaotic situation brought about by the PUCSL through their delaying tactics and manipulations would cost the country a whopping Rs. 536 billion. This estimate is arrived at by analysis of data available with planning and System Operations branches through careful and precise calculations with use of world renowned SDDP (Stochastic Dual Dynamic Programme) software. this foregone cost is due to the previously planned power plants including Sampur Powerplant not being brought in to operating in due course and as a result of the advent of costly liquid fuelled power plants.

If the planned low cost power plants were put into service, the cost of generated electricitywould be Rs, 10 per unit, whereas that generated by a liquid fuelled power plant would amount to at least Rs. 25 per unit by current world market prices for petroleum, Mr. Wanniarachchi stressed.

Daily Mirror 12/10/2018

LANKADEEPA | හදිසි විදුලි මිලදීගැනීම් වලට මින්පසු ඉංජිනේරුවන් නෑ…


Lakbima | ලංවිමට රු. කෝටි 53000ක පාඩුවක්


Daily Mirror | Conference on renewable secure power systems

Click to view the article: