SHILLONG, MAR 28: The Meghalaya Power Generation Corporation Limited (Company) failed to formulate long term perspective plans prioritizing the projects for implementation in line with the Meghalaya Power Policy (MPP), 2007.
The MPP envisaged commissioning 24 projects during the 11th Five Year Plan (10 projects with capacity of 558 MW) and 12th Five Year Plan (14 projects with capacity of 891 MW).
This included 15 projects to be completed by the Company during the 11th Five Year Plan (9 projects of 528 MW) and 12th Five Year Plan (6 projects of 401 MW).
However, as per the findings of the Comptroller & Auditor General (CAG), the Company during 2011-2016 did not prepare any perspective plan of annual business plan to prioritize the projects for implementation and taking up pre-planning activities viz conducting of feasibility study, survey and investigation (S&I).
“As a result, the Company was taking up projects for S&I/implementation on an adhoc basis without proper recorded justification for their selection,” it stated.
The state could harness only 10.49 per cent of its 3,000 MW hydro potential so far.
The state as on 2016 has a total of 7 hydro power stations of 314.70 MW in operation, which includes 4 hydro electric projects (HEPs) of 282 MW and 3 small hydro projects (SHPs) of 32.70 MW.
As a result, Meghalaya had been a power deficient state since 1990-91 and it had to depend heavily on import of power from outside the state to meet its demand.
The report further pointed that in absence of a focused approach to implement selected projects in a time-bound manner, 10 projects out of 15 projects identified for execution by the Company during 11th and 12th Five Year Plans did not progress beyond planning stage.
In respect of 7 out of 10 projects to be commissioned during 11th and 12th Five Year Plans, the target dates of preparation of DPRs fixed during 2014-15 to 2018-19 were beyond the respective five year plan periods, which contradict the stipulations made in the MPP.
The report also observed that the time allowed S&I and preparation of DPRs was about 10 years on an average for each project.
With regards to the 3 HEPs expected to be commissioned during 11th Five Year Plan, the hydrological, meteorological and geological data collection was in progress for periods ranging from 12 to 15 years after commencement of S&I and even after lapse of the plan period.
Similar in respect of 3 HEPs expected to be commissioned during 12th Five Year Plan, the compilation of data was in progress and environment/topographic surveys are yet to be taken up or in progress despite lapse of more than 10 years after commencement of S&I.
Moreover, there was also delay in administrative approval from the state government in respect to Riangdo SHP which was to be completed in 11th Five Year Plan besides delay in DPR preparation.
The Company in its justification recorded attributed the slow progress of S&I works on limited working days of 6 months in a year, difficult terrain and remoteness of the project area, shortage of manpower, irregular allocation/release of funds.
The Audit, however, observed that the arguments put forth by the Company for slow progress of works was not acceptable.
In the Exit Conference, the state government accepted that there was no planning to prioritize the projects for implementation due to financial constraints faced by the Company, which had to depend mainly on Central and state government for the project funding.
“The fact however remained that majority of the projects did not progress beyond planning stage,” the report said.
Meanwhile the CAG recommended the need to prepare long term perspective plans to prioritize implementation of hydro generation projects in line with MPP so that activities can be more focused, time bound and goal oriented.
+ There are no comments
Add yours