[Stoves] Draft National Energy Policy of India on clean cooking

Anil Rajvanshi anilrajvanshi at gmail.com
Tue Jul 11 23:11:51 CDT 2017


Dear Nikhil,

In 2004 I had proposed to erstwhile Planning Commission a national cooking
and lighting technology mission. The document must be collecting dust at
Niti Ayog offices (they are housd in the same building as Planning
Commission). The document is here <http://www.nariphaltan.org/CALTEM.htm>.

This was an outcome of the meeting I had with the officials of Planning
Commission in 2004. <http://www.nariphaltan.org/pccaltem.pdf>

Hence this new mission at Niti Ayog gives me a sense of deja vu.

Anil

Anil K Rajvanshi, Ph.D.
Director and Hon. Secretary
Nimbkar Agricultural Research Institute (NARI)
Tambmal, Phaltan-Lonand Road,
P.O.Box 44, Phaltan - 415523
Maharashtra, India
Ph: +91-9168937964 (office)
cell:+91-9422402326 (BSNL)
cell:+91-9588636327 (JIO)
www.nariphaltan.org

http://www.nariphaltan.org/writings.htm (AKR's articles and talks)
AKR's autobiography www.nariphaltan.org/mylife.pdf (Life of an ordinary
Indian...)
http://www.huffingtonpost.in/dr-anil-k-rajvanshi/ (Huffington Post blogs)
http://nariphaltan.org/nari-in-press/ (articles and news published about
NARI)
http://www.thebetterindia.com/author/anilrajvanshi/ (ocassional blogs in
Better India)


alternate e-mail:
nariphaltan at gmail.com



On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Nikhil Desai <pienergy2008 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Paul and List: As mentioned earlier.
>
> Below an excerpt on "Clean Cooking Access" from the 27 June 2017 *Draft
> National Energy Policy
> <http://niti.gov.in/writereaddata/files/new_initiatives/NEP-ID_27.06.2017.pdf>, *Niti
> Aayog, Government of India. An open forum is planned today/tomorrow (12
> July) and written comments are due
> <http://niti.gov.in/writereaddata/files/new_initiatives/Public%20Notice%20for%20Comments%20on%20Draft%20NEP%20.pdf>
> 14 July, India 5pm I suppose.
>
>
> It is difficult to tell what role Niti Ayog and its modelers have in
> actual policy-making on energy in India. From the past experience, it is
> safe to say "very little". There was  much excitement with the 2008
> Integrated Energy Policy from the Planning Commission (the predecessor of
> Niti Aayog). The coalition government that sponsored it was back in power
> from 2009 to 2014, but some major reform options and initiatives were
> thwarted by the opposition party now in power. Of special relevance is its
> then opposition to the Direct Benefit Transfer for LPG (DBTL) scheme for
> LPG subsidies, which was re-branded as the current Prime Minister's Ujjwala
> Yojana and accelerated. (Same happened with rural electrification.)
>
> Besides, major sub-sectors of energy are under joint jurisdiction of the
> central and state governments, a perennial source of conflict, or in
> private hands (some of the bulk power generation as well as distribution,
> all of charcoal and other biomass), with independent regulation (for power)
> or none (biomass, except in power). The Planning Commission is not in
> charge of making decisions about public expenditures or pricing policies in
> power, coal, gas, oil products nor of course does it have any say in
> private investments or joint projects or contracts whereof.
>
> No surprise that the theoreticians of NITI have devised a scheme for
> themselves to get their foot in the realm of relevance -- proposing a  "National
>  Mission  on  Clean  Cooking  (NMCC)  will  be  launched  which  will
> coordinate efforts on cooking fuels, efficient cookstove and related R&D
> with an aim to achieve full clean cooking fuel coverage by 2022. This will
> be housed in the NITI Aayog. Energy Ministries, State Governments and
> industry will be taken on board."
>
> I doubt this will happen any time soon. Rather, I hope and trust it will
> not happen.
>
> ------------
>
> I have read through the rest of the document but let me note below some
> comments relating to "Clean Cooking Access".
>
> 1. *Same old theology -- that "dirty" or "clean" is a property of the
> fuels and not how they are burnt.*
>
> What Kirk Smith took as a matter of assumption, a short-cut, proxy for
> exposure, is subverted by the "clean cooking" crowd to argue a total
> phaseout of biomass and coal from households.
>
> What really is the objective, and how do they know that all households
> will want and be able to switch to LPG by 2022, short of heavy-handed
> government action such as fuel ban (which is impossible to enforce outside
> of main cities.)
>
> Apparently they do not have a clue about commercial cooking, brick-making,
> open burning of crop and tree wastes, or open urban manure by the roaming
> lactating mothers, I mean four-legged ones, and other animals.
>
> The tradeoff here is the relatively low capital cost (to the consumer) of
> LPG and electric stoves (once grid connection is obtained) and fuel
> subsidies versus relatively high capital cost of cleaner stoves with solid
> biomass fuels which are of widely varying qualities and impossible to
> subsidize. (Pellets and other standardized fuels can be subsidized under
> certain conditions, but I don't think the market has reached that level of
> maturity.) Specific stove types are still in pre-commercial stage and need
> ground-level support in test marketing and refinements; ideally, they
> should be liberated from dependence on small grants at the discretion of
> bureaucrats who have pre-conceived notions (as happened with DfID with GACC
> and other grantees).
>
> In practical terms, policy will continue to be biased toward LPG and
> electricity, not because they are necessarily the ideal choices but
> because, simply, the delivery chain is built over a century and subsidies
> are easy to deliver. They also satisfy the urban middle class in India, who
> care not a hoot about the rural (or urban) poor. We are still a 19th
> Century society with 21st Century facade.
>
> 2. *Their data are dated and of questionable quality*. NSS (National
> Sample Survey) data are notoriously unreliable, I can attest from personal
> experience 30+ years ago. How can I tell? For one, surveys are inconsistent
> with directly observable or inferrable statistics of oil companies,
> electric utilities, and other statistical sources on household goods'
> prices, quantities, and budget estimates. For another, people do not admit
> to using kerosene for cooking because their rations are based on lighting,
> and they buy the rest in black market.
>
> There is also considerable geographic variation. Gujarat (then Mumbai
> state including Mumbai) led with charcoal cooking back in the 1920s and
> with kerosene in the 1950s, and charcoal is transported large distances for
> space heating and cooking (household as well as commercial); one only has
> to wander in the market and ask around like I have done for many years.
> Relying on ready-made survey statistics - and averages without standard
> deviations or sub-group variations - as "proof" is academic
> presumptuousness. Commercial cooking is still on kerosene to some extent.
>
> Also, the rural/urban divide between LPG and solid fuels is decreasing as
> more people move to urban areas, LPG distribution in urban areas is
> expanded, and more cooking is outsourced. This "households" and
> "urban/rural" number game is academic; the issue is one of market density.
> NSS data on 71% of urban and 21% of rural households "regularly using LPG"
> are dated and in any case suspect. I trust the Oil Marketing Companies'
> number that 80% of the total or some 200 households have "connections", and
> don't care how much they use or whether they use "stacking". Not a policy
> matter, except in Kirk Smith's eyes.
>
> 3. *There is no need for any further coordination between or among any
> ministries*; the Ministry of Finance can take care of deciding money
> allocations, beyond which it's the state governments who come in the
> picture. If there are conflicts, an issue can be taken to the Cabinet or
> the Prime Minister's Office, or the already established means of
> Center-State discussions.
>
> Oil price regulation and state quotas are in the hands of the Ministry of
> Petroleum and Natural Gas. Power regulation at the central level is in the
> hands of the Ministry of Power and the Central Electricity Regulatory
> Commission. A separate oil and price regulator will be needed if and when
> the government privatizes the national oil companies. The Ministry of New
> and Renewable Energies (MNRE) has the historical burden of incompetence and
> failures when it comes to cookstoves, and could possibly work with the
> Ministry of Rural Development to do things differently. However, I doubt
> the Ministry of Rural Development - or the Ministry of Environment and
> Forests - will be bothered; not as if they haven't got enough backlog of
> problems.
>
> Most of all, budget allocations for "promoting" biomass cookstoves (and
> for other uses) should not go to MNRE because the rationale that biomass is
> "renewable" is fictional (or irrelevant), nor is biomass "new". The MNRE
> should be stripped of the whole small-scale (household or commercial)
> stoves initiatives, including solar, gelfuel, etc. and perhaps that entire
> business should be transferred to the Bureau of Energy Efficiency (at least
> as an appliance efficiency initiative).
>
> 4. *LPG imports do not add to "energy insecurity"*. Maybe fewer H1B visas
> from Trump administration cause greater "export revenue insecurity".
>
> 5. Niti Aayog should not be in control of large amounts of subsidy funds
> or correcting electricity and oil companies' financial imbalances and
> debts. In any case, it has no state-level jurisdiction.
>
> There is interesting material but the political influence is obvious when
> the author(s) go on about nuclear power or such.
>
> Oh, well. The last "Integrated Energy Policy" bit the dust -- PM2.5, I
> suppose. This one won't make any difference unless Modi has a woman to put
> in charge of NMCC and wants to show off at Clean Cooking Forum October
> 2017.
>
> N
>
>
>>> *Box 2: Clean Cooking Access*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Clean cooking refers to efficient and affordable fuel, the combustion of
>>> which does not harm family health due to indoor air pollution, and is a
>>> lso not onerous on women in its collection and use. In India, household
>>> electrification and provision of clean cooking fuel have been twin chall
>>> enges, with the former having received priority over the latter. This ha
>>> s led to poor redressal of this issue, resulting in near  40% of our
>>> population without access to clean cooking fuel. The situation in rural
>>> areas, with a significant section of the populace below poverty line, is
>>> grim, and is changing quite slowly. The PM Ujjwala Yojana is expected to
>>> overcome  this.  Our  end  aim  should  be  fuel  substitution  of  sour
>>> ces  of  energy  like firewood/chips, dung cake, kerosene, coke/coal e
>>> tc. to cleaner sources of energy like LPG, PNG and Electricity. Even whe
>>> re biomass is being used, the cookstoves are inefficient. A programme to
>>> improve the efficiency of biomass cookstoves is of vital importance. As
>>> per NSS Report 567 (68th Round, 2011-12), between 1999-2000 and 2011-12,
>>> the drop in use of solid biomass in cooking in rural households was only
>>> 8.2 percentage points to 67.3%, while the uptake of LPG went up from
>>> 5.4% to 15% (roughly 1% per year). In urban areas, the substitution has
>>> been faster with only 14% of the households still using solid biomass. In
>>> addition to availability, the adoption of cleaner sources of energy and
>>> improved cookstoves is hindered by behavioral patterns like differentiat
>>> ed cooking practices, and local preferences with regard to preparation.
>>> An interesting revelation in the NSS Report is, that kerosene serves  as
>>>  cooking  fuel  only  for  1%  and  6%  of  the  total  rural  and  urban
>>>  households, respectively. The grim picture above points to the necessit
>>> y of the National Energy Policy taking on this agenda as one of its most
>>> significant ambitions, and suggesting a robust strategy forward for pro
>>> vision of clean cooking fuel for all in the quickest timeframe in a miss
>>> ion mode. The launch of the ‘PM Ujjwala Yojana’ (PMUY) has come as a
>>> shot in the arm towards meeting the target of achieving universal clean
>>> cooking coverage. The NEP recognizes LPG as a major component of the cle
>>> an cooking solution. However, looking to the historical cooking practice
>>> s and abundance of agri-and forest-based biomass, there is a need to de
>>> vise a strategy for its deployment in a clean and efficient manner. Bio
>>> mass offers several advantages over fossil fuels such as LPG and PNG in
>>> the cooking space.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Clean cooking fuel has been the biggest casualty of lack of coordination
>>> between different energy Ministries. The clean cooking fuel policy opti
>>> on for rural areas has been virtually none, with a poor LPG component
>>> (1% growth per year). As if biomass is going to remain as the staple fue
>>> l, the major focus  has been  only on efficient  cook-stoves through
>>> MNRE schemes, which owing to several reasons, did not reach the rural
>>> populace in a significant manner. On the other hand, for urban areas, LP
>>> G has been the fuel of choice. Moreover, there has been no national prog
>>> ramme for clean cooking fuel, and no administrative Ministry responsible
>>> for this vital aspect! The announcement in the Union Budgets (2016-17 and
>>> 2017-18) of separate allocation of money for subsidy towards LPG connect
>>> ions in the name of rural women is a right step (PMUY).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The challenges faced by this sector are as follows:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>> ·       Clean cooking fuel was not high on national priority until the
>>> launch of PMUY. This has led to persistence of solid biomass as the pre
>>> ferred fuel for over 40% of the country’s population, combined with inef
>>> ficient cookstoves. The above is responsible for a huge health implication,
>>> largely on women and infants.
>>>
>>> ·       There  is  a  clear  rural-urban  divide  in  the  use  of  mode
>>> rn  cooking  fuels.  Rural households do not have a choice (or multiple)
>>> of cooking fuel solutions the way urban households have been provided.
>>> The former need stacking of cooking fuels just like the latter.
>>>
>>> ·       As nearly 50% of country’s LPG consumption is imported, absence
>>> of an  assured market   keeps   the   market   of   non-subsidised   bot
>>> tles   under-supplied.    Import infrastructure and supply chain, will
>>> pose a challenge for LPG imports to be ramped up significantly under the
>>> PMUY.
>>>
>>> ·       Inspite of 3 decades of Government intervention, less than 1% of
>>> the rural households use improved cookstoves. Additionally, despite the
>>> large market potential, there are a limited  number  of  manufacturers  of
>>>  clean  cookstoves  in  the  market  (many  lack design/ testing/ standa
>>> rd protocols) and none of them have received  the  scale and profitabili
>>> ty. Along with the same, issues of R&D, fiscal support to  manufacturing
>>> and after sales services deter expansion of the market.
>>>
>>> ·       The subsidised cookstove with natural draft has poor emission sp
>>> ecifications, while the one with forced draft is not acceptable to the c
>>> onsumers due to poor design and non-availability of biomass pellets. The
>>> re is a higher budgetary  allocation for the former as it is cheaper even
>>> though it does not address the objective.
>>>
>>> ·       Electricity,  natural  gas  (PNG  in  urban  areas)  and  biogas
>>>  have  so  far  not  been considered as serious cooking fuel options,
>>> while kerosene is rightly discouraged.
>>>
>>> ·       Information asymmetry about the long-term benefits of clean c
>>> ooking fuels, and the negative impacts of traditional fuels and cookstov
>>> es.
>>>
>>> ·       Market-based clean cooking solutions have not evolved due to a
>>> poor eco-system. The same needs to be kick-started with a comprehensive
>>> strategy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is evident that the problem is of a large magnitude, and there is no
>>> clear strategy. Instead of promoting clean fuels, we have been concentra
>>> ting on a half-hearted efficient cookstove programme. The import implica
>>> tions of LPG as the primary clean cooking solution will also mean energy
>>> insecurity, along with other things. However, sorting out a large anomal
>>> y in LPG distribution (that will hopefully be corrected by DBT and de-
>>> duplication), could help. As per OMCs, there were 201 million active d
>>> omestic LPG connections as of 1.04.2017 which  amount  to  around  80%  of
>>>  the  total  households.  But,  as  per  NSS  Report,  only approximatel
>>> y 71% households in Urban areas and 21% households in Rural areas in the
>>> country were found to be regularly using LPG. Hence, there is a large
>>> volume of LPG, which could be rationalized and offered to rural consume
>>> rs without a significant import implication and un-authorised use of
>>> subsidised supplies.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And, what about the rural consumer’s preference? Studies have revealed t
>>> hat LPG is in great demand,  even  at  a  commercial  price.  However,  just
>>>  like  billed  electricity,  many  rural consumers cannot pay for the
>>> 14.2 kg LPG refill at one go. The distribution of the LPG cookstove and
>>> related initial infra through Union Budget subsidy has successfully brid
>>> ged the initial reluctance of the rural poor. Here lies the opportunity
>>> for us to develop a successful market based clean cooking programme, whe
>>> rein costs can be shared. The Government will anyway have to dispense e
>>> quitably with the rural areas, and subsidise just as it does the urban c
>>> onsumer. The National Energy Policy proposes the following:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ·       A  National  Mission  on  Clean  Cooking  (NMCC)  will  be  laun
>>> ched  which  will coordinate efforts on cooking fuels, efficient cook
>>> stove and related R&D with an aim to achieve full clean cooking fuel cov
>>> erage by 2022. This will be housed in the NITI Aayog. Energy Ministries,
>>> State Governments and industry will be taken on board.
>>>
>>> ·       Rural households form bulk of the problem, and need a specialize
>>> d strategy as their cooking needs are varied, including water heating a
>>> nd fodder preparation. Stacking of fuels is the norm, and is acknowledge
>>> d. Hence, every home will have more than one cooking fuel.
>>>
>>> ·       With Universal Electrification aimed for 2022, electricity ca
>>> nnot be overlooked as a clean cooking fuel, with admissibility to cookin
>>> g subsidy. Also, keeping in mind the additional capacity of electricity
>>> required, if fuel substitution were to take place in favor  of  electric
>>> ity,  the  efforts  of  other  initiatives  of  the  Government  like  the
>>> renewable energy targets, should be dovetailed into this to ensure clean
>>> energy at the source and the end.
>>>
>>> ·       Appropriate  appliances  including  induction  cookers  will  be
>>>  encouraged.   The specifications of electricity connections under the D
>>> DUGJY would be altered to be able to support the same.
>>>
>>> ·       Efficient biomass cookstoves will be an important component of
>>> the strategy  of multiple cooking fuels. As electricity reaches homes,
>>> forced draft version will be the norm and there will be no need for
>>> solar power to run the fan in such  cookstoves (biomass based cooking).
>>> Normal draft will be discouraged. Solar  powered forced draft  cookstove
>>> s, suitably developed to meet  cooking practices  in  villages being ele
>>> ctrified with off grid solutions, will be deployed.
>>>
>>> ·       Studies have revealed that in many areas even biomass is being
>>> bought, and it is not that it is accessible for free everywhere. Expendi
>>> ture incurred (wage opportunity lost) in collecting/buying biomass is
>>> not significantly higher than cost of clean  fuels. Hence, there is an a
>>> ppetite to pay for the latter.
>>>
>>> ·       The Government is committed to make subsidy available evenly for
>>> urban and rural citizens, especially if they are poor. Subsidy will be e
>>> xtended for a slew of measures, including a variety of fuels, efficient
>>> cookstoves and for provision of  supply chain linkages. However, this
>>> subsidy will be tailored according to the different needs of remote and
>>> rural regions, allowing high flexibility and efficiency.
>>>
>>> ·       An ecosystem of mass market for cookstoves, electric cooking a
>>> ppliances,  bottled LPG in various refill sizes, setting up of fuel dist
>>> ributorships across the country and strengthening city gas networks in
>>> urban areas will be encouraged. Clean cooking is a vast market, which wi
>>> ll be tapped with its economic spin-offs.
>>>
>>> ·       The  problem  of  maintenance  of  the  aforementioned  clean  c
>>> ookstoves  (biogas/ improved) would be addressed in rural areas, so as
>>> to maximize adoption.  The on- going Skill India Mission will be synergi
>>> zed with it.
>>>
>>> ·       Creation of a database driven intervention strategy, which inc
>>> ludes the sales records, consumer database, and projects the benefits a
>>> ccrued in terms of reduced emissions and import dependence is essential
>>> for designing future interventions.
>>>
>>> ·       Promotion of an enterprise based model for operating biogas
>>> plants in rural  areas would  increase  usability  and  provide  co-bene
>>> fits  of  employment  and  livelihood opportunities.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The cooking sector is set for a sea-change during the time frame of the
>>> NEP, with solid biomass giving way almost entirely. With increasing
>>> population pressure and expansion of agriculture,  firewood  is  no  lon
>>> ger  easily within  reach  everywhere.  Adoption  of  modern harvesting technologies
>>>  is not yielding agri-waste for fuel like before. However, in the over
>>> two decade time-span of this Policy, biomass cannot be overlooked and
>>> efficient cookstoves have to be included in the basket of solutions.
>>> Rural consumers will also stack cooking fuels, that  suggests  that  an
>>>  array  of  cooking  fuels  should  comprise  the  national  cooking  fuel
>>> strategy,  with accompanying  supports. This strategy will also have
>>> positive ripple effects on public health, gender, livelihoods and environmental
>>>  aspects of the country.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Kirk R. Smith, MPH, PhD <krksmith at berkeley.edu>
>>>
>>> Collaborative Centre for Air Pollution Policy, New Delhi
>>>
>>> Professor of Global Environmental Heath
>>>
>>> School of Public Health
>>>
>>> University of California
>>>
>>> 747 University Hall
>>>
>>> Berkeley, CA 94720-7360
>>>
>>> 510-643-0793 <(510)%20643-0793> (fax: 642-5810)
>>>
>>> http://www.kirkrsmith.org/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "stove at lists.berkeley.edu" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to stove+unsubscribe at lists.berkeley.edu.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170712/d16a54d1/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list