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

[Nikhil Desai]

Anil:

All forecasts come true some day. Never are all desires realized. Lesson:
Make forecasts, eschew desires. With forecasts that persuade the right
people, you can raise money and sign contracts. :-)

Seriously, what you proposed - rightly, in my view - was a technology
mission that India has needed all along. Still does.

An excellent proposal and roughly right budget for that period. By now,
perhaps the lighting options are not as pressing an issue - what with
pico-PV products - and I don't know enough about high-efficiency
capacitors. All the rest is still very much in need of a high-level push; I
would add a couple of things -- rural ICT use and data systems for biomass.

You don't say why it didn't materialize, or whether the Terms of Reference
were prepared.

In retrospect, would you say the error was in pitching it to the wrong
people -  the Planning Commission? Why would Planning Commission agree to
its idea being run by MNRE?  Competence apart, I doubt Planning Commission
had the  incentive or the courage to run with an idea they could not
control. That's bureaucracy. I don't fault them for their interests and
intentions, because they have their standards of accountability and
responsibility. They shouldn't take on what they don't know and can't
deliver on. Or maybe it was that MNRE resisted anything like this that
talked about "alternative energy" going to the Prime Minister's office and
there the Department of Science and Technology (DST). As it is, MNRE had by
then lost credibility on "better cookstoves" and might have lost the nerve
as well.

I didn't send any comments to Niti Ayog  yet. They have extended
<https://energyinfrapost.com/niti-aayog-extends-time-comments-national-energy-policy-till-july-24-2/>
the
comment period to 24 July.

 I think it's time to fold up "renewables" and take biomass to real
science; the agrochemistry, biochemistry, water chemistry. And to data
sciences, molecular computing, what not. If you haven't sent anything yet,
want to revise and submit a joint comment?

Shashi Tharoor says We need a newer energy policy
<http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/we-need-a-newer-energy-policy/article9766031.ece>
(The
Hindu, 13 July 2007).  India needs two energy policies -- a short-term one
to clean up the finance and ownership mess, and a long-term one focused on
newer technologies.

Nikhil





------------------------
Nikhil Desai
(US +1) 202 568 5831
*Skype: nikhildesai888*

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Anil Rajvanshi <anilrajvanshi at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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 <+91%2091689%2037964> (office)
> cell:+91-9422402326 <+91%2094224%2002326> (BSNL)
> cell:+91-9588636327 <+91%2095886%2036327> (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 also not onerous on women in its collection and use. In India, house
>>>> hold electrification and provision of clean cooking fuel have been twin
>>>> challenges, with the former having received priority over the latter. T
>>>> his 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 areas, with a significant section of the populace below poverty l
>>>> ine, is grim, and is changing quite slowly. The PM Ujjwala Yojana is ex
>>>> pected to overcome  this.  Our  end  aim  should  be  fuel  substitution
>>>>  of  sources  of  energy  like firewood/chips, dung cake, kerosene, cok
>>>> e/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 improve the efficiency of biomass cookstoves is of vital i
>>>> mportance. 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 usin
>>>> g solid biomass. In addition to availability, the adoption of cleaner s
>>>> ources of energy and improved cookstoves is hindered by behavioral patt
>>>> erns like differentiated 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 a
>>>> bove points to the necessity of the National Energy Policy taking on th
>>>> is agenda as one of its most significant ambitions, and suggesting a robust
>>>> strategy forward for provision of clean cooking fuel for all in the
>>>> quickest timeframe in a mission mode. The launch of the ‘PM Ujjwala Yoj
>>>> ana’ (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 clean cooking solution. However, looking to the
>>>> historical cooking practices and abundance of agri-and forest-based bio
>>>> mass, there is a need to devise a strategy for its deployment in a clea
>>>> n and efficient manner. Biomass offers several advantages over fossil f
>>>> uels such as LPG and PNG in the cooking space.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Clean cooking fuel has been the biggest casualty of lack of coordinati
>>>> on between different energy Ministries. The clean cooking fuel policy
>>>> option for rural areas has been virtually none, with a poor LPG c
>>>> omponent (1% growth 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 schemes, which owing to several reasons, did not reach
>>>> the rural populace in a significant manner. On the other hand, for urba
>>>> n areas, LPG has been the fuel of choice. Moreover, there has been no n
>>>> ational programme for clean cooking fuel, and no administrative Ministry
>>>> responsible for this vital aspect! The announcement in the Union Budget
>>>> s (2016-17 and 2017-18) of separate allocation of money for subsidy tow
>>>> ards 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 ine
>>>> fficient cookstoves. The above is responsible for a huge health implica
>>>> tion, 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 mult
>>>> iple) of cooking fuel solutions the way urban households have been pr
>>>> ovided. 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
>>>> bottles   under-supplied.    Import infrastructure and supply chain,
>>>> will pose a challenge for LPG imports to be ramped up significantly und
>>>> er 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  manufactur
>>>> ers  of  clean  cookstoves  in  the  market  (many  lack design/ testin
>>>> g/ standard protocols) and none of them have received  the  scale and
>>>> profitability. 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
>>>> specifications, while the one with forced draft is not acceptable to th
>>>> e consumers due to poor design and non-availability of biomass pellets.
>>>> There 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  <
>>>>
>>> ...
>
> [Message clipped]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170715/eaa839af/attachment.html>