Jaipur: The Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission on Tuesday concluded hearings on the review petition for the proposed procurement of 3,200 MW of power, with industry and consumer groups questioning both the basis and intent of the plea filed by Rajasthan Urja Vikas and IT Ltd (Urja Vikas). At the hearing, stakeholders said,”While Urja Vikas tried to build its case on the shutdown of multiple units at Kota Thermal Power Plant (KTPS) and Suratgarh Thermal Power Station (STPS), records submitted tell a completely different story.” They said submissions from Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam, the state generation company, showed the units were operational, efficient and supplying power at relatively low tariffs, and should not be retired until adequate replacement capacity is in place. “Despite this, the review petition of Urja Vikas appears to push for the retirement of over 1,300 MW of functional thermal capacity to justify the need for fresh procurement,” they added.Civil society organisations argued that the proposed retirement was premature and did not follow established procedures. “The reliance by Urja Vikas on a letter from the Central Electricity Authority (CEA) as new evidence further weakens the case instead of supporting it,” they said.According to stakeholders, the CEA letter stated that the impact of the proposed retirement of 1,350 MW had never been assessed and would require a fresh, detailed analysis. They said CEA guidelines allow additional capacity only if the Kota and Suratgarh plants are obsolete or non-operational. Stakeholders also challenged the environmental case for retirement. “Even the environmental justification put forward by Urja Vikas for retirement fails to hold, as stakeholders point out that certain units fall under exempted categories, while others are already undertaking compliance measures such as the installation of emission control systems (FGD). In effect, the argument for retirement collapses on both technical and regulatory grounds,” sources said. They also expressed surprise that, despite directions from both the CEA and the Commission, the review petition did not include any techno-economic analysis or board-approved documents to support the proposed shutdown. “This has led to widespread criticism that the process is being driven to fill a gap that may not even exist,” sources at the hearing said. Sources also said the petition did not address the rapid growth in renewable energy capacity, upcoming thermal and nuclear power sources, or changing demand patterns, and remained focused on defending the 3,200 MW procurement figure. Stakeholders warned that moving ahead with the proposal could have long-term consequences. “It may lock consumers into expensive long-term thermal contracts, undermine solar integration, and create stranded assets,” they added.
