[Stoves] Draft National Energy Policy of India on clean cooking
Nikhil Desai
pienergy2008 at gmail.com
Tue Jul 11 22:28:51 CDT 2017
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 e
>> lectrification and provision of clean cooking fuel have been twin challe
>> nges, with the former having received priority over the latter. This has
>> led to poor redressal of this issue, resulting in near 40% of our
>> population without access to clean cooking fuel. The situation in rural a
>> reas, 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 sourc
>> es of energy like firewood/chips, dung cake, kerosene, coke/coal etc.
>> to cleaner sources of energy like LPG, PNG and Electricity. Even where
>> biomass is being used, the cookstoves are inefficient. A programme to im
>> prove 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 fa
>> ster with only 14% of the households still using solid biomass. In addit
>> ion to availability, the adoption of cleaner sources of energy and improv
>> ed cookstoves is hindered by behavioral patterns like differentiated c
>> ooking practices, and local preferences with regard to preparation. An in
>> teresting revelation in the NSS Report is, that kerosene serves as c
>> ooking fuel only for 1% and 6% of the total rural and urban
>> households, respectively. The grim picture above points to the necessity
>> of the National Energy Policy taking on this agenda as one of its most si
>> gnificant ambitions, and suggesting a robust strategy forward for provisi
>> on of clean cooking fuel for all in the quickest timeframe in a mission
>> 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 cove
>> rage. The NEP recognizes LPG as a major component of the clean cooking
>> solution. However, looking to the historical cooking practices and abunda
>> nce of agri-and forest-based biomass, there is a need to devise a strateg
>> y for its deployment in a clean and efficient manner. Biomass offers seve
>> ral 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 option
>> for rural areas has been virtually none, with a poor LPG component (1% g
>> rowth per year). As if biomass is going to remain as the staple fuel, the
>> major focus has been only on efficient cook-stoves through MNRE sche
>> mes, which owing to several reasons, did not reach the rural populace in
>> a significant manner. On the other hand, for urban areas, LPG has been
>> the fuel of choice. Moreover, there has been no national programme for c
>> lean cooking fuel, and no administrative Ministry responsible for this vi
>> tal aspect! The announcement in the Union Budgets (2016-17 and 2017-18)
>> of separate allocation of money for subsidy towards LPG connections 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 modern
>> 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 o
>> f an assured market keeps the market of non-subsidised bottles
>> under-supplied. Import infrastructure and supply chain, will pose a c
>> hallenge 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 profitabilit
>> y. 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 cooki
>> ng fuels, and the negative impacts of traditional fuels and cookstoves.
>>
>> · 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 c
>> lear strategy. Instead of promoting clean fuels, we have been concentrati
>> ng on a half-hearted efficient cookstove programme. The import implicati
>> ons of LPG as the primary clean cooking solution will also mean energy
>> insecurity, along with other things. However, sorting out a large anomaly
>> in LPG distribution (that will hopefully be corrected by DBT and de-dupl
>> ication), could help. As per OMCs, there were 201 million active domestic
>> LPG connections as of 1.04.2017 which amount to around 80% of the
>> total households. But, as per NSS Report, only approximately 71%
>> households in Urban areas and 21% households in Rural areas in the countr
>> y were found to be regularly using LPG. Hence, there is a large volume of
>> LPG, which could be rationalized and offered to rural consumers without a
>> significant import implication and un-authorised use of subsidised suppli
>> es.
>>
>>
>>
>> And, what about the rural consumer’s preference? Studies have revealed th
>> at 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 r
>> elated initial infra through Union Budget subsidy has successfully bridge
>> d the initial reluctance of the rural poor. Here lies the opportunity for
>> us to develop a successful market based clean cooking programme, wherein
>> costs can be shared. The Government will anyway have to dispense equitably
>> with the rural areas, and subsidise just as it does the urban consumer. T
>> he National Energy Policy proposes the following:
>>
>>
>>
>> · A National Mission on Clean Cooking (NMCC) will be launc
>> hed which will coordinate efforts on cooking fuels, efficient cookstove
>> and related R&D with an aim to achieve full clean cooking fuel coverage b
>> y 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 specialized
>> strategy as their cooking needs are varied, including water heating and
>> fodder preparation. Stacking of fuels is the norm, and is acknowledged. H
>> ence, every home will have more than one cooking fuel.
>>
>> · With Universal Electrification aimed for 2022, electricity cannot
>> be overlooked as a clean cooking fuel, with admissibility to cooking subs
>> idy. Also, keeping in mind the additional capacity of electricity require
>> d, if fuel substitution were to take place in favor of electricity, the
>> efforts of other initiatives of the Government like the renewa
>> ble 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 DD
>> UGJY 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, fo
>> rced 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 cookstoves, suita
>> bly developed to meet cooking practices in villages being electrified 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. Expenditure
>> incurred (wage opportunity lost) in collecting/buying biomass is not sig
>> nificantly higher than cost of clean fuels. Hence, there is an appetite 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 ex
>> tended for a slew of measures, including a variety of fuels, efficient c
>> ookstoves and for provision of supply chain linkages. However, this subs
>> idy 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 appl
>> iances, 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 will
>> 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 synergized
>> with it.
>>
>> · Creation of a database driven intervention strategy, which inc
>> ludes the sales records, consumer database, and projects the benefits acc
>> rued 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-benef
>> its of employment and livelihood opportunities.
>>
>>
>>
>> The cooking sector is set for a sea-change during the time frame of the N
>> EP, with solid biomass giving way almost entirely. With increasing
>> population pressure and expansion of agriculture, firewood is no long
>> er 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/20170711/750cbc4e/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list