Are we responsible for the Energy Crisis in Sri Lanka?

On February 21, 2020, a communication under the above caption was sent to all IESL members, signed by Eng. Lalith Pallegama and Eng. Suran Fernando, Editors – SLEN/ Council Members 2019/2020. Hence we consider that they take responsibility for the contents of the above communication.

We the undersigned engineers are perturbed and shocked to read the contents of the communication. We feel it is loaded with many unfounded facts, assumptions and even grammatical errors. It attempts to cast a doubt that engineers have grossly neglected our duty and have done some grave error in the planning of the electricity sector that the country is in this predicament.

1. We quote”…it is quite sad that we have not being (sic) able to solve the energy crisis of our country. The issues related to energy have been prominently coming to the surface since the ‘90s, but not much actions (sic) have been taken with solid long term plan with a proper technical base…” This is an indictment of engineers in the electricity sector to say the least. The engineers in the CEB in particular, have been working tirelessly to expand the grid to serve 100% of the population and ensure a continuous electricity supply. This is a feat that many countries in the region cannot boast. We wander how these two editors make this conclusion when they themselves know very well how widespread and reliable the supply of electricity in the country is.
   
   This does not mean that the electricity sector is perfect. However, everyone knows that the engineers in the power sector have done their part. However, mainly due to lobbying by interested parties posing as environmental crusaders, the proposed 500MW Sampoor Coal Power project on the verge of tendering was cancelled by the government in 2016, with no recourse to build any other power plant. This surely is one major reason for the present power crisis. Hence it is very mischievous on the part of the writers to imply that the engineers (implying mainly IESL members working in the power sector) are responsible for that.

2. We quote: “Low-income African nations such as Senegal were able to overcome such power blackouts within a period of less than five years, while bringing down electricity prices too. We need to look for other alternatives too.” Implying Sri Lanka should follow a country like Senegal!
   
   We are at a loss to understand what Sri Lanka has got in common with Senegal, a country that has 49% of its population below poverty line and ranked 183rd in terms of GDP per capita, whereas Sri Lanka has only 6.7% below poverty line and ranks 118th in terms of GDP per capita in the world ranking. Sri Lanka is an upper middle income country while Senegal is a lower middle income country. Are the editors trying to project Sri Lanka is worse than a country like Senegal? What a sinister move to discredit our own engineers and our country? We vehemently condemn this attempt by these two editors.

3. We quote: “Rest of the world is moving towards sustainable and alternative energy sources while we plan to build more L&G (sic) power plants and even more coal power plants. …”. As editors of the SLEN, before they tread on matters that they lack any knowledge of, they should have at least checked with the available documents regarding what the CEB long term plans are. At least if they looked at the CEB website, it would reveal that CEB in their long term generation expansion plan have included 3400 MW of renewable power plants, 3000 MW of LNG power plants and 2400 MW of coal power plants, among other things, in the next 20years. Publicly available official long term planning documents of CEB can easily provide any genuinely interested reader, a range of credible information and insights on the matter. It is even amusing they have mentioned “L&G” (sic) for LNG, which amply confirms that they have no knowledge whatsoever of what they are talking about. This surely reflects very poorly of the professionalism of engineers, when this kind of a document is authored by Chartered Engineers, who are also the editors of SLEN, being members of the council. It also reflects very badly on the institution.

4. The editors have drawn the attention of the readers to three articles that Eng Parakrama Jayasinghe had written to SLEN. We shall not endeavour to delve on these at the present moment but would state that these are Eng Jayasinghe’s personal views. Although Eng. Jayasinghe can be an expert in his own right in his chosen field, he can surely not be called an expert in electric power system planning on which this note is focused.

5. We quote: “IESL as the apex body for professional engineers should play a major role in finding holistic solutions to the energy crisis in the country. However, unfortunately, it has not been included in your agenda.(sic)”. We would like to query whose agenda are they speaking of? Is it the IESL agenda?

6. In their communication, at the end they have referred to the energy crisis and power crisis in the same vein; this we feel is done without a proper understanding of what exactly is meant by a crisis, and the difference between power and energy.

We (IESL) have been working on the energy crisis since 2015. Apart from the engineers working in the Power and Energy sector, the IESL appointed a committee to study the Power and Energy Sector in 2015, with a very wide cross-section of IESL members. These members worked tirelessly on a few sub-committees such as Energy Policy, Electricity Sector, Oil and Gas sector, Biomass sector, Municipal Solid Waste sector, Distribution sector, DSM, etc.

Incidentally, the Ministry of Power and Energy recently thanked the IESL by their letter of 3rd February 2020, for the contribution IESL had made to improve the Draft Energy Policy which was approved by Parliament on 22nd October 2019. The Energy Policy is now published in the gazette. This means the work done by IESL under the Power and Energy sector committee has been recognized by the government, too.

It is therefore incorrect to imply that IESL had done nothing.

Coming back to the main thrust of the communication by the editors of SLEN, the Power Crisis; as we saw this looming power crisis, on 20th June 2016, this same Power and Energy Sector Committee held a seminar under the theme: “Generation options for a reliable and an economic power supply”. This was well attended by every one that mattered in the power sector. The Wimalasurendra Auditorium was overflowing with more than 150 participants. Many participated actively in the plenary session and their contributions were recorded. We prepared a very insightful report based on the presentations and the views expressed at the plenary session. The report was sent to the IESL Council to be forwarded to the Government. Unfortunately, this was sabotaged at the council because we understand one council member objected.

The council summoned the Power and Energy Sector Committee and two other members Eng. Parakrama Jayasinghe and Eng. P G Joseph who opposed the contents of the report. Dr. Tilak Siyambalapitiya and the Chairman of the Power and Energy Committee Eng. Shavidranath Fernando attended the council meeting. Eng. Jayasinghe and Eng. Joseph argued that there shall be no coal power plants ever to be built in Sri Lanka, but should be replaced with biomass and other renewables, which argument they could not even uphold with reasons. Unfortunately the report never saw the light of day. We attach this report to this submission, for your information.

IESL communication reflects very badly the image of IESL in the public domain. It has many factual, contextual and grammatical errors. Such will not augur well for a prestigious professional institution.

The above statements and the entire document is written with utter lack of knowledge and foresight of what is happening at the Ceylon Electricity Board in particular, and the power and energy sector in general. This itself will call for you to appoint a competent person or a committee with sufficient expertise to routinely review the contents of IESL publications in the public domain and even the SLEN. However, we leave it in your hands to decide.

We kindly request you to take appropriate corrective action to save the image of IESL as a highly professional institution.

Thanking You,
Eng. Shavindranath Fernando, PP and former General Manager and DGM (Generation Planning and Environment) CEB
Dr.Tilak Siyambalapitiya, Consultant, former Chief Engineer Generation Planning, CEB