You are on page 1of 97

Presentation Outline
• Introduction:
Nepal’s present power system scenario/Present Crisis
• Initiatives to address the problem
• Projects undertaken by NEA for Development
• Master plan study of Medium Storage Projects
• Challanges, Opportunities and Way forward

Introduction





Nepal has 83,000/42,000 MW potential
Present peak requirement noted is 1094.63 MW
Nepal produces only 718.621 MW
Present energy requirement is 5446.285 GWH
Available energy is 4218.135 GWH
About 1228.15 GWH energy deficit resulting upto
12-14 hours of load shedding each day!!

93 MW IPP 230.NEPALESE POWER SYSTEM (2013) Installed Capacity: 762 MW In Grid 757.58 MW ROR 616.0 MW Hydro 708.519 MW Off Grid (Hydro) 5.41 MW NEA 477.519 MW Storage 92 MW .0 MW Thermal 53.

2012/13.285 GWH Source: A Year Review Fiscal Year 2006/07 . where as system installed capacity has increased only 16% 2013 System max demand : 1094.000 900 146% 648 → 946 Demand Installed Capacity 800 116% 616 → 706 700 600 MW 500 400 300 200 100 0 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 Year Demand has increased to 46% from the year 2006/7 to 2010/11.Power Demand and Supply (MW) 1. NEA .62 MW 2013 System energy demand : 5446.

285 GWH Note: On the peak day of the year Source: A Year Review Fiscal Year 2006/07 . Peak Power dropped from 90% to 54%. NEA . energy supply ratio has dropped from 97% to 65%.Availability of Power 97% 100 90% 90 Supply Ratio (%) 80 Supply Ratio = Actual Supply / Total Demand ×100% kWh kW 70 65% 60 54% 50 40 30 20 10 0 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 From the year 2006/07 to 2010/11.2012/13. Energy demand: 5446. Max demand (2013): 1094 MW.

000 150. -The seasonal fluctuation is about 55%.000 DrySeason -The fluctuation in Maximum demand and Energy demand through the year is about 9% and 13% respectively.000 Ashad (Jun-Jul '11) Jestha (May-Jun '11) Baishakh (Apr-May '11) Chaitra (Mar-Apr '11) Falgun (Feb-Mar '11) Magh (Jan-Feb '11) Poush (Dec '10-Jan '11) Mangsir (Nov-Dec '10) Kartik (Oct-Nov 2010) Ashwin (Sept-Oct '10) Bhadra (Aug-Sept 2010) 0 Shrawan (July-Aug '10) 50.000 100.Mismatch in the Supply and Demand of Power Seasonal fluctuation of Peak Power and Energy Demand (MD9%-ED13%) Seasonal fluctuation of Power Supply Wet Season Dry Season Wet Season GWh Wet Season 200. .000 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Wet Seas on Peak Power Demand Peak Energy Demand July August Septem… October Novemb… December January February March April May June 250.

34% to 17. • January flow in the river is about 6.00 Budhi Ganga 1200.00 July River Discharge at HEP Sites in Cumecs Kali Gandaki A Marshyangdi Arun III .00 Rahughat 600.00 Kabeli 1000.36% of the maximum annual flow.00 200.00 800. Average Monthly Flows in Rivers at HEP Sites in Nepal Middle Marshyangdi 1600.Seasonal Flow Variations • High variations in the flow pattern of the River.00 Upper Karnali Months Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug 0.00 1400.00 Upper Arun 400.

00 Kulekhani I & II 150.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (Hours) Daily Load Curve.32 hr on Jan 20.00 0.Peak load of the Year – Jan 13.00 200. 2001 (Hydro+Thermal+Others) Kulekhani I & II Power interruption DMS Load shedding System Load (MW) 400.00 250.Load gap  Antidote of this problem is to build HYDRO PROJECTS including STORAGE PROJECTS.00 (Hydro+Thermal+ Others) 50.00 Role of 92MW Kulekhani Storage Project in 414 MW Capacity System 300. 2012 – 1026 MW .00 Load shedding 350. System Daily Load Curve .00 100.Peak Load of the Year System Peak Load 360 MW at 18.

Power Demand Forecast NEA/JICA .

921 GWh End of price adjustment period High Base Low case case case Load shed energy (1.000 High case in 2032: 22.146 GWh) 0 Year 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 5.000 .166 GWh Base case in 2032: 19.000 Energy demand in 2012 (5.Result of power demand forecast (2013-2032) (GWh) 20.493 GWh Low case in 2032: 17.380 GWh) 10.000 Actual power supply/demand Estimated demand with load shedding JICA (2012) Base case forecast JICA (2012) High case forecast JICA (2012) Low case forecast 15.233 GWh) Energy supplied in 2012 (4.

027 MW) Capacity gap in 2012 (448 MW) Achieved peak load in 2012 (579 MW) High case in 2032: 4.000 4.000 0 Year 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 500 .Required generation capacity forecast (2013-2032) (MW) 5.500 Actual peak load Estimated peak load with load shedding JICA (2012) Base case forecast JICA (2012) High case forecast JICA (2012) Low case forecast 3.729 MW Low case in 2032: 3.866 MW Base case in 2032: 4.000 3.000 2.500 Peak load demanded in 2012 (1.150 MW) 1.000 1.500 2.500 4.934 MW End of price adjustment period High Base Low case case case Demand capacity gap (4.

Power Discharge (Installed Capacity) Wet Season Dry Season .ROR-type Generation Overflow (not utilized) Q (P) Shortage Max.

Storage-type Generation Inflow Storage Q (P) Outflow Max. Power Discharge (Installed Capacity) Wet Season Supply Dry Season .

700 to 3.Projected Suitable Combination until FY2031/32 ROR-type generation Required installed capacity : Ptotal ≈ 1.800MW Capacity to be developed : Pdev ≈ 2.200MW Storage-type generation Required installed capacity : Ptotal ≈ 2.700MW .200 to 2.800 to 3.500MW Capacity to be developed : Pdev ≈ 500 to 1.300MW Capacity to be developed : Pdev ≈ 900 to 2.000MW PROR-type generation Required installed capacity : Ptotal ≈ 800 to 1.

(Starting December 2011 -Completion August 2013) . Feasibility study. Project Development •20 year National Master Plan of Storage Hydro electric Project with Cooperation from JICA.Initiatives to address the problem Investment promotion •NEA’s own initiatives of Projects identification.

PROJECTS UNDER DETAIL ENGINEERING DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT Tamakoshi V HEP : 87 MW Upper Arun HEP : 335 MW Upper Modi A HEP : 42 MW Dhudhkoshi Storage HEP : 300 MW .

PROJECT UNDER STUDY Kaligandaki-2 Storage HEP : 660 MW Andhikhola Storage HEP : 180 MW Tamor Storage HEP : 530 MW Uttar Ganga Storage HEP : 210 MW .

Projects being undertaken for further study Nisti-Panha Storage HEP : 190 MW Bagmati Storage HEP : 140 MW Gaudi Khola HEP : 17 MW Indrawati HEP : 92 MW Nalsyaugad Storage HEP : 410 MW .

.

Central Development Region Tamakoshi V HEP .Tamakoshi V Hydroelectric Project Dolakha District.

.Attractive Features of Tamakoshi V HEP • Cascade Project of Upper Tamakoshi HEP. Desigh Dishcarge 66 m3/ sec • No Access Road required • Short Transmission line of about 4 km length. Discharge from Upper Tamakoshi Project is diverted to the headrace tunnel of Tamakoshi V HEP from Tailrace Tunnel of Upper Tamakoshi HEP • Does not need headworks at the Tamakoshi River • Sound geology • Less flood discharge • Regulated flow from Upper Tamakoshi.

20 Km long Headrace Tunnel • Under ground Powerhouse .Overall Project Layout Plan of Tamakoshi V HEP U TKH EP TAILRACE S PIL LWA Y TUNNEL A DIT 1.42 A D IT 2 .5GWH • Gross Head 160.93 m •Design Discharge 66m3/sec • Interconnection System with UTHEP • 8.L=12 0m S URGE TANK U NDE RGR OUN D P OWE RHOUSE S WITCHY ARD • Installed Capacity 87 MW •Average Energy output 460. L = 210m HR TL =8 2 1 5m. L = 1 30 m TAMAK OS HI V INLET FSL = 1 15 4. D= 5.6m TAILR AC E TUNNEL A DIT 3.

74 GWh •Project cost in US$ 131.79 GWh 396.53 GWh 65.660.61 m 87 MW 462.93 m 149.99 million •Financial cost in NRs $ 13.93 m •Net Head 149.67 GWh •Wet Season Energy 364.3 million (with IDC) •Debt/equity ratio 70/30 Interest Rate on Debt 8.0% Return on Equity 14.00% Energy Cost Rs/ Kwh 3.Energy Generation And Fininancial Indicators Without Rolwaling •Gross Head 160.61 m •Installed Capacity 87 MW •Annual Energy 419.63 GWh With Rolwaling 160.19 / 3.81 (without Rolwaling) in year 2011 / 2017 .30 GWh • Dry Season Energy 54.

.

Installed capacity is 335. lies within Tibet.00 m As per feasibility study the Project cost is 479. Unit cost per Kilowatt less than 1500 US$.58 million US$. Eastern Development Region Dam Site Upper Arun HEP Powerhouse Site Arun River Main Attractive Features • • • • • Catchment area 30.400.00 Sq.00 MW . Benefit Cost ratio is 1.km.00 Sq.300.Upper Arun Hydroelectric Project Sankhuwasabha District. of which 25.00 GWh. This gives very high firm discharge and low flood discharge Sound geology Gross Head 492.km.69 % Total annual energy generation is 2050.

Main Features Upper Arun • Installed Capacity 335 MW •Average Energy output 2050 GWH • Design Discharge 79.6 m3/sec • Gross Head 492 m • 37 m high 80 m long Concrete Gravity Dam with three 22 m high radial gates • Three under ground Desanding basins 128 m long. 24 m wide and 32 m high • 7. 21 m wide & 35 m high Underground Powerhouse Cavern • 23.4 Km Access Road .84 Km long Headrace Tunnel • 105 m long.

.

Western Development Region Upper Modi HEP .Upper Modi-A Hydroelectric Project Kaski District.

5 km length.Attractive Features of Upper Modi “A” HEP • Simple Run off the River (RoR) Project • Headwork is located at New Bridge and Powerhouse is located at Sauli Bazar • Relatively Fair Geology • Design Discharge is 17.60 m3/s • Approximately 10 km of access road need to be constructed and some portion of the road need to be upgraded • Short Transmission line of about 11. .

60 m3/sec • 5.69 m •Design Discharge 17.948 Km long Headrace Tunnel • Surface Powerhouse .Overall Project Layout Plan of Upper Modi “A” HEP • Installed Capacity 42 MW •Average Energy output 214.87 GWh • Gross Head 287.

61 m 42 MW 214.73 Million •Financial cost in US $ •Debt/equity ratio Interest Rate on Debt Return on Equity Energy Cost Rs/ Kwh 13.0% 14.27 GWh 181.660.3 million (with IDC) 70/30 8.50 in year 2012 .Energy Generation And Fininancial Indicators •Gross Head •Net Head •Installed Capacity •Annual Energy • Dry Season Energy •Wet Season Energy 287.87 GWh 33.69 m 149.67 GWh •Project cost in US$ 78.00% 4.

.

Eastern Development Region P O W E R H O U S E D A PM H a l t 2 Dudhkoshi Storage HEP .PROJECT LOCATION Dudh koshi Khotang/Okhaldhunga District.

Three major alternatives were proposed.Introduction • • • • • • The Medium Hydropower Project of NEA carried out the Feasibility Study of the project in 1998. The development plan reviewed the project based on the Sapta Koshi High Dam Multipurpose Project Since the high water elevation of the SaptaKoshi HDMP was fixed at 335.3 amsl the powerhouse of Dudhkoshi needed to be shifted upstream. “Review of Development Plan on the Sunkoshi River and Dudh Koshi River” was done in 2011. Alt I: – Original dam site+waterway+undewrground powerhouse near Sunkoshi River • Alt II: – Original dam site+surface powerhouse site downstream of Dam body (Toe) • Alt III: – Case II+alternative dam site+surface powerhoouse .

3m & 13260 Dia 30m & Height 120m Steel Lined Underground Underground Francis @ 5 nos to Dhalkebar 93km • Total Project cost 690 MUS$ (1998 Price Level) • • 15. Dry & Wet season Energy 4100 Km2 136m3/s and 249.61 Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Benefit Cost Ratio(B/C) .Salient features (Original) Dudh koshi • • • • • Catchment Area (Dam) Design Flow and Rated net Head Total Storage Volume Installed Capacity Total.3 m 687.06% 1.4 Mm3 300 MW 1806 GWh & 360 GWh & 192 GWh • • • • • • • • Main Dam Tunnel Type Tunnel Diameter & Length Surge Tank dia & height Penstock Type Type of Powerhouse Turbine Transmission Line Rock Fill Dam of 180 m Concrete/shotcrete Lined Pressure Tunnel 9-7.

.

of Francis Turbine each of 110 MW.78 million US$. Palpa and Syangja districts having 11. Tahanu. The reservoir full supply level is 375 m.Kaligandaki-2 Hydroelectric Project • • • • • It is located in Nawalparasi.D) the Project cost was 1231. . The feasibility study is ongoing. The Installed capacity is 660 MW with 6 nos.374 Km2 catchment area of Western Development Region. As per pre feasibility study (1985 A. It is Storage type of HEP with 177m high Rockfill Dam. Unit cost per Kilowatt is about1866 US$. Nepal Electricity Authority has applied for survey license dated on 2068/12/13. The annual energy generation is 3470 GWh.

Andhikhola Hydroelectric Project
Syanjha District,
Western Development Region



It is located in Syangja district of Western Development Region.
It is Storage type of HEP with 307 m gross head. It has 3395 m long tunnel.
The project is nearby the urban centre, short access road and short transmission line

As per feasibility study (1998 A.D) the Installed capacity is 180 MW. The project cost 374
million US$. Unit cost per Kilowatt is about 2077.78 US$. The annual energy generation is
693 GWh. The Benefit-Cost ratio of the project is 1.56 with attractive economic parameter,
IIR= 15.11%
Nepal Electricity Authority has applied for survey license dated on 2068/12/13. The feasibility
study was completed and revised feasibility study is ongoing.

Tamor Hydroelectric Project
Tehrathum/ Taplejung District,
Eastern Development Region

Tamor Storage Hydroelectric Projec


It is located in Tehrathum and Taplejung districts of Eastern Development Region.
It is storage type of HEP with 190 m high rockfill dam. The full supply level is 535.00 m,
minimum operation level is 516.40 m and tail water level is 352.00 m. it has large catchment
area of 4,893 km2

As per pre feasibility study (2011 A.D), the Installed capacity is 530 MW with 6 nos of
unit each of 93.5 MW. The project cost was 1450 million US$. Unit cost per Kilowatt is
about 2735.85 US$. The annual energy generation is 2736.30 GWh.
Nepal Electricity Authority has applied for survey license dated on 2068/11/04. The feasibility
study is ongoing.

Uttar Ganga Hydroelectric Project
Baglung District,
Western Development Region


It is located in Baglung district of Dhaulagiri Zone in Western Development Region.
It is seasonal storage type of HEP with 145 m high rockfill dam, 9.82 m long HRT, 3.9 m
pressure shaft tunnel and 140 m long tailrace tunnel.

As per feasibility study (2004 A.D) The installed capacity is 210 MW. The project cost
was 798.96 million US$. Unit cost per Kilowatt is about 3804.57 US$. The annual energy
generation is 1297.00 GWh. The Benefit-Cost ratio of the project is 1.91 with attractive
economic parameter, IIR= 17.17%
Nepal Electricity Authority has applied for survey license dated on 2068/12/13. The feasibility
study is ongoing.

2013 Nepal Electricity Authority JICA Study Team .Nationwide Master Plan Study on Storage-type Hydroelectric Power Development in Nepal 13th February.

. Western River Basins Central River Basins: Eastern River Basins : 28 : 30 : 44 Coarse screening and ranking of 102 projects are carried out based on the Technoenvironmental aspects and some Threshold Criteria. whole nation was scanned and 102 storage projects were identified.Identification and Feasibility Study of Storage Project – 1999 Storage Master Plan Study The study was divided into three phases :  Coarse screening and ranking  Fine screening and ranking  Feasibility study As the first step. From Coarse Screening Ten Storage Projects were selected for the Fine Screening and Ranking.

0 4.0 8. Upper Seti and Madi Ishaneshor.No. Lantang.0 10 Name of the Project Mai-0 Upper Mai Madi Bagnas Madi Ishneshor Upper Seti Ridi Khola Indrawati Surnayagad Langtang Lohore Total Score 62 62 67 68 62 62 63 61 66 55 .0 2.0 9.0 7. Out of ten projects only four projects were found to be economically viable.0 5. S. 1. Result of the qualitative analysis shows that all projects equally good and competent. Projects most attractive were recommended for the Feasibility Study.0 6.Fine Screening and Ranking Study of Ten Storage Projects Ranking of Ten Candidate Projects: Ranking of ten projects was done based on the qualitative and quantitative analysis.0 3.

Evaluation Results of Promising Projects JICA and NEA study team .

25 7.JICA Criteria for the Evaluation and the Ranking of Candidate Storage Projects Weight of Evaluation Items (Base Case) Category % Technical and Economical 50 Conditions Subcategory % Hydrological Conditions 25 Geological Conditions 25 Lead Time 20 Effectiveness of Project 30 Impact on 50 Natural Environment Impact on Environment 50 Impact on Social Environment 50 Evaluation Item Reliability of flow data Risk of GLOF Sedimentation Seismicity Geological conditions of the site Natural hazard (earthquake) Length of access road Difficulty level of funding Reliability of development plan Unit generation cost Installed capacity Annual energy production Energy production in the dry season Impact on forest Impact on natural reserve Impact on fishes Impact on protected species Impact on locality by construction of transmission line Impact on household Impact on agriculture Impact on ethnic minority Impact on tourism Total % 25 40 35 30 40 30 25 35 40 25 20 20 35 25 30 20 25 Point 3.25 5.00 3.00 5.75 5.00 3.00 5.00 25 20 20 15 6.50 3.50 5.75 100 .25 6.13 5.50 4.00 4.75 2.00 3.00 3.37 3.25 20 5.00 6.75 3.

2012 .2012 Social survey •Mapping of agricultural lands. HRT and PH •On site landslide and erosion mapping May 2012 to Oct. and herpetofauna) • Consultation with locals on flora and fauna •Consultation with the fishermen on fish diversity May 2012 to Oct. agricultural productivity. reservoir. • Consultation with fishermen on fishery dependency and markets May 2012 to Oct.2012 Biological survey • Review of available literature on flora and fauna • Mapping of forest area using latest (2010/2012) remote sensing data • On site survey of forests (plot sampling) and wildlife (mammal. landholding. markets. housing structures. and other infrastructures using latest (2010/2012) remote sensing data • on site focus group discussion to unravel demography. institutions.Survey Methods Items Methods Date Geological survey •Review of regional geological maps •On site geological survey of dam. historic disaster records etc. birds.

7 91.0 667. W: Western River Basin. C: Central River Basin.0 122.0 120.3 180.7 245.8 287.0 456.5 380.0 617.0 816.0 148.6 111.0 104.2 642.8 142.0 Score 61 61 61 60 59 59 58 58 57 57 53 53 51 50 50 . C-11 W-01 W-21 E-10 E-09 W-11 E-20 W-22 C-01 W-24 C-05 C-18 W-17 C-03 W-26 Project Name Madi.2 67. Ranking 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 No.2 810.Evaluation Score and Ranking of 31 Candidate Projects Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 No.5 400.2 Indrawati SR-6 Kaligandaki-Modi Sarada Babai Upper Daraudi Ridi Khola BR-4 Lower Daraudi Lohare Khola P (MW) 86.3 Dukh Koshi-2 Kokhajor-1 Lower Badigad Andhi Khola Chera-2 P (MW) 199.3 Score 76 71 68 66 66 65 65 65 64 63 63 62 62 62 62 62 E: Eastern River Basin.0 536.1 Bhanakot Dudh Koshi Chera-1 Naumure (W.5 107. Rapti) Sharada .4 75.0 111. W-06 W-05 W-23 W-12 W-20 E-01 W-02 W-25 W-10 E-12 E-17 E-02 E-06 C-02 C-08 W-03 Project Name Madi Lower Jhimruk Nalsyagu Gad Tila .9 500.0 300.3 119.0 106.Ishaneshor Barbung Khola Thapna Rosi-2 Piluwa-2 Thuli Gad .4 97.0 96.2 Tama Koss-3 Sunkosi No.

5 Eastern Sinduli Location of Promising Projects Not more than 5 projects from the Each River Basin is Selected. Pyuthan Nalsyau Gad 400 Western Jajarkot Dudh Koshi 300 Eastern Okhaldhunga. Khotan Chera-1 148.5 Western Arghakhachi. • 5 projects from Western River Basin • 3 projects from Eastern River Basin • 2 projects from Central River Basin .Ten Selected Promising Projects Projects Capacity MW Region District Madi 199.3 Central Gulmi Kokhajor 111.3 536 Eastern Ramechhap Naumure 245 Western Argakhanchi.7 Western Jajarkot Sun Koshi No.8 Western Rolpa Lower Jhimruk 142. Pyuthan Andhi Khola 180 Central Syangja Lower Badigad 380.

7MW Dam height: 186m FSL: 866m Effective Storage Vol.: 141 MCM Reservoir area: 4 km2 Project Cost: 452 MUS$ Unit generation cost: 8 ¢/kWh Annual Energy: 620 GWh Resettlement: 566 .Chera -1 W-02 Chera-1 Location: Jajarkot Installed Capacity: 148.

Proposed dam axis .

.

W-02 Chera-1 .

Chera -1 Proposed powerhouse site .

: 212 MCM Reservoir area: 6 km2 Project Cost: 413 MUS$ Unit generation cost: 9.5 MW Dam height: 167m FSL: 597 m Effective Storage Vol.1 ¢/kWh Annual Energy: 455 GWh Resettlement: 229 . Pyuthan Installed Capacity: 142.Lower Jhimruk The powerhouse and dams are located in the reservoir of Naumure project W-05 Lower Jhimruk Location: Arghakhachi.

Lower Jhimruk .

High biodiversity .

W-05 Lower Jhimruk .

: 235 MCM Reservoir area: 7.8 MW Dam height: 190m FSL: 1.Madi W-06 Madi Location: Rolpa Installed Capacity: 199.090 m Effective Storage Vol.7 km2 Project Cost: 499 MUS$ Unit generation cost: 8 ¢/kWh Annual Energy: 621 GWh Resettlement: 336 .

Madi Further study is needed to confirm the water tightness of limestone in reservoir area and dam site Landslide along the Dhansi .

23 mw) -Drinking Water Schemes 22 .-Paved road 10 km -Gravel road 21 km -Hydropower 4 (0.

W-06 Madi .

367 GWh Resettlement: 124 .: 296 MCM Reservoir area: 6.Nalsyau Gad W-23 Nalsyau Gad Location: Jajarkot Installed Capacity: 410 MW Dam height: 200m FSL: 1.570 m Effective Storage Vol.6 ¢/kWh Annual Energy: 1.3 km2 Project Cost: 771 MUS$ Unit generation cost: 5.

Nalsyau Gad .

.

W-23 Nalsyau Gad .

.

Rapti) Location: Argakhanchi.3 ¢/kWh Annual Energy: 1.: 580 MCM Reservoir area: 19. W-25 Naumure (W.Naumure The powerhouse and dam of Lower Jhimruk Project is located in the reservoir.8 km2 Project Cost: 728 MUS$ Unit generation cost: 6. Pyuthan Installed Capacity: 245 MW Dam height: 190m FSL: 517 m Effective Storage Vol.158 GWh Resettlement: 456 .

Naumure Assumed instability of reservoir surrounding slopes where rocks are influenced by MBT. .

85 km2 -High biodiversity -TML 79km .-Forest 7.

Rapti) .W-25 Naumure (W.

366 GWh Resettlement: 1.7 km2 Project Cost: 923 MUS$ Unit generation cost: 6.: 506 MCM Reservoir area: 13.8 ¢/kWh Annual Energy: 1. .606 Badigad Khola Rapid Sedimentation due to the large-scale landslide at the fault zone in the reservoir area.3 MW Dam height: 191 m / FSL: 688 m Effective Storage Vol.Lower Badigad C-02 Lower Badigad Location: Gulmi Installed Capacity: 380.

Lower Badigad dam site Instability of dam site where an active fault passes .

90 km2) -Occupational Fishermen 86 -Temples 9 -Suspension Bridges 15 -Hydropower (28 kw & 0.-Resettlement 1606 HH -Ethnic minority 5 -Cultivated land (5.7 MW) -Drinking Water Schemes 29 .

C-02 Lower Badigad .

C-08 Andhi Khola Location: Syangja Installed Capacity: 180 MW Dam height: 157 m FSL: 675 m Effective Storage Vol.2 ¢/kWh Annual Energy: 649 GWh Resettlement: 542 .Andhi Khola House Relocation of dam site due to the FSL rising project of Kali Gandaki A.5 km2 Project Cost: 529 MUS$ Unit generation cost: 8.: 239 MCM Reservoir area: 5.

.Andhi Khola Instable and permeable dam site where thick terrace deposits exist.

Hydropower Project – 11 MW .

C-08 Andhi Khola .

Solukhumbu Installed Capacity: 300 MW Dam height: 180 m FSL: 580 m Effective Storage Vol.1 km2 Project Cost: 873 MUS$ Unit generation cost: 4.910 GWh Resettlement: 63 .: 442 MCM Reservoir area: 11.Dudh Koshi Risk of GLOF Instability of head race tunnel walls caused by thick over burden of > 1000m thick E-01 Dudh Koshi Location: Okhaldhunga. Khotang.6 ¢/kWh Annual Energy: 1.

Dudh Koshi .

Dudh Koshi .

E-01 Dudh Koshi .

6 km2 Project Cost: 379 MUS$ Unit generation cost: 13.5 MW Dam height: 107 m FSL: 437 m Effective Storage Vol.Kokhajor-1 E-06 Kokhajor-1 Location: Sinduli.6 ¢/kWh Annual Energy: 279 GWh . Kabhrepalanchok Installed Capacity: 111.: 166 MCM Reservoir area: 4.

Kokhajor-1 Not enough watertightness of reservoir area underlain by not well cemented rock (Upper Siwaliks) .

-Ethnic minority 5 -Development plan 6 .

E-06 Kokhajor-1 .

289 MUS$ Unit generation cost: 6.8 ¢/kWh .: 555 MCM Reservoir area: 30. Sindhupalchok Installed Capacity: 536 MW Dam height: 140 m FSL: 700 m Effective Storage Vol.1 km2 Project Cost: 1. Kabhrepalanchok.3 Location: Ramechhap.Sunkoshi-3 Risk of GLOF Sun Koshi No.

.Sunkoshi-3 Assumed instability of reservoir surrounding slopes covered with colluvium.

39 km2) -Occupational Fishermen 80 -Temples (more than 10) -Tourist 20.16 km2 -Resettlement 1599 HH -Cultivated land (9.000 -Paved road 7.Sunkoshi-3 -Forest 8.2 km -Suspension Bridges 16 -Drinking Water Schemes 22 -Development plan 10 .

E-17 Sun Koshi No.3 Dam site of the Sun Koshi HEP .

10 candidate projects identified in Master plan study .

Challenges and opportunities .

Challenges
• Load shedding has Negative impact on Industries, commerce,
employment and national economy, social disorder and resentment
• Declining overall rate of country’s development
• Reduced export and increasing import
• IPP’s discouraged for investing in HEPs
• NEA’s financial health declining
• Energy surpluses in wet season and deficit in dry season
• (Q40 design). Management of surplus energy.
• Favorable PPA for all investors
• Nepal Government’s Ten year 10,000 MW and 20 Year 25 000 MW
Plan implementation.

Way forward
Opportunities

• Nepal has growing and guaranteed energy market.
• Energy market is flexible and adaptive to the market demand with
export potential
• Investor friendly plan, policy and PPA. NEA open to collaborate with
investors/ partners/Donors and Developers
• Heading towards deregulated energy market and allow market to
address the problems of developing energy sector.
• Government committed to fulfill its commitments and obligations
towards IPP’s and investors for Transmission lines, substations etc./ Fix
Tariff for storage projects
• Create autonomous and profitable NEA in true sense.
• Flexible or Fix tariff on cost plus basis and PPA on competitive basis.
• Better NEA means better confidence to IPP’s.
• Assured returns on investment

Cooperation between all stakeholders
Collaborative approach

NEA

Investors
Domestic
and
foreigners

Profitable
NEA/IPP’s
and
No load
shedding

Government
and political
parties

IPPs

.Thank you! .