January 25, 2019, 10:40 pm

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

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.”

The verbal wrangling between the power regulator Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL) and the powerful Engineers Union of the power monopoly CEB, has come to a boiling point with CEB engineers launching trade union action leaving the smooth power generation, transmission and distribution at risk. The Daily Mirror spoke to the President of the CEBEU, Saumya Kumarawadu on the issue. He shared the following views: 

• PUCSL MADE FALSE STATEMENTS TO MEDIA SAYING THEY HAD ONLY CHANGED THE INPUT PARAMETERS
• BY NOW 40% OF THE WORLD’S ELECTRICITY DEMAND IS MET BY COAL
• WE HAVE TO ADMIT THAT THERE ARE SOME ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IN LAKVIJAYA POWER PLANT.
• EVERY YEAR THE CEB MAKES A LOSS CLOSE TO RS. 50 BILLION

 Q  What is the reason behind the ‘work to rule’ campaign by the CEB engineers?

There has not been an approved Least Cost Long Term Generation Expansion Plan (LCLTGEP)  ?for the construction of much needed power plants of the country since 2015 as the regulator, the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL), failed to approve CEB’s LCLTGEP 2015-2034 and LCLTGEP 2018-2037. The CEB cannot procure or build power plants without a legally approved proper plan.  This situation will definitely lead to a major power crisis for which CEB engineers finally get the blame. As a professional trade union we have a right and responsibility to intervene in this very sensitive issue within our domain.

We had a number of discussions with relevant stake holders and the government in order to get this issue resolved without resorting to trade union actions. Even though their responses at those meetings were positive, no tangible solutions to the issue were foreseeable. This situation made us launch mild trade union actions from time to time. However, when the PUCSL illegally prepared and approved their own Generation Plan discarding the CEB’s LCLTGEP 2018-2037, we decided to fight for the rights of electricity consumers of the country. We started our trade union actions last September in mild form, as mentioned before, withdrawing our members from the Technical Evaluation Committees and Joint Working Groups appointed for the procurement of future power plants. This trade union action was gradually escalated step by step, when we noticed the lethargic approach of the authorities to settle the issue.

“We learnt that the PUCSL was making false statements to the media saying they had only changed the input parameters like coal and LNG prices in the model and their illegal plan had become more economical than the CEB’s plan.”

Ultimately, the President intervened and inquired from the PUCSL the reasons that prevented them from approving the CEB’s Generation Plan. The reason given by PUCSL was that the government has a policy of not constructing any more coal plants in the country and, on the contrary, CEB’s plan containing coal power plants. The President clarified that there is no such government policy and advised the PUCSL to grant the approval for the CEB’s LCLTGEP 2018-2037. When the regulator ignored the advice of the head of state too, we had no alternative other than resorting to work- to-rule campaign to win our very fair demands.

 Q  As far as you know why does the PUCSL not approve the LCLTGEP running to 2037 from 2018?

Even before the CEB prepared the LCLTGEP 2018-2037, the PUCSL had decided for what plan the approval should be granted. Their main objective was not to ensure formulation of   the best Generation Plan for the country, but to use their authority to make way for investors who were willing to make money out of power generating projects. Since they did not receive the plan they had in mind from the CEB, they prepared and approved their own plan rejecting the CEB’s plan.  This action of approving their own plan is totally illegal as they don’t have a mandate to do so as per the section 43(2) and 43 (8) of the Sri Lanka Electricity Act No. 20 of 2009. This is just like a person going to a Municipal Council to get his house plan approved, being instructed to put up a house handing him a plan designed to the liking of the MC.

We learnt that the PUCSL was making false statements to the media saying they had only changed the input parameters like coal and LNG prices in the model and their illegal plan had become more economical than the CEB’s plan. But, actually what happened was they had forcibly  removed  coal plants in the CEB’s plan giving irrational reasons even before the model was run. Even if they ran their model assuming their input data were correct, coal would still be there in the outcome.  On the other hand, the CEB had submitted input parameters to be used in the model well in advance to the PUCSL and they had never disputed applicability of them until their plan was published. However, they unilaterally changed the input parameters in order to get the plan they wanted and then ordered the CEB to implement it.

 Q  The PUCSL does not want to approve coal power plants in Sri Lanka’s future power generation. As such, why do you fight for coal power generation?

?When deciding on future power plants, we have to consider not only the generating cost but also a number of other factors. Among them energy security, technical constraints and environmental concerns are key. When making your judgment on power generating technology, due consideration should be given to all those key aspects. If only the environmental pollution is considered, we will end up with a Generation Plan that will give rise to host of other issues such as high cost of electricity, low reliability and vulnerability for energy insecurity. The number one reason the CEB has selected coal power plants for our future power requirements is to ensure the energy security. To have better energy security, we need to have a proper mix of coal, LNG and renewable energy sources. If we are going to depend only on one firm energy source like LNG as proposed by the PUCSL, we are taking a very high risk as then the electricity cost of the country would overly depend on LNG prices. In addition to that, coal is still considered as one of the cheapest options to generate electricity. This shows very clearly when looking at the number of coal power plants planned to be constructed by other countries in the world in future.

 Q  Many countries in all continents have begun phasing out coal power generation. But you want Sri Lanka to depend on coal power. Why?

?By now 40% of the world’s electricity demand is met by coal and many countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Bangladesh in our region have planned to put up more coal power plants in their countries. It is better to inquire why countries like Indonesia and Bangladesh, being LNG producers. have decided to construct more coal power plants. Australia is the second largest LNG exporter in the world and yet they produce as much as 63% of their electricity demand using coal.
Like older people who consume less food, countries like the USA, China and India, which were overusing coal power, have started gradually reducing coal. They are shutting down coal plants, which are harmful to the environment, built in 1970s with older technology.  But countries competing for foreign investments like Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam have plans to increase their coal share in order to make energy prices more attractive to investors.

It is no secret that the cost of electricity in Sri Lanka is very high compared to other countries in the region. Because of that, electricity is subsidized to domestic and industrial consumers. Since the electricity tariff is not cost reflective, every year the CEB makes a loss close to Rs. 50 billion. Before commissioning the Norochcholai coal power plant, average cost of electricity was as high as Rs. 23.66 per unit and after commissioning the three coal power plants, the cost of a unit dropped to Rs. 15.07.  However, cost of electricity has an upward trend again as the coal power plant planned to be constructed in Sampur was abruptly stopped. If the country has to be developed, more and more FDIs need to be attracted to the country. But, prevailing high electricity cost has become one of the key factors that discourage such investments as any industry today is energy intensive.

Read the full Article: http://www.dailymirror.lk/article/-We-have-to-depend-on-coal-power-until-our-economy-becomes-more-stable–151764.html

By Rathindra Kuruwita

The Ceylon Electricity Board Engineers’ Union (CEBEU) had called off its work-to-rule campaign but it would not cooperate with the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL), CEBEU President Saumya Kumarawadu told The Island yesterday.

The CEBEU Executive Committee that met this week decided to call off the work-to-rule campaign after the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka had approved the CEB’s base case plan ‘subject to the accommodation of already Cabinet approved “government to government power plants” and the “latest government ‘policy’.

“However, we will not cooperate with the PUCSL because we feel that some of the officials there are unprofessional and are attempting to thwart what the CEB is trying to do. When there are power cuts you will see the results of their action. The tenure of the PUCSL is to end shortly. We hope they appoint independent and professional individuals the next time.”The CEBEU has been demanding the removal of the PUCSL Director General, Damitha Kumarasinghe since May.

Executive Director of Campaign for Free and Fair Elections Keerthi Tennakoon criticised the CEBEU’s attempts to remove Kumarasinghe from his post.

“PUCSL is the regulator of the energy sector. The CEBEU, which is a part of the sector, can’t threaten the government to get rid of Kumarasinghe. One reason is that PUCSL is an independent commission and if a trade union can get its members fired, that will give a bad precedence. The other reason is that neither the President nor the Prime Minister can remove Kumarasinghe, only the PUCSL commissioners can remove him.”

http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=186362#