SLFS Phase B Report Final Rev0 09062021

World Bank Group
Floating Solar Energy Review

Sri Lanka
Phase B Study: Multi-criteria Analysis

Main Report
Final Rev0
June 2021
McWILLIAMS energy
Final Rev0 June 2021
Document Control
Project Name: Floating Solar Energy Review

Assignment Name:
Client’s Name: World Bank Group
Document Title: Phase B Study: Multi-criteria Analysis

Document Number: D00105
Document Date: June 2021
Current Version: Final Rev0
Author: Mike McWilliams
Revision History
Issue Date Purpose
Version: Final Rev 0 9 June 2021 Final review
Version:
Version:
This document has been prepared in

accordance with the scope of the
MCWILLIAMS energy
appointment by the Client, and is subject Dene Cottage
to the terms of that appointment. The
document is for the sole and confidential
Smallhythe Road
use by the Client for the purpose for which Tenterden
it was prepared. Mike McWilliams and
MCWILLIAMS Energy accept no liability for
Kent TN30 7NB
any use other than by the Client, and only United Kingdom
for the purpose for which it was prepared
and issued. No person other than the
Tel: +44 (0)7941 302972
Client may copy (in whole or in part), use Email: mike@mcw-e.com
or rely on the contents of this document
without prior permission from the Author.
McWILLIAMS energy
Separately Volumes
Annex A: Scheme Characteristics for Each Site
Annex B: PV Assessment for Each Site
Table of Contents
Document Control.................................................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................ vi
Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................................ vii
Executive Summary................................................................................................................................. 1
Objectives ........................................................................................................................................... 1
Phasing of Study.................................................................................................................................. 1
Methodology....................................................................................................................................... 1
Summary of Results ............................................................................................................................ 2
Preferred Sites .................................................................................................................................... 3
Next Steps ........................................................................................................................................... 6
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 7
1.1 Objectives................................................................................................................................ 7
1.2 Summary of Phase A ............................................................................................................... 7
1.3 Screening for Phase B ............................................................................................................. 9
1.4 Data Acquisition .................................................................................................................... 11
2 Scheme Design .............................................................................................................................. 13
2.1 Methodology......................................................................................................................... 13
2.2 Critical Factors....................................................................................................................... 15
2.3 Scheme Integration with Grid ............................................................................................... 17
2.4 Grid Interconnection ............................................................................................................. 19
3 PV Plant Sizing and Energy Generation Analysis ........................................................................... 24
3.1 Methodology......................................................................................................................... 24
3.2 Area of FSE, Floats and Panels .............................................................................................. 25
3.3 Solar Resource ...................................................................................................................... 26
3.4 PV Output.............................................................................................................................. 28
3.5 Energy output uncertainties and innovations ...................................................................... 29
ii
McWILLIAMS energy
4 Environmental and Social Impacts ................................................................................................ 31

4.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................... 31
4.2 Reservoir Coverage ............................................................................................................... 31
4.3 Environmental Assessment ................................................................................................... 33
4.4 Socio-economic Assessment ................................................................................................. 37
5 Cost Estimation ............................................................................................................................. 41
5.1 Methodology......................................................................................................................... 41
5.2 Costing Data .......................................................................................................................... 41
5.3 Capital Cost Estimates........................................................................................................... 43
5.4 Operating Cost Estimates...................................................................................................... 46
6 Economic Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 47
6.1 Methodology......................................................................................................................... 47
6.2 Valuation of Externalities ...................................................................................................... 49
6.3 Levelized Cost of Energy ....................................................................................................... 54
7 Financial Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 58
7.1 Cost of Capital ....................................................................................................................... 58
7.2 Depreciation of the Sri Lanka Rupee ..................................................................................... 59
7.3 Electricity Tariff ..................................................................................................................... 59
7.4 Financial Internal Rate of Return ........................................................................................... 59
7.5 Scenario Analysis ................................................................................................................... 60
7.6 Raising Capital for Projects .................................................................................................... 63
8 Multi-criteria Analysis and Ranking .............................................................................................. 64
8.1 Methodology......................................................................................................................... 64
8.2 Definition of Criteria, Scoring and Weighting ....................................................................... 65
8.3 Analysis and Results .............................................................................................................. 70
9 Preferred Sites and Next Steps ..................................................................................................... 75
9.1 Preferred Sites ...................................................................................................................... 75
9.2 Comments on sites................................................................................................................ 76
List of Tables
Table 1: Characteristics of top ranked sites ............................................................................................ 3
Table 2: Description of six top-ranked sites............................................................................................ 5
Table 3: Long list of reservoirs considered in Phase A Study .................................................................. 8
Table 4: Reservoirs included in Phase B Study...................................................................................... 10
iii
McWILLIAMS energy
Table 5: Key reservoir characteristics for FSE ....................................................................................... 12

Table 6: Hydropower characteristics at reservoirs ............................................................................... 13
Table 7: Area occupied by floats and panels ........................................................................................ 14
Table 8: Operating range of reservoirs by rank .................................................................................... 16
Table 9:Water surface area at Minimum Operating Level (irrigation) ................................................. 17
Table 10: Conjunctive operation and system integration..................................................................... 19
Table 11: Transmission line parameters ............................................................................................... 22
Table 12: Transmission options ............................................................................................................ 22
Table 13: Areas of FSE, floats and panels ............................................................................................. 26
Table 14: Location of sites analysed in GSA .......................................................................................... 26
Table 15: PV data from GSA for 1 MWp FSE ......................................................................................... 27
Table 16: Solar resource by rank (GTI) .................................................................................................. 28
Table 17: Results of PV modelling - power, energy and capacity factor .............................................. 29
Table 18: Area of MOL and of FSE components as percentage of FSL are ........................................... 32
Table 19: Area of FSE components as percentage of MOL area ........................................................... 32
Table 20: Reservoirs in Protected Areas and IBAs ................................................................................ 34
Table 21: Unweighted scores for environmental sub-analysis ............................................................. 35
Table 22: Weightings for environmental sub-analysis.......................................................................... 35
Table 23: Environmental sub-analysis weighted and normalised scores ............................................. 36
Table 24: Ranked environmental assessment scores ........................................................................... 36
Table 25: Unweighted scores for social impact sub-analysis................................................................ 39
Table 26: Weightings for social impact sub-analysis ............................................................................ 39
Table 27: Social impact sub-analysis weighted and normalised scores................................................ 39
Table 28: Ranked socio-economic assessment scores.......................................................................... 40
Table 29: Unit rates for floating solar components .............................................................................. 41
Table 30: Anchor complexity cost adjustment factors ......................................................................... 42
Table 31: Unit rates for substation and transmission lines .................................................................. 42
Table 32: Unit rates for land acquisition............................................................................................... 43
Table 33: Estimated cost of FSE facilities (USDm)................................................................................. 43
Table 34: Estimated cost of FSE projects including interconnection .................................................... 44
Table 35: Summary of project costs and components ......................................................................... 44
Table 36: Sites ranked by specific cost (USD/kWp) .............................................................................. 45
Table 37: Annual O&M rates for FSE .................................................................................................... 46
Table 38: Summary of operating costs for each site ............................................................................ 46
Table 39: Economic parameters ........................................................................................................... 48
Table 40: Carbon displacement parameters ......................................................................................... 49
Table 41: Summary of parameters for water benefits ......................................................................... 50
Table 42: Carbon benefit from displaced thermal generation ............................................................. 50
Table 43: Value of water saved when used for irrigation ..................................................................... 51
Table 44: Calculation of hydro benefit from water saving ................................................................... 52
Table 45: Water benefit from irrigation and hydro .............................................................................. 53
Table 46: LCOE Base Case with 9% interest rate .................................................................................. 54
Table 47: Rank of sites by LCOE for Base Case (9% interest rate) ........................................................ 54
Table 48: LCOE for Sensitivity Case with 4% interest rate .................................................................... 55
Table 49: Rank of sites by LCOE for Base Case (4% interest rate) ........................................................ 56
iv
McWILLIAMS energy
Table 50: LCOE for each site for High Energy Case (15% energy uplift) ............................................... 57
Table 51: Weighted Average Cost of Capital ........................................................................................ 58
Table 52: Financial Internal Rate of Returns of Projects ....................................................................... 59
Table 53: FIRR of Projects if the Tariff is Escalated at Local Inflation ................................................... 60
Table 54: FIRR of Projects if the Tariff is Escalated at Half of Local Inflation ....................................... 61
Table 55: FIRR of Projects is Electricity Generation Increase by 15% .................................................... 62
Table 56: FIRR of Projects if the Tariff is Escalated at Half of Local Inflation and Electricity Generation
Increase by 15% .................................................................................................................................... 62
Table 57: Power criterion MCA parameters ......................................................................................... 66
Table 58: Solar Resource criterion MCA parameters............................................................................ 66
Table 59: Technical complexity criterion MCA parameters .................................................................. 67
Table 60: System integration criterion MCA parameters ..................................................................... 68
Table 61: Environmental impact criterion MCA parameters ................................................................ 68
Table 62: Social impact criterion MCA parameters .............................................................................. 69
Table 63: Economic performance criterion MCA parameters .............................................................. 70
Table 64: Values for MCA criteria ......................................................................................................... 70
Table 65: Unweighted MCA score for each criterion ............................................................................ 71
Table 66: MCA weighting for each criterion ......................................................................................... 72
Table 67: Weighted MCA scores for each criterion .............................................................................. 72
Table 68: Unweighted MCA scores - Sum and Normalised .................................................................. 73
Table 69: Ranked Unweighted Normalised MCA Scores ...................................................................... 73
Table 70: Weighted MCA scores - Sum and Normalised ...................................................................... 74
Table 71: Weighted MCA scores by rank .............................................................................................. 75
List of Figures
Figure 1: Location of top ranked sites..................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2: Map showing location of reservoirs considered in Phase B .................................................. 11
Figure 3: Map of FSE interconnections with CEB Grid .......................................................................... 21
Figure 4: Flowchart for sizing FSE facilities ........................................................................................... 25
Figure 5: Methodology flow chart for MCA analysis ............................................................................ 65
Figure 6: MCA radar chart for Ulhitiya .................................................................................................. 76
Figure 7: MCA radar chart for Kaudulla ................................................................................................ 77
Figure 8: MCA radar chart for Castlereigh ............................................................................................ 77
Figure 9: MCA radar chart for Maduru Oya .......................................................................................... 78
Figure 10: MCA radar chart for Parakrama Samudra ........................................................................... 78
Figure 11: MCA radar chart for Rajangana ........................................................................................... 79
McWILLIAMS energy
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of the following in preparation of this report:
• Staff of Ceylon Electricity Board, the Irrigation Department of Sri Lanka and the Mahaweli
Authority of Sri Lanka for providing data on the reservoirs and hydropower plant which they
own and operate.
• The World Bank team in Sri Lanka for coordinating data gathering, and for assessment of the
environmental and social aspects of the floating solar energy projects.
• Mr Swetha Perera of RMA Energy for the financial analysis in this study.
• Other members of World Bank’s water and energy teams for their contributions.
vi
McWILLIAMS energy
Acronyms and Abbreviations

Asl Above sea level (elevation)
BESS Battery energy storage system
CAPEX Capital expenditure
CEB Ceylon Electricity Board
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CRF Capital recovery factor
DO Dissolved oxygen
ESIA Environmental and social impact assessment
ESMAP Energy Sector Management Assistance Program
FSE Floating solar energy
FSL Full supply level
GHG Greenhouse gas
GoSL Government of Sri Lanka
GSA Global solar atlas
GSS Grid substation
GTI Global tilted irradiation
GWh Gigawatt-hour - 1 million (106) kWh
ha Hectare
HEC Human-elephant conflict
HPP Hydroelectric Power Plant
IBA Important Bird and Biodiversity Area
IDC Interest during construction
IDSL Irrigation Department, Ministry of Irrigation, Sri Lanka
km Kilometre – 1000 metres
kV Kilovolt – 1000 volts
kWh Kilowatt-hour
LCOE Levelized cost of energy
LIBOR London Inter-Bank Offered Rate
LTGEP Long term generation expansion plan
m Metre
MOL Minimum operating level
MCA Multi-criteria analysis
mcm Million cubic meters
MVA Megavolt-amp
MW Megawatt – 1000 kilowatts
MWp Megawatt peak
vii
McWILLIAMS energy
NAQDA National Aquaculture Development Authority (of SL)

NPV Net present value
O&M Operation and maintenance
OPEX Operation expenditure
pa Per annum
PV Photovoltaic
s Second
SCADA Supervisory control and data acquisition
SD Standard deviation
SLS Sri Lanka Standards Institute38
t Tonnes (metric)
T&D Transmission and Distribution
TWh Terawatt-hour – billion (109) kWh
US¢ United States cents
USD United States Dollar
vRE Variable renewable energy
WB World Bank
Wp Watt peak
viii
McWILLIAMS energy
Executive Summary
Objectives
The objective of this study is to identify and select potential sites for grid-scale floating solar energy
(FSE) projects on Sri Lanka’s reservoirs.
The target size for these potential FSE projects is 100 MWp, which is considered an appropriate scale
to make a significant contribution to expansion and decarbonisation of the electricity system, and to
attract international finance.
Preference is given to projects which can operate conjunctively with existing hydropower plant; the
hydropower plant would increase or decrease its output to compensate for variations in the output
of the FSE, to provide continuous generation to the grid.
Phasing of Study
The study has been undertaken in two parts:
• Phase A comprises an evaluation of the amount of renewable energy required to meet Sri
Lanka’s stated renewable energy and climate change mitigation objectives, the contribution
it can make to decarbonisation, and the potential of Sri Lanka’s inland water bodies to
accommodate large-scale FSE. Some 40 sites were identified which might have potential for
FSE, and of these, around half were considered to have potential for schemes of the scale
targeted by this project.
• Phase B, the subject of this report, comprises an evaluation of 23 reservoirs to determine
whether they could accommodate grid-scale FSE, and a multi-criteria analysis to rank these
sites, taking into account seven key criteria,
The results of Phase A have not been repeated in this report, and hence the Phase A Report should
be read in conjunction with this report.
Methodology
The methodology adopted for the Phase B studies comprised of the following:
• Data gathering and collation of the reservoir and hydropower characteristics for the 23
reservoirs under consideration, which are under the ownership of Ceylon Electricity Board,
Mahaweli Authority of Sri Lanka and the Irrigation Department of Sri Lanka.
• Review of the reservoir characteristics, to refine the assessment of the suitability of the
reservoirs to accommodate FSE, and to determine the reservoir area that can reasonably be
covered by FSE facilities. Of the 23 sites under consideration, 21 were assessed to be
suitable for FSE construction.
• Using the analysis of the Global Solar Atlas, determine the installed capacity of FSE and the
estimated annual energy generation. For large reservoirs, the installed capacity is restricted
to around 100 MWp.
McWILLIAMS energy
• Conceptual design of the FSE facilities, taking account of environmental and social conditions
and the extent and location of the reservoir during dry periods.
• Estimates of the capital cost of the FSE facilities, supporting infrastructure and transmission,
and estimates of the annual operating cost.
• Economic analysis to establish the levelized cost of energy from the proposed FSE facilities,
including evaluation of carbon emission and evaporation reduction benefits.
• Financial analysis to determine likely tariff requirements.
• Assessment to identify environmental and social impacts common to all sites, and the
particular E&S issues at each site.
• Multi-criteria analysis of the 21 sites, taking account of the technical, economic,
environmental and social assessments undertaken in the study.
Summary of Results
The Phase B assessment covered 23 sites. Of these, 21 are considered to have potential for FSE
development. Two reservoirs, Kotmale and Rantambe, have insufficient water surface when drawn
down in dry periods to accommodate any significant FSE.
The powerstation of Victoria Hydroelectric project is located at the upstream end of Randenigala
reservoir, and hence the FSE associated with this is located on Randenigala reservoir rather than
Victoria reservoir.
A water surface area of around 1 hectare can accommodate 1 MWp of floating solar energy,
although the net area of panels is only about 56% of this area. In Sri Lankan conditions the plant
factor ranges from 14.7% to 16.5%, meaning that 1 MWp of FSE will deliver between 1285 and 1440
MWh of energy to the grid.
There is potential to develop 100 MWp FSE at 14 of the 21 feasible sites, and three reservoirs can
accommodate FSE in the range 65 to 85 MWp. Two sites can only accommodate around 20 MWp,
and the remaining two only have sufficient area when drawn down for 10 MWp.
Several of the reservoirs are located in or on the edge of national parks and protected areas. The
environmental impacts typically relate to the impact of FSE on wildlife, including elephants and fish.
It has generally been possible to locate the transmission lines outside national parks. The
preliminary environmental assessment suggests that most schemes can be developed providing they
are carefully located. However, where a large percentage of the reservoir surface area is covered by
floats, greater impacts will be expected.
With little land-take, the expected social impacts are small. However, most of the FSE are in areas of
scenic beauty frequented by tourists, and hence sensitive location of the FSE facilities is required.
There are significant health and safety issues when constructing and operating FSE over water,
which will require careful design and implementation of rigorous health and safety plans.
The specific cost of the FSE ranges between $770 and $890 per MWp excluding transmission, roads
and land acquisition, and between $830 and $1230 / MWp when these are taken into account. The
projects at the higher end of this scale are small schemes with disproportionately large transmission
costs.
2
McWILLIAMS energy
The levelized costs of energy (LCOE) ranges from $70 to $105 / MWh in the base case without
consideration of water and carbon benefits. The range is $42 to $76 / MWh when these positive
externalities are taken into account.
If the discount rate is reduced from 9% to 4% to more closely reflect the national cost of borrowing,
the LCOE falls to $49 to $71 /MWh without externalities.
For the financial analysis it is assumed that the FSE will be developed using Project Finance. Various
financing scenarios have been considered, mixing debt and equity from domestic and international
sources. The basic analysis evaluated the financial internal rate of return (FIRR) of all the schemes
under a flat SLR 15 / kWh tariff, and concluded that the projects would not be financially viable. This
results largely from the assumed depreciation of SLR against the USD, increasing the cost of
international debt service in USD terms. The FSE projects generally become financially viable if the
tariffs are escalated in line with the assumed SLR depreciation, meaning the tariff is constant is USD
terms.
Preferred Sites
The multi-criteria analysis (MCA) evaluated the 21 sites using weighted scores for the various
technical, economic, environmental and social criteria, and ranked the aggregate scores. The top six
sites are as follows:
1. Ulhitiya
2. Kaudulla
3. Castlereigh
4. Maduru Oya
5. Parakrama Samudra
6. Rajangana
The key characteristics of these top-ranked sites are shown in Table 1, and a description of the sites
is given in Table 2.
Table 1: Characteristics of top ranked sites
Carbon MCA
Specific
Capacity Energy Benefit
Rank Name Cost Score MCA Radar Chart
(MWp) (GWhpa) (tCO2
(USD/KWp) (out of 5)
pa)
Power
5
Econo… 4
3 Solar…
2
1
1 Ulhitiya 110.0 157.5 847 110,233 3.8 Social
0
Compl…
Enviro… Syste…
McWILLIAMS energy
Power
5
4
Econo… 3 Solar…
2
1
2 Kaudulla 105.8 151.0 875 105,667 3.7 Social
0
Compl…
Enviro… Syste…
Power
5
4
Econo… 3 Solar…
2
1
3 Castlereigh 100.7 130.1 889 91,972 3.5 Social
0
Compl…
Enviro… Syste…
Power
5
Econo… 4
3 Solar…
2
1
4 Maduru Oya 110.0 156.3 907 109,413 3.5 Social
0
Compl…
Enviro… Syste…
Power
5
4
Econo… 3 Solar…
2
Parakrama 1
5 102.6 147.9 844 103,523 3.5 0
Samudra Social Compl…
Enviro… Syste…
Power
5
4
Econo… 3 Solar…
2
1
6 Rajangana 102.5 145.1 886 101,570 3.5 Social
0
Compl…
Enviro… Syste…
McWILLIAMS energy
Table 2: Description of six top-ranked sites
Rank Name Comment
1 Ulhitiya Ulhitiya reservoir is a 22 sq km reservoir on the Ulhitya Oya, a right bank

tributary of the Mahaweli River. The reservoir is owned by the Mahaweli
River Authority, and forms part of the System B and C irrigation areas. It
receives part of its inflow from the right bank canal system fed
downstream of Rantambe reservoir. Ulhitiya has a small operating range
of around 8 metres, which makes it technically attractive for FSE. A 110
MWp FSE is proposed, which would occupy some 10% of the reservoir
surface area at MOL.
2 Kaudulla Kaudulla Reservoir is a 27 sq km reservoir on the Kaudulla Oya. It is an

ancient reservoir, and receives most of its water from the historic
Elahera-Kantale Giant Canal which begins at Elahera Anicut on Amban
Ganga. The reservoir operating range is less than 10 metres, making it
technically attractive. However it is in a popular national park with a
sizeable elephant population, and FSE development must be sensitive to
this. A 106 MWp FSE is proposed, which would occupy some 11% of the
reservoir surface area at MOL.
3 Castlereigh Castlereigh is the uppermost regulating reservoir of the Kehelgamu Oya

branch of the Laxapana hydroelectric complex in central Sri Lanka. The
reservoir is attractive for FSE development, as it should be able to
operate conjunctively with the downstream projects of the Laxapana
complex. A 101 MWp FSE is proposed, which would occupy some 35% of
the reservoir surface area at MOL.
4 Maduru Oya Maduru Oya is a very large reservoir, with a surface area of 64 sq km, in
the centre-east of Sri Lanka. It has a reasonably small operating range of
14 metres and a very large water surface area, even when drawn down in
the dry season. The reservoir is in a national park and the FSE will
therefore require sensitive development. A 110 MWp FSE is proposed,
which would occupy some 5% of the reservoir surface area at MOL.
5 Parakrama Parakrama Samudra is a 25 sq km reservoir on the Amban Ganga in the

Samudra centre-east of Sri Lanka. The original dam is an ancient structure dating
back to the 4th century AD. The main inflow to the reservoir is from the
Angammedilla Canal, which is diverted from the Amban Ganga at the
Angammedilla anicut. With a 10 metre operating range, this is an
attractive site for FSE. A 103 MWp FSE is proposed, which would occupy
some 16% of the reservoir surface area at MOL.
6 Rajangana Rajangana reservoir is a 16 sq km reservoir in north-central Sri Lanka. It is

fed from the Kala Oya and is downstream of Kalawewa reservoir. The
reservoir has a reasonably small operating range of 13 metres. Around
one-third of the surface area when the reservoir is drawn-down in the
McWILLIAMS energy
dry season, would be occupied by the FSE, which would have 102 MWp
installed capacity.
The locations of the six top-ranked sites are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Location of top ranked sites
Next Steps
Further review of these sites tends to confirm their ranking, without exceptionally low scores against
any criteria that might be a barrier to development. Hence the top four of these sites are
recommended for the next stage of pre-feasibility study. The schemes ranked 5th and 6th are
considered to be good reserve schemes if problems are encountered with the top four.
McWILLIAMS energy
1 Introduction
1.1 Objectives
The objective of this study it to identify and select preferred sites for development of large-scale
floating solar energy (FSE) facilities of the order of 100 MWp. Preference is given to sites where the
FSE can be co-located and operated conjunctively with existing hydropower plant, as this will
facilitate integration of the FSE into the electricity system.
If co-location is not viable, recognition is given to sites where the FSE can be operated conjunctively
or in close coordination with downstream or neighbouring hydropower projects, and to sites which
are well integrated into the national power grid through direct connection to the 220 kV grid.
In Phase A the potential and need for FSE in Sri Lanka was evaluated. In this Phase B study the
available sites are compared in order to select preferred schemes to take forward to pre-feasibility
study using multi-criteria analysis (MCA).
In order to evaluate and score the characteristics for each site, conceptual designs, analysis of the
photovoltaic (PV) resources, cost estimation, preliminary environmental and social assessment and
economic analysis have been undertaken.
1.2 Summary of Phase A

The first phase (Phase A) of this review of Sri Lanka’s floating solar energy (FSE) potential comprised
a review of the requirements for new electricity generation, and the potential to contribute to the
generation expansion using FSE. The assessment and analysis carried out in Phase A has not been
repeated in the current study.
The Phase A studies concluded that:
• Sri Lanka has a growing electricity demand, and has already developed its most economical
hydropower resources.
• Until recently, the main option for meeting the growing demand was construction of
additional thermal power projects.
• The falling cost of photovoltaic (PV) solar generation, combined with the new technology of
locating PV facilities on the water surface of reservoirs, offers a new option for providing
affordable electricity in a sustainable manner.
• Electricity demand will grow from around 17,000 GWh to 42,000 GWh, and peak power
demand from 3,000 MW to just over 7,000 MW from 2020 to 2039.
• Some 11,000 MW of new generation capacity is planned to meet the increased demand and
replace aging plant by 2039.
• Under its plan, CEB aims to generate 50% of electrical energy from renewable sources by
2030, although only under conditions of favourable hydrology; in a year of average
hydrology only 35% of energy generation will come from renewable sources.
• The Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) has recently stated its intent for 80% of electricity to
come from renewable sources by 2030, although this is not yet incorporated in the LTGEP.
• Sri Lanka has over 2,900 km2 of large inland water bodies. Using only 10% of this surface
area for FSE would provide enough energy to meet the total forecast national electricity
demand in 2039.
McWILLIAMS energy
• FSE in Sri Lanka is not constrained by the available resource, but by the ability of the grid to
absorb this energy while maintaining security of supply and grid stability. Existing
hydropower and planned pumped storage can help integrate variable renewable energy.
• There is seasonal complementarity between PV and hydro: solar output is highest in January
to April when hydro generation is low, and hydro production is highest in June, July,
November and December when solar output is low.
• In countries with similar PV resources to Sri Lanka, the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) from
land-based PV is typically around US¢5 per kWh (excluding interconnection and
infrastructure); based on this, LCOE of FSE in Sri Lanka may be around 15% to 20% more (i.e.
around US¢ 6 /kWh). In this Phase B study the LCOE is evaluated for each site.
• Some 40 reservoirs were identified in a long-list that might have potential for FSE, which
were screened to around half that number for evaluation by multi-criteria analysis in
Phase B.
These reservoirs are listed in Table 3.

Table 3: Long list of reservoirs considered in Phase A Study
ID Name Primary function

A.1 Upper Kotmale Irrigation
A.2 Kotmale Irrigation
A.3 Morogolla Pond Irrigation
A.4 Polgolla Barrage Irrigation
A.5 Victoria Irrigation
A.6 Randenigala Irrigation
A.7 Rantambe Irrigation
A.8 Bowatenna Irrigation
A.9 Moragahakanda Irrigation
A.10 Castlereigh Power
A.11 Moussakele Power
A.12 Canyon Pond Power
A.13 Norton Pond Power
A.14 Laxapana Pond Power
A.15 Kehelgamu Weir Power
A.16 Main Dam Power
A.17 Samanalawewa Irrigation
A.18 Uda Walawe Power
A.19 Dambulu Oya Irrigation
A.20 Kandalama Irrigation
A.21 Kalawewa Irrigation
A.22 Rajangana Irrigation
A.23 Nachchaduwa Irrigation
A.24 Nuwarawewa Irrigation
A.25 Tissawewa Irrigation
A.26 Huruluwewa Irrigation
A.27 Giritale Irrigation
A.28 Minneriya Irrigation
A.29 Kantale Irrigation
A.30 Venderasan Irrigation
8
McWILLIAMS energy
A.31 Chandrika Lake Irrigation

A.32 Kaudulla Irrigation
A.33 Parakrama Samudraya Irrigation
A.34 Nialmbe Power
A.35 Senanayake Samudhraya Irrigation
A.36 Ulhitiya/Ratkinda Irrigation
A.37 Kukule Power
A.38 Maduru Oya Irrigation
A.39 Uma Oya Power
A.40 Gregory Lake Leisure
A.41 Iranamadu Irrigation
A.42 Kalu Ganga Irrigation
1.3 Screening for Phase B

Following the evaluation in Phase A, the long-list of projects was screened to identify those with
potential for a large-scale floating solar facility. A target installed capacity of around 100 MWp is
considered appropriate to achieve economies of scale and make a significant contribution to the
generation expansion and decarbonisation plans. This implies that the reservoirs should have a
surface area significantly greater than 100 ha, based on the approximation that 1 ha can
accommodate 1 MWp of FSE. A list of 22 reservoirs were identified that matched this criterion, and a
further reservoir, Gregory Lake, was included despite having a smaller area, as it was considered to
have potential to supply the adjacent urban area.
Further screening was considered to eliminate any sites with obvious environmental or technical
impediments, but it was concluded that all 23 sites should be considered in the multi-criteria
analysis (MCA). These sites are shown in Table 41. Two sites, Kotmale (10) and Rantambe (18) were
excluded prior to FSE design and MCA as they have been found to have very small surface areas
when drawn down to supply irrigation demand in extremely dry periods.
1
The numbering of these reservoirs has been changed since the Phase A studies, and the revised numbering is
used consistently for identification of sites throughout Phase B.
9
McWILLIAMS energy
Table 4: Reservoirs included in Phase B Study
ID Name River Primary function

1 Bowatenna Sudu Ganga Irrigation
2 Castlereigh Kehelgamu Oya Power
3 Chandrika Lake Hulanda Oya & Udawalawa RBMC Irrigation
4 Gregory Lake Nanu Oya Leisure
5 Iranamadu Kanakarayan Aya Irrigation
6 Kalawewa Kala oya Irrigation
7 Kalu Ganga Kaluganga Irrigation
8 Kantale Mora Oya Irrigation
9 Kaudulla Kaudulla Oya Irrigation
10 Kotmale Kotamale Oya Irrigation
11 Maduru Oya Maduru Oya Irrigation
12 Minneriya Mahaweli Irrigation
13 Moragahakanda Amban Ganga Irrigation
14 Moussakele Maskeliya Oya Power
15 Parakrama Samudra Amban Ganga Irrigation
16 Rajangana Kala Oya Irrigation
17 Randenigala Mahaweli Ganga Irrigation
18 Rantambe Mahaweli Ganga Irrigation
19 Samanalawewa Walawe Ganga Irrigation
20 Senanayake Samudra Gal Oya Irrigation
21 Uda Walawe Walawe Ganga Irrigation
22 Ulhitiya Ulhitiya Oya Irrigation
23 Victoria Mahaweli Ganga Irrigation
The location of these reservoirs is indicated in the map in Figure 2.
10
McWILLIAMS energy
Figure 2: Map showing location of reservoirs considered in Phase B
Kaudulla Reservoir (9) Iranamadu Tank (5)
Minneriya Reservoir (12) Kantale Reservoir (8)
Parakrama Samudrya
Rajangana Reservoir (16) Reservoir (15)
Mahaweli River
Kalawewa Reservoir (6)
Bowatenna Reservoir (1) Madura Oya Reservoir (11)
Moragahakanda Reservoir (13)

Ulhitiya Reservoir (22)
Kalu Ganga Reservoir (7)
Randenigala Reservoir (17)
Victoria Reservoir (23)
Senanayake Samudhraya
Kotmale Reservoir (10)
(Gal Oya) Reservoir (20)
Gregory Lake (4)
Rantambe Reservoir (18)
Castlereigh Reservoir (2)
Samanalawewa Reservoir (19)

Moussakele Reservoir (14)
Chandrika Lake (3)
Uda Walewa Reservoir (21)
1.4 Data Acquisition

The starting point for the Phase B study was to acquire data relating to each of the reservoirs under
consideration.
Data was kindly provided by the reservoir owners:
• Mahaweli Authority of Sri Lanka (MASL)

• Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB)
• Irrigation Department, Ministry of Irrigation, Sri Lanka (IDSL)
This data was supplemented by information in the public domain, including the websites of these
three organisations.
Early in the data acquisition it became apparent that the two critical factors for deployment of FSE
projects on Sri Lanka’s reservoirs were the operating range of the reservoirs and the surface area of
the reservoir when drawn down to its minimum level for irrigation.
Most of the reservoirs in Sri Lanka are used primarily for irrigation, and have the ability to be drawn
down until almost empty to supply irrigation water in very dry years. Several of the reservoirs of the
Mahaweli Cascade also generate hydropower with the released water, but the minimum level for
hydropower generation is typically higher than for irrigation release. Hence the surface area at the
minimum level for irrigation is the parameter that governs how much FSE can be installed.
Another limiting factor for installation of FSE is the range of water levels. For these reservoirs it is the
difference between full supply level (with an allowance of 2.0 m for flood surcharge) and the
minimum drawdown level for irrigation. Current anchorage systems can typically cope with a range
11
McWILLIAMS energy
of up to 35m using elasticated moorings. More sophisticated anchorage systems, possibly requiring
new technology, are required for greater ranges.
As a consequence there was a focus on obtaining accurate data for the surface area and water level
range data, which is shown in Table 5.
Table 5: Key reservoir characteristics for FSE
ID Name Surface Area at Surface Area at Water Level

Full Supply Level Min. Operating Range (m)
(ha) Level (ha)
1 Bowatenna 470 20 13.9
2 Castlereigh 368 294 21.2
3 Chandrika Lake 357 68 10.6
4 Gregory Lake 40 40 6.0
5 Iranamadu 2,000 500 17.0
6 Kalawewa 2,480 13 12.4
7 Kalu Ganga 840 400 29.5
8 Kantale 2,430 10 13.8
9 Kaudulla 2,700 970 9.7
10 Kotmale 635 1 75.0
11 Maduru Oya 6,390 2,219 13.5
12 Minneriya 2,550 91 13.6
13 Moragahakanda 2,926 669 32.0
14 Moussakele 724 169 23.9
15 Parakrama Samudra 2,500 647 10.3
16 Rajangana 1,600 323 12.7
17 Randenigala 2,350 740 55.8
18 Rantambe 117 1 20.0
19 Samanalawewa 975 314 38.0
20 Senanayake Samudra 7,790 135 20.3
21 Uda Walawe 3,413 670 15.4
22 Ulhitiya 2,220 1,110 8.1
23 Victoria 2,370 75 55.5
As there is an intent for the FSE projects to operate in conjunction with existing hydropower plant,
the key characteristics of these plants were also obtained, as shown in Table 6. This data was used
in evaluating whether there is potential for conjunctive operation of FSE and hydro at the sites2.
The blank cells in Table 6 indicate there is no hydropower at the reservoir. The zero values for
Blackpool HEP at Gregory Lake indicate that this mini hydro has been decommissioned.
2
See section 2.3.1 for discussion of conjunctive operation.
12
McWILLIAMS energy
Table 6: Hydropower characteristics at reservoirs
ID Name Hydro Plant Installed Average Plant

Name Capacity Energy Factor (%)
(MW) (GWh pa)
1 Bowatenna Bowatenna 40 48 14%
2 Castlereigh Wimalasurendra 50 112 26%
3 Chandrika Lake
4 Gregory Lake Blackpool 0 0 0%
5 Iranamadu
6 Kalawewa
7 Kalu Ganga
8 Kantale
9 Kaudulla
10 Kotmale Kotmale 201 498 28%
11 Maduru Oya Moya Left Bank 5 15.5 35%
12 Minneriya
13 Moragahakanda Moragahakanda 25 70 32%
14 Moussakele Canyon 60 160 30%
15 Parakrama Samudra
16 Rajangana
17 Randenigala Randengala 122.6 454 42%
18 Rantambe Rantambe 50 239 55%
19 Samanalawewa Samanalawewa 120 344 33%
20 Senanayake Samudra Inginiyagala 11 38 39%
21 Uda Walawe Uda Walawe 6 21 40%
22 Ulhitiya
23 Victoria Victoria 210 865 47%
2 Scheme Design
2.1 Methodology
The assessment undertaken in Phase A indicates that under typical solar irradiation in Sri Lanka, a
water surface area of around 1 hectare (ha) is required to accommodate 1 MWp of floating solar
energy facility. Since the aim of this study is to identify prospective FSE facilities of around 100 MWp
installed capacity, 23 reservoirs have been identified where this might be achieved.
In most of the analysis of the reservoirs, the parameters and characteristics for all 23 sites are
presented. However since the analysis determined that FSE would not be possible at Kotmale
(scheme 10) and Rantambe (scheme 18), designs have not been carried out at these two sites.
Hence design parameters are not presented in the tables for these two sites, and the rows are left
blank.
The design process assesses the smallest surface area of these reservoirs when they are drawn down
to their minimum operating level during extremely dry periods. In multi-purpose reservoirs the
13
McWILLIAMS energy
minimum level is generally governed by the irrigation outlet, which is typically lower than the
hydropower outlet.
In reservoirs where the surface area is close to 100 ha at minimum operating level (MOL), it is
assumed that virtually all of this residual area can be used for FSE. Where the minimum area is
greater than 100 ha, it is assumed that only around 100 ha will be used initially for FSE.
In order to identify where the residual pond will be located, use has been made of the timeline
facility on Google Earth Pro. This enables historic satellite photos to be examined, including some
taken during very dry periods when water levels are low. The location and shape of the reservoirs
during these dry periods is the primary factor in determining the shape and location of the FSE on
each reservoir.
At this stage no attempt has been made to form the FSE facility into islands3 – only the overall shape
and location on the reservoir have been identified. These layouts are presented in the description of
each site in Annex A. Reasonable margins have been allowed within the designated area for
arrangement and spacing of islands, and for the space on the floats for walkways, inverters and
other scheme components, as shown in Table 7. It is particularly important with FSE for walkways to
be provided to allow for cleaning of panels.
Table 7: Area occupied by floats and panels
Percentage of facility occupied by floats 68%
Percentage of float area occupied by panels 82%
Net area of panels as % of FSE area 56%
Having assessed the area and location of the FSE facility, use has been made of the Global Solar Atlas
(GSA)4 to assess the estimated energy production from the area allocated to the FSE. The process is
described in section 3.
Having identified the location of the FSE facility to suit the residual location of the reservoir when
drawn down to its lowest level, the location of the land-based facilities was selected taking into
account various factors including:
• Proximity to existing access roads

• Avoiding protected areas and undisturbed habitat
• Availability of land for temporary and permanent works, including substations
• Avoiding, where possible, obvious tourism and leisure facilities
• Minimising the length of transmission route to the grid connection point.
3
FSE facilities are typically grouped into islands, where a number of floats are linked together, physically and
electrically, to form convenient sized sub-units. These islands are shaped and located to fit within the overall
shape of the facility.
4
GSA is an on-line resource developed by ESMAP, an affiliate of World Bank Group, and Solargis.
14
McWILLIAMS energy
On the large reservoirs, where there was scope to move the FSE, the location of the FSE also took
these factors into account. Where there is room the FSE has been kept away from spillways where
there might be high flow velocity during floods, although this has not always been possible.
The above assessments have been made solely on the basis of remote sensing using existing
mapping and satellite imagery. It will need to be reviewed at later stages of project studies.
2.2 Critical Factors

Some of the critical factors affecting site selection and design are discussed in the following sections.
2.2.1 Reservoir Operating Range

Most of the reservoirs in Sri Lanka are prioritised for regulation of irrigation flows. These reservoirs
have the capability of being drawn down to very low levels, so that most of the gross storage volume
can be used for irrigation demand.
The operating range of hydropower reservoirs is usually constrained by the characteristics of

hydropower turbines, which lose efficiency and may suffer damage when operated at low head5. In
multi-purpose reservoirs, the minimum operating level for hydropower generation is often higher
than for irrigation, and the operating range for irrigation is typically greater than for hydropower. It
is therefore the operating range for irrigation that needs to be considered when designing the
floating solar facility.
Where the reservoirs are located in the hilly areas of central Sri Lanka, the steep sided valleys mean
that high dams have been used to optimise the water storage. As a consequence these dams have
large operating ranges – for example 75 metres at Kotmale and 55 metres each at Victoria and
Randenigala.
The current limit for water level variation for the design of anchors for floating solar projects is
around 35 metres, although design innovations are being developed to for a greater range.
The combination of a large water level range with potentially high wind speeds during tropical
cyclones present significant challenges for
FSE designers. Seaflex anchor limits
For the initial FSE projects in Sri Lanka it will “At Seaflex we have supplied customized, site-
be prudent to select sites that lie within the specific mooring systems designed by our in-
range of existing proven technology, which house engineers to locations all around the world
will facilitate development and financing. since 1987. Floating solar systems secured with
From Table 8 it can be seen that 19 of the 23 Seaflex have survived hurricane-strength winds,
reservoirs under consideration have an and we have documented references
operating range that is within the limits of dimensioned for 35-meter water level variations
current anchor technology, with only and 90-meter depths. We have the products,
Samanalawewa, Victoria, Randenigala and knowledge, and experience to securely moor
Kotmale outside these limits. your application.”
Source: Seaflex website (www.seaflex.net)
5
The head in a hydropower scheme is the difference in water elevation between the reservoir and the turbine
discharge point, which provides the pressure to drive the turbines.
15
McWILLIAMS energy
Table 8: Operating range of reservoirs by rank
Rank Name Range (m)

1 Gregory Lake 6.0
2 Ulhitiya 8.1
3 Kaudulla 9.7
4 Parakrama Samudra 10.3
5 Chandrika Lake 10.6
6 Kalawewa 12.4
7 Rajangana 12.7
8 Maduru Oya 13.5
9 Minneriya 13.6
10 Kantale 13.8
11 Bowatenna 13.9
12 Uda Walawe 15.4
13 Iranamadu 17.0
14 Rantambe 20.0
15 Senanayake Samudra 20.3
16 Castlereigh 21.2
17 Moussakele 23.9
18 Kalu Ganga 29.5
19 Moragahakanda 32.0
20 Samanalawewa 38.0
21 Victoria 55.5
22 Randenigala 55.8
23 Kotmale 75.0
2.2.2 Reservoir Depth

The maximum water depth for current anchor technology is around 90 metres. At the reservoirs
under consideration, only Victoria would be affected by this constraint. However even at Victoria it
might be possible to locate the FSE facility to avoid the deepest parts of the reservoir. However this
is not necessary, since in the current study the FSE linked to Victoria Hydroelectric Project (HEP) is
located at the top end of Randenigala reservoir.
As most of the reservoirs under consideration are operated to provide water for irrigation, they can
be drawn down to low levels in dry periods, as illustrated in Table 8. Since the FSE facility needs to
be located in the part of the reservoir that remains as open water at this minimum level, it
inherently means that the FSE is generally located in the deepest part of the reservoir. The
exception to this is where a large pond remains at maximum drawdown, giving more flexibility for
the location of the FSE facility.
2.2.3 Area at MOL

As discussed in section 2.1, the critical parameter for sizing the FSE facility is the surface area
remaining when the reservoir is drawn down to its lowest level – the Minimum Operating Level
(MOL) for Irrigation. Since the approximate area requirement is 1 hectare per MWp, a residual area
16
McWILLIAMS energy
of at least 100 ha is needed to achieve the target installed capacity of 100 MWp. The water surface
area at MOL irrigation is shown by rank of size in Table 9, indicating that 14 of the 23 reservoirs have
sufficient residual area when drawn down to allow a 100 MWp FSE to be developed.
Table 9:Water surface area at Minimum Operating Level (irrigation)
Rank Name Area at MOL irrigation

(ha)
1 Maduru Oya 2,219
2 Ulhitiya 1,110
3 Kaudulla 970
4 Randenigala 740
5 Uda Walawe 670
6 Moragahakanda 669
7 Parakrama Samudra 647
8 Iranamadu 500
9 Kalu Ganga 400
10 Rajangana 323
11 Samanalawewa 314
12 Castlereigh 294
13 Moussakele 169
14 Senanayake Samudra 135
15 Minneriya 91
16 Victoria 75
17 Chandrika Lake 68
18 Gregory Lake 40
19 Bowatenna 20
20 Kalawewa 13
21 Kantale 10
22 Kotmale 1
23 Rantambe 1
2.3 Scheme Integration with Grid

2.3.1 Conjunctive operation
An advantage of floating solar when located on hydropower reservoirs is that the FSE can be
operated conjunctively with the hydropower facility. In an idealised conjunctive operation scenario,
the power output of the hydro scheme is altered as the output of the FSE varies, so that the
combined power output of the two technologies is constant.
In order to permit conjunctive operation, the hydropower plant must have particular characteristics
as follows:
• Adequate storage so that water can be retained when the hydro plant is ramped down,
rather than being spilled to waste. This will normally be the case for reservoirs with
sufficient area for FSE, but may not if the hydro is operated at a constant level. Loss of
17
McWILLIAMS energy
water may also occur if the reservoir is full and spilling. For the reservoirs under
consideration in this study, there is generally ample storage, although some water loss may
occur at times of floods when the reservoirs are full. Although this represents some loss of
energy, it tends not to have great value as the system will probably have surplus energy.
• The hydro plant needs to be able to operate flexibly, without restrictions on the amount or
duration of flow release that prevent it from following the FSE output. For the reservoirs
under consideration in this study, only Victoria is able to operate without such restrictions.
All of the MASL and ID owned reservoirs are operated giving priority to irrigation flow, and
hence the timing of water release is dictated by irrigation requirements6. Victoria also
provides irrigation water, but it has the large Randenigala reservoir immediately
downstream that can re-regulate the flow pattern. Castlereigh and Moussakele are operated
giving priority to hydropower generation, but as they are each at the head of hydropower
cascades, complex operating rules would be required to ensure that the generation from
downstream hydro plant is not disrupted. Provided that these rules are established, FSE at
Castlereigh and Moussakele reservoirs would be able to operate conjunctively with the
downstream hydro plant in their respective cascades.
• The hydro plant must not be required for other system support services. Hydro schemes
provide services other than energy generation including inertia, frequency response, voltage
management and reactive power. If the plant is required to be generating to provide these
services, it may not be able to vary its output for conjunctive operation. Some of the
hydropower plant in Sri Lanka are required to operate to provide grid stability and other
services, and this aspect will need to be studied in detail during feasibility studies.
In practice only Victoria HEP can be operated conjunctively with FSE most of the time, as it has a
large re-regulating reservoir downstream. At all of the other hydropower stations, the need to
release irrigation water may require the hydro plant to operate simultaneously with the FSE, or
otherwise, to release water without generating. More detailed studies at pre-feasibility stage may
find more opportunities for conjunctive operation, such as at Randenigala, Bowatenna and
Samanalawewa, but at this stage it is assumed that conjunctive operation would not be possible.
2.3.2 System Integration

Where conjunctive operation of FSE with a co-located hydro plant is not possible, it may be possible
to operate conjunctively with other remote hydropower schemes. The generation output of one or
more FSE can be balanced with the output of other remote hydropower schemes by the CEB
dispatch centre, provided that they are not constrained by the characteristics of the transmission
grid. Such operation would require appropriate Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA)
systems to be in place from both hydro and FSE so that the output of the hydro plant can be varied
inversely with that of the FSE.
In order to achieve this the operation of both hydropower and FSE plant should not be constrained
by the characteristics of the power grid.
As the amount of variable renewable generation on the Sri Lanka grid increases, it is likely that
battery energy storage systems (BESS) will need to be provided to cope with very short-term
6
More detailed studies may identify potential to re-regulate flow in downstream off-channel tanks and
reservoirs, or for conjunctive operation to be possible at certain times of year.
18
McWILLIAMS energy
generation and demand variations. The BESS may be co-located with the generation plant (e.g. at
the substation of FSE facilities) or more likely close to the main load centres.
The ability of the FSE to integrate efficiently into the power system, and to operate conjunctively
with remote hydro plant and BESS will be greatest if it has a strong connection to the grid. This is
most likely to be achieved if the FSE is connected directly to the 220 kV grid, or connected to a
132kV grid substation that has a direct link to the 220 kV grid.
In Table 10 each site is assessed for its potential to operate conjunctively with a co-located hydro
scheme, operate with downstream or nearby hydro plant, and whether it shas a strong direct link to
the 220kV grid through its grid connection point. These parameters are used in the multi-criteria
analysis as measures of the ability of the FSE to integrate into the power system.
Table 10: Conjunctive operation and system integration
ID Name Conjunctive Conjunctive d/s Strong link to

with Hydro Hydro 220kV
1 Bowatenna No No No
2 Castlereigh No Yes Yes
3 Chandrika Lake No No No
4 Gregory Lake No No No
5 Iranamadu No No No
6 Kalawewa No No No
7 Kalu Ganga No No No
8 Kantale No No No
9 Kaudulla No No No
10 Kotmale Yes No No
11 Maduru Oya No No No
12 Minneriya No No No
13 Moragahakanda No No No
14 Moussakele No Yes Yes
15 Parakrama Samudra No No No
16 Rajangana No No Yes
17 Randenigala Yes No Yes
18 Rantambe Yes No Yes
19 Samanalawewa Yes No No
20 Senanayake Samudra No No No
21 Uda Walawe No No No
22 Ulhitiya No No No
23 Victoria Yes No Yes
2.4 Grid Interconnection

A high-level design of the interconnections between the proposed FSE facilities and the national grid
has been undertaken, in order to develop cost estimates for inclusion in the multi-criteria analysis.
19
McWILLIAMS energy
2.4.1 Assumptions
For the purpose of this study, the FSE projects are assumed to be connected to the nearest grid
substation that is likely to have adequate capacity.
Three transmission voltages are used to match that of the existing grid in Sri Lanka: 33 kV, 132 kV
and 220 kV. No system studies have been undertaken, and the voltage selected for each site has
been selected based on the author’s experience of similar projects and the nature of the grid, taking
account of power transfer requirements and transmission line length. The outcome is that schemes
with installed capacity of less than 20 MWp are connected by 33 kV lines, with the larger schemes
connected at 132kV or above.
Where possible, use is made of existing transformer capacity. This is possible where the FSE can
operate conjunctively with a co-located hydro scheme, or where the grid substation has
transformers of adequate capacity feeding the local demand, and the electricity flow direction is
reversed by connecting generation to the demand side.
The planned projects, typically with around 100 MWp installed capacity, are sizeable relative to the
loads on most of the rural grids. The output from FSE facilities can vary rapidly due to cloud cover,
and since they do not have built-in inertia, there is potential to introduce disturbance if connected to
weak transmission systems. Hence the strongest possible connection points have been chosen, with
direct access to the 220 kV grid if possible.
2.4.2 Selected Interconnections

The transmission routes have been selected to minimise their length, but also taking into account
the location of national parks, protected areas and tourism sites. For example the transmission line
for Parakrama Samudra FSE skirts around the historic town of Polonnaruwa to minimise impacts.
The selected routes are shown in the scheme characteristic sheets in Annex A, and Figure 3.
The transmission line parameters are summarised in Table 11.
20
McWILLIAMS energy
Figure 3: Map of FSE interconnections with CEB Grid
21
McWILLIAMS energy
Table 11: Transmission line parameters
ID Name Rated Voltage Grid Substation TL Length

Capacity (km)
(MWp)
1 Bowatenna 18.8 33 kV Naula 4.2
2 Castlereigh 100.7 132 kV New Polpitiya 20.0
3 Chandrika Lake 64.1 132 kV Embilipitiya 1.2
4 Gregory Lake 20.0 132 kV Nuwara Eliya 2.4
5 Iranamadu 104.1 132 kV Kilinochchi 5.3
6 Kalawewa 12.2 33 kV Anuradhapura (old) 33.4
7 Kalu Ganga 99.1 132 kV Naula 24.3
8 Kantale 9.9 33 kV Kappalthurai (new) 27.0
9 Kaudulla 105.8 132 kV Old Habarana 27.0
10 Kotmale
11 Maduru Oya 110.0 132 kV Polonnaruwa 43.5
12 Minneriya 85.7 132 kV Polonnaruwa 13.0
13 Moragahakanda 99.5 132 kV Naula 11.0
14 Moussakele 97.6 132 kV New Polpitiya 21.0
15 Parakrama Samudra 102.6 132 kV Polonnaruwa 12.5
16 Rajangana 102.5 132 kV New Habarana 31.0
17 Randenigala 110.0 220 kV Randenigala HEP S/s 0.2
18 Rantambe
19 Samanalawewa 98.2 132 kV Samanalawewa HEP S/s 10.3
20 Senanayake Samudra 100.4 132 kV Ampara 19.0
21 Uda Walawe 99.6 132 kV Embilipitiya 21.2
22 Ulhitiya 110.0 132 kV Mahiyangane 15.2
23 Victoria 66.9 220 kV Victoria HEP S/s 1.2
There are other options for connection of the FSE facilities to the grid that would reduce the cost: in
particular there are opportunities to make “Tee-connections” to the 132 kV grid where it passes
close to the FSE site. This would reduce the length of transmission line required, and hence reduce
the cost. However it has not been common practice in Sri Lanka to connect generation plant to the
grid in this way, so investigation of this option is deferred until future stages of study. Some of the
options that may be considered in future studies are shown in Table 12.
Table 12: Transmission options
ID Name Comments on Transmission Options

1 Bowatenna Bowatenna Power Station is 1.3 km, but additional 33kV/132kV
transformer capacity would be needed.
2 Castlereigh The substation is 1.3 km from the Laxapana - Badulla 132 kV line. If
the SS is positioned on the opposite bank it will be about 2.5 km from
the New Laxapana - Balangoda 132 kV line.
3 Chandrika Lake MV connection to Embilipitiya is an option
22
McWILLIAMS energy
4 Gregory Lake MV interconnection to N'Eliya is a possibility. N'Eliya GSS has sufficient

transformer capacity.
5 Iranamadu Vavuniya - Kilinochchi 132 kV transmission line is 3 km away and a
Tee-connection to the transmission line is a possibility.
6 Kalawewa Anuradhapura - Habaran 132 kV line is 13.5 km away. A Tee-
connection to the transmission line is an option. Else an MV line to
Old-Anuradhapura.
7 Kalu Ganga no alternative identified.
8 Kantale As this is less than 10 MW, connection to an existing 33 kV line
passing near by (if exist) an option. To be studied at the next stage.
9 Kaudulla Habarana - Valachchena 132 kV line is 7.5 km away. A Tee-connection
to the transmission line is an option.
10 Kotmale n/a
11 Maduru Oya Habarana - Valachchena 132 kV line is about 30 km away. A Tee-
connection to the transmission line is an option.
12 Minneriya Habarana - Valachchena 132 kV line is about 5 km away. A Tee-
connection to the transmission line is an option.
13 Moragahakanda no alternative identified.
14 Moussakele New Laxapana - Balangoda 132 kV line is about 1 km away. A Tee-
connection to the line is a possibility.
15 Parakrama Samudra no alternative identified.
16 Rajangana Puttalam - Anuradhapura 132 kV line is about 12 km away. A Tee-
connection is a possibility.
17 Randenigala no alternative identified.
18 Rantambe n/a
19 Samanalawewa Balangoda GSS is 11.5 km away. Balangoda GSS might be a better
interconnection point.
20 Senanayake The substation seems to be right below the Badulla - Ampara 132 kV
Samudra line. A Tee-connection is a possibility.
21 Uda Walawe Samanalawewa PS - Embilipitiya 132 kV line is less than 4 km from the
proposed substation. A Tee-connection is a possibility.
22 Ulhitiya Mahiyanganaya - Ampara 132 kV line is 11.5 km away. A Tee-
connection is a possibility
23 Victoria no alternative identified.
2.4.3 Access and Support Facilities

In order to construct and maintain the floating solar facilities it will be necessary to provide all-
weather vehicle access. One of the considerations in siting the FSE is to avoid construction of new
access roads if possible, to reduce the environmental impact and cost. A particular objective was to
avoid construction of roads through national parks and protected areas.
In practice it has been possible to avoid construction of any major new roads. All of the sites are
located adjacent to existing roads. A notional allowance has been made for 0.5 km of access road
for each site for a spur from the existing road and local site roads. Provision for this is included in
the cost estimate, and an allowance for the road wayleave is also included in the area of land to be
acquired.
23
McWILLIAMS energy
As well as the floating facilities there is a requirement for some land-based facilities including
substations. A provision for the cost of acquiring land is included in the financial model, based on an
area requirement of 100 m2/MVA of substation capacity.
Inverter stations can also be located on land, with an area requirement of 25 m2/MVA of inverter
capacity. However in view of the relatively large size of the proposed facilities, and the electrical
losses that would be incurred in long, low voltage dc cables, it is assumed at this stage that the
inverters will be located on floats.
Control buildings and operators’ facilities will be included within the land-based substations.
3 PV Plant Sizing and Energy Generation Analysis

The analysis of the PV output of the potential FSE sites relies heavily on the Global Solar Atlas (GSA)
tool developed by World Bank, ESMAP and SOLARGIS. This tool includes a database of solar
resource and air temperature, and uses its in-built PV simulation model to estimate the energy
production at any site around the globe. Various types of facility can be studied, including grid-scale
ground mounted and floating solar systems.
Design of the FSE facilities is carried out for 21 of the 23 reservoirs, since Kotmale and Rantambe
were found to have insufficient area at MOL to accommodate significant FSE. However for
completeness the PV resource at these two sites is included in the relevant tables.
3.1 Methodology
The methodology used for design of the floating solar energy systems, and for estimating the energy
output, is illustrated in the flowchart in Figure 4.
The first stage of the process is to determine the area that is available for the FSE facility, the area of
floats and the net area of panels, as described in section 2.1.
The number of panels that can be located in this area is determined by dividing the area by the
selected panel size. For this study 72 cell panels have been adopted, which are 1.96m long x 0.99 m
wide, giving an area of 1.94 m2.
From the GSA, the energy output to the grid (PVout) per MWp at the project location is determined,
and the output to the grid in kWh/m2 is calculated. Based on this, and the selected panel size in m2,
the theoretical output in Wp per panel is calculated. Since panels are typically available in 5 Wp
increments, the theoretical output is rounded down to selected one of the standard panels.
Knowing the number of panels that can be located at the site and the output of each panel, the
Installed Capacity can be calculated.
From the GSA tool the capacity factor for FSE at the location can be calculated, and when applied to
the Installed Capacity, this yields the estimated energy production.
The results of this analysis are presented in sections 3.2 to 3.4.
24
McWILLIAMS energy
Figure 4: Flowchart for sizing FSE facilities
Assess area of reservoir at

minimum operating level
Determine location of residual

pond at low water level from
historic satellite imagery
Is area at MOL
significantly no Determine % of residual area
greater than that can be used for FSE
100 ha?
yes
Determine % of surface
required for ~100 ha of FSE
Apply % to area at MOL to

From GSA determine PV output
calculate gross area of FSE
per square metre
facility
From selected panel size, From experience, estimate area

determine Wp output per panel of floats and net area of panels
based on % of gross area
Select nearest panel output From panel size, determine

(Wp) from available range number of panels
Number of panels x panel

output = installed capacity
3.2 Area of FSE, Floats and Panels

The area available for the FSE facility, the area occupied by floats and the net area of the PV panels is
shown in Table 13, together with the number of panels proposed.
Designs have been carried out for 21 of the 23 sites. As can be seen in Table 13, two reservoirs,
Kotmale and Rantambe, have insufficient surface area when drawn down, to accommodate any
significant FSE. Being in hilly terrain there is little prospect of the floats being able to settle on the
reservoir bed. Hence no design parameters are presented for these sites.
25
McWILLIAMS energy
Table 13: Areas of FSE, floats and panels
ID Name Area at % for PV Area of Area of Net Area No of

MOL (ha) Facility Floats of Panels panels
(ha) (ha) (ha)
1 Bowatenna 20.00 0.95 19.00 12.92 10.59 54,599
2 Castlereigh 294.40 0.35 103.04 70.07 57.46 296,099
3 Chandrika Lake 68.10 0.95 64.70 43.99 36.07 185,910
4 Gregory Lake 40.00 0.52 20.80 14.14 11.60 59,772
5 Iranamadu 500.00 0.21 105.00 71.40 58.55 301,732
6 Kalawewa 13.00 0.95 12.35 8.40 6.89 35,489
7 Kalu Ganga 400.00 0.25 100.00 68.00 55.76 287,363
8 Kantale 10.00 1.00 10.00 6.80 5.58 28,736
9 Kaudulla 970.00 0.11 106.70 72.56 59.50 306,617
10 Kotmale 1.30
11 Maduru Oya 2219.00 0.05 110.95 75.45 61.87 318,830
12 Minneriya 91.00 0.95 86.45 58.79 48.20 248,426
13 Moragahakanda 669.00 0.15 100.35 68.24 55.96 288,369
14 Moussakele 169.00 0.60 101.40 68.95 56.54 291,387
15 Parakrama Samudra 647.00 0.16 103.52 70.39 57.72 297,479
16 Rajangana 323.00 0.32 103.36 70.28 57.63 297,019
17 Randenigala 740.00 0.15 111.00 75.48 61.89 318,973
18 Rantambe 1.00
19 Samanalawewa 314.00 0.32 100.48 68.33 56.03 288,743
20 Senanayake Samudra 135.00 0.75 101.25 68.85 56.46 290,955
21 Uda Walawe 670.00 0.15 100.50 68.34 56.04 288,800
22 Ulhitiya 1110.00 0.10 111.00 75.48 61.89 318,973
23 Victoria 75.00 0.90 67.50 45.90 37.64 193,970
3.3 Solar Resource

The co-ordinates for the sites that have been assessed using the GSA tool are shown in
Table 14, which also describes the section of the reservoir of this location.
Table 14: Location of sites analysed in GSA
ID Name Coordinates Location in Reservoir
1 Bowatenna 7.665990, 80.663630 Body of reservoir near dam wall

2 Castlereigh 6.857472, 80.586601 Centre of reservoir
3 Chandrika Lake 6.302811, 80.865058 South east limb - closest to substation
26
McWILLIAMS energy
4 Gregory Lake 6.957918, 80.779098 Centre of lake

5 Iranamadu 9.318922, 80.44675 Centre of lake
6 Kalawewa 8.009744, 80.554190 Centre of lake
7 Kalu Ganga 7.553134, 80.835953 North limb near dam
8 Kantale 8.367527, 80.983231 Centre of lake
9 Kaudulla 8.164391, 80.925280 Northern end towards dam
10 Kotmale 7.059704, 80.609943 West end towards dam
11 Maduru Oya 7.637722, 81.211298 North end for access and least distance through NP
12 Minneriya 8.037650, 80.887981 North-east near bund for best access and depth
13 Moragahakanda 7.694545, 80.763623 North east towards dam wall and power station
14 Moussakele 6.840318, 80.549028 North west towards dam wall
15 Parakrama Samudra 7.901634, 80.986918 South east, away from national park
16 Rajangana 8.131706, 80.228170 South west towards dam wall
17 Randenigala 7.201620, 80.915169 East end of reservoir towards dam wall
18 Rantambe 7.201789, 80.946203 Body of reservoir, away from Randenigala spillway
19 Samanalawewa 6.680816, 80.794391 North east towards dam wall
20 Senanayake Samudra 7.203368, 81.524264 East end of reservoir towards dam wall
21 Uda Walawe 6.439468, 80.837685 South of reservoir towards dam wall
22 Ulhitiya 7.470203, 81.058286 North west of Ulhitiya reservoir
23 Victoria 7.195533, 80.827408 FSE towards west end of Randenigala Reservoir
The initial analysis for each site is undertaken for a notional 1000 kWp (i.e. 1 MWp) FSE project to
facilitate the comparison of the resources at each site. The results of this analysis are presented in
Table 15.
Table 15: PV data from GSA for 1 MWp FSE
ID Name Energy (GWh) GTI (kWh/m2) Capacity Factor
1 Bowatenna 1.404 1922 16.0%

2 Castlereigh 1.292 1738 14.7%
3 Chandrika Lake 1.447 1984 16.5%
4 Gregory Lake 1.285 1706 14.7%
5 Iranamadu 1.444 1989 16.5%
6 Kalawewa 1.413 1944 16.1%
7 Kalu Ganga 1.391 1903 15.9%
8 Kantale 1.428 1971 16.3%
9 Kaudulla 1.427 1967 16.3%
10 Kotmale 1.294 1758 14.8%
11 Maduru Oya 1.421 1960 16.2%
12 Minneriya 1.43 1967 16.3%
13 Moragahakanda 1.43 1962 16.3%
14 Moussakele 1.259 1686 14.4%
15 Parakrama Samudra 1.441 1987 16.4%
27
McWILLIAMS energy
16 Rajangana 1.416 1951 16.2%

17 Randenigala 1.437 1958 16.4%
18 Rantambe 1.439 1966 16.4%
19 Samanalawewa 1.409 1915 16.1%
20 Senanayake Samudra 1.415 1944 16.2%
21 Uda Walawe 1.443 1977 16.5%
22 Ulhitiya 1.431 1970 16.3%
23 Victoria 1.42 1938 16.2%
The sites are ranked in terms of solar resource in Table 16 on the basis of Global Tilted Irradiation
(kWh/ m2)
Table 16: Solar resource by rank (GTI)
Rank Name GTI (kWh/m2)

1 Iranamadu 1989
2 Parakrama Samudra 1987
3 Chandrika Lake 1984
4 Uda Walawe 1977
5 Kantale 1971
6 Ulhitiya 1970
7 Kaudulla 1967
8 Minneriya 1967
9 Rantambe 1966
10 Moragahakanda 1962
11 Maduru Oya 1960
12 Randenigala 1958
13 Rajangana 1951
14 Kalawewa 1944
15 Senanayake Samudra 1944
16 Victoria 1938
17 Bowatenna 1922
18 Samanalawewa 1915
19 Kalu Ganga 1903
20 Kotmale 1758
21 Castlereigh 1738
22 Gregory Lake 1706
23 Moussakele 1686
3.4 PV Output
The results of the PV simulation modelling are shown in Table 17.
Full details of the simulation are presented in Annex B, which contains the detailed reports
generated by the Global Solar Atlas for each site. Among the data in these reports are:
28
McWILLIAMS energy
• Solar irradiation parameters

• Horizon, based on topography, and sunpath
• Monthly average energy
• Average hourly profiles for each month (graphic and tabular)
• Annual total energy
• Capacity factor7
Table 17: Results of PV modelling - power, energy and capacity factor
ID Name Rated (MWp) Energy (GWh) Capacity Factor
1 Bowatenna 18.8 26.4 16.0%

2 Castlereigh 100.7 130.1 14.7%
3 Chandrika Lake 64.1 92.8 16.5%
4 Gregory Lake 20.0 25.7 14.7%
5 Iranamadu 104.1 150.3 16.5%
6 Kalawewa 12.2 17.3 16.1%
7 Kalu Ganga 99.1 137.9 15.9%
8 Kantale 9.9 14.2 16.3%
9 Kaudulla 105.8 151.0 16.3%
10 Kotmale
11 Maduru Oya 110.0 156.3 16.2%
12 Minneriya 85.7 122.6 16.3%
13 Moragahakanda 99.5 142.3 16.3%
14 Moussakele 97.6 122.9 14.4%
15 Parakrama Samudra 102.6 147.9 16.4%
16 Rajangana 102.5 145.1 16.2%
17 Randenigala 110.0 158.1 16.4%
18 Rantambe
19 Samanalawewa 98.2 138.3 16.1%
20 Senanayake Samudra 100.4 142.0 16.2%
21 Uda Walawe 99.6 143.8 16.5%
22 Ulhitiya 110.0 157.5 16.3%
23 Victoria 66.9 95.0 16.2%
3.5 Energy output uncertainties and innovations

The energy modelling is based on the Global Solar Atlas, which is regarded as the most reliable
methodology for estimation in the absence of on-site measurements. However, this methodology
takes a fairly conservative approach to the estimation of floating solar energy generation.
Comparison between the GSA results for floating solar and ground mounted solar for the same
7
Capacity factor is the actual energy generation from the plant divided by the theoretical energy if the plant
generated at its installed capacity all the time (i.e. 8760 hours per year).
29
McWILLIAMS energy
location in Sri Lanka show that the FSE output is around 8% less than for ground mounted PV,
according to the GSA.
There is a general perception that FSE produces more energy than the land-based equivalent.
However the GSA takes a cautious approach due to the novelty of the technology. In particular the
GSA is conservative about the ability achieve the optimum inclination of the panels, and the
propensity for panel output to be reduced by bird-fouling.
At higher latitudes the optimum tilt to maximise PV output can be as steep as 40o. With FSE, panels
can only be tilted up to 15o, meaning that PV output is reduced relative to ground mounted PV,
where the tilt is not constrained. In Sri Lanka the optimum tilt angle is around 8o. While it should be
possible to mount the FSE panels at this optimum angle, it will increase the vulnerability of the FSE
facilities to high wind speeds, and a balance may need to be struck between the optimum tilt angle
and reducing wind loading.
On some of the early FSE facilities the incidence of bird fouling has been high, with waterfowl
attracted to the floating facilities for safe nesting. On small facilities this has significantly reduced the
energy output due to coverage of a substantial proportion of the panel area with excrement,
requiring regular mechanical cleaning. It is not clear whether large FSE for example the 750,000
square metres of floats for a 100 MWp facility, will be similarly affected.
For the purposes of this study, which focuses on comparison between the different sites, the GSA
energy outputs have generally been adopted. However a sensitivity case, where the FSE output is
increased by 15% above the GSA calculation, is presented in the LCOE and Financial analysis.
There are a number of innovations that may enhance energy output from FSE facilities in the future
including:
• Active cooling: The output of PV panels is rated at 25oC and panels typically lose 0.4% of
output per degree above 25oC. Since the panel temperature can reach 65 oC, it implies a loss
of some 15% of energy relative to the rated output. Panels located over water in FSE
facilities benefit from some natural passive cooling, which is taken into account in the GSA
analysis. However active cooling could significantly reduce the panel temperature further
and therefore increase the energy output. Trials to date have focused on mist sprays, but
these leave a film of salts when the water evaporates, tending to be counter-productive.
Active cooling by pumping reservoir water through heat exchangers when the panels are
hot, may be a more productive solution.
• Tracking: Trials are underway using winches to rotate islands of panels through the course of
the day to track the sun, thereby increasing the energy output. These winches can also be
used to rotate the islands for optimal alignment during storms to minimise wave and wind
loading.
• Mechanised cleaning: Currently panel cleaning is undertaken using rotating brushes and
water pumped from the reservoir to remove dirt, including bird excrement. These cleaning
machines are manually guided, and cable and hose management is labour-intensive. In
future automation could reduce the cost of this process. However in the interim the process
can be facilitated by provision of adequate walkways and built-in hose and cable connectors,
ensuring that regular cleaning can be carried out.
30
McWILLIAMS energy
These options for increasing FSE output can be investigated during the pre-feasibility and feasibility
studies to ensure more accurate estimates of the FSE energy production.
4 Environmental and Social Impacts

4.1 Overview
Environmental and Social assessments have been carried out at a high level, commensurate with the
conceptual stage of the technical and economic studies. The assessments are based on existing data
and studies for the reservoirs where these are available, but otherwise on the knowledge of the
study team of the environmental and social conditions in the regions where the reservoirs are
located.
The studies consider the generic impacts of floating solar energy projects when undertaken in the Sri
Lankan environment. Location and project-specific assessment has been carried out, taking into
account factors such as:
• nature of the reservoirs

• design and location of FSE and transmission line
• percentage of coverage by panels
• presence of terrestrial and aquatic fauna and flora
• use of the reservoirs for irrigation, water supply and hydroelectric generation
• fisheries and other economic use
• tourism and leisure
• cultural property and heritage
Summaries of the findings are presented in sections 4.3 and 4.4, and the project-specific assessment
is presented for each site in Annex A.
The environmental and social analyses form a key input to the multi-criteria analysis (MCA). Each
site has been marked for five environmental and five social categories, and these marks have been
weighed and normalised for input to the MCA. The marks for each site are shown in the tables in
sections 4.3.6 and 4.4.6 respectively for the environmental and social assessments.
The environmental and social analysis provides a means of comparison of the sites for the MCA
analysis, and helps with scoping the studies that will be required in later stages of project
development.
4.2 Reservoir Coverage

For the environmental and social assessments, the percentage coverage of the reservoir area by the
FSE is a key feature. In particular the percentage covered by floats has an impact on issues such as
water quality, visual intrusion, ecology, tourism and leisure use. The coverage of the components at
each site is shown Table 18 as a percentage of the area at full supply level (FSL) and in Table 19 as a
percentage of the reservoir area when the reservoir is completely drawn down to minimum
operating level (MOL). Table 18 also shows the area at MOL as a percentage of the area at FSL.
In general, where the coverage by floats is a low percentage of the surface area at MOL, the sites are
likely to have a lower impact than where it is a high percentage.
31
McWILLIAMS energy
Table 18: Area of MOL and of FSE components as percentage of FSL are
ID Name MOL as % of Facility Area Float Area as Panel Area

FSL Area as % of FSL % of FSL as % of FSL
Area Area Area
1 Bowatenna 4% 4% 3% 2%
2 Castlereigh 80% 28% 19% 16%
3 Chandrika Lake 19% 18% 12% 10%
4 Gregory Lake 100% 52% 35% 29%
5 Iranamadu 25% 5% 4% 3%
6 Kalawewa 1% 0% 0% 0%
7 Kalu Ganga 48% 12% 8% 7%
8 Kantale 0% 0% 0% 0%
9 Kaudulla 36% 4% 3% 2%
10 Kotmale
11 Maduru Oya 35% 2% 1% 1%
12 Minneriya 4% 3% 2% 2%
13 Moragahakanda 23% 3% 2% 2%
14 Moussakele 23% 14% 10% 8%
15 Parakrama Samudra 26% 4% 3% 2%
16 Rajangana 20% 6% 4% 4%
17 Randenigala 31% 5% 3% 3%
18 Rantambe
19 Samanalawewa 32% 10% 7% 6%
20 Senanayake Samudra 2% 1% 1% 1%
21 Uda Walawe 20% 3% 2% 2%
22 Ulhitiya 50% 5% 3% 3%
23 Victoria 3% 3% 2% 2%
Table 19: Area of FSE components as percentage of MOL area
ID Name Facility Area Float Area as Panel Area

as % of MOL % of MOL as % of MOL
Area Area Area
1 Bowatenna 95% 65% 53%
2 Castlereigh 35% 24% 20%
3 Chandrika Lake 95% 65% 53%
4 Gregory Lake 52% 35% 29%
5 Iranamadu 21% 14% 12%
6 Kalawewa 95% 65% 53%
7 Kalu Ganga 25% 17% 14%
8 Kantale 100% 68% 56%
9 Kaudulla 11% 7% 6%
10 Kotmale
32
McWILLIAMS energy
11 Maduru Oya 5% 3% 3%
12 Minneriya 95% 65% 53%
13 Moragahakanda 15% 10% 8%
14 Moussakele 60% 41% 33%
15 Parakrama Samudra 16% 11% 9%
16 Rajangana 32% 22% 18%
17 Randenigala 15% 10% 8%
18 Rantambe
19 Samanalawewa 32% 22% 18%
20 Senanayake Samudra 75% 51% 42%
21 Uda Walawe 15% 10% 8%
22 Ulhitiya 10% 7% 6%
23 Victoria 90% 61% 50%
4.3 Environmental Assessment

Many of the issues identified during the environmental analysis are common across several sites,
and they indicate issues that will require more detailed studies as projects progress. These issues are
described in the following sections. The assessment for individual sites is presented in the project
description sheets in Annex A.
4.3.1 Ecology
Many of the reservoirs are located in ecosystems of high and complex biodiversity, including all
categories of flora and fauna. Exiting studies have identified important mammal, fish and migrant
bird species that will require further study and conservation.
The shading from panels, especially where a high percentage of the reservoir is covered, may affect
aquatic plants, algae and zooplankton, with consequent impacts on reservoir ecology.
As well as impacts of the proposed FSE on wildlife during construction and operation, the impacts of
wildlife on the project components will need to be considered. This includes damage by elephants
seeking water, and waterfowl seeking nesting sites on the floats.
4.3.2 Hydrology and Water Quality

The impact of panels on water quality is largely dependent on the percentage cover. Shading will
alter temperature gradients, potentially leading to thermal stratification. Shading will also impact
aquatic plants, algae and zooplankton, leading to changes in oxygen and chemical levels. Studies will
be required to assess these impacts, and whether they are beneficial or detrimental to water quality.
High levels of sedimentation is a feature of several reservoirs, and the impacts of this on the project
components will need to be addressed. Additionally, any plans for de-silting the reservoirs will need
to be considered when selecting sites for the FSE.
4.3.3 Pollution and Contamination

An assessment has been made on the status of each reservoir in respect of pollution and
contamination, based on available data. There tends to be little data from the more remote
reservoirs. A few of the reservoirs, notably those close to populated areas, are observed to suffer
33
McWILLIAMS energy
from pollution from improper solid waste disposal. Some reservoirs are noted to be affected by
runoff from agricultural areas of from industries. Heavy metals are also observed in some reservoirs.
There is concern that shading from the FSE will reduce sunlight and oxygen levels, potentially leading
to anaerobic decomposition of biomass and waste. This issue will require further study.
4.3.4 Protected Areas

Eight of the reservoirs are observed to be within protected areas, such as National Parks and
Sanctuaries. Some of these are also Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBAs) as designated by
International Birdlife.
Table 20: Reservoirs in Protected Areas and IBAs
ID Name Protected Area IBA

6 Kalawewa Yes
8 Kantale Yes
9 Kaudulla Yes Yes
11 Madura Oya Yes Yes
12 Minneriya Yes Yes
17 Randenigala Yes
20 Senanayake Samudra Yes Yes
21 Uda Walewa Yes Yes
23 Victoria Yes
Development of FSE within protected areas is not necessarily precluded, provided that it is done
with sensitivity. In the preliminary designs, attempts have been made to ensure that the FSEs are
close to existing infrastructure, and that land-based facilities, including transmission lines, do not
impinge on the protected areas.
This issue will need to be studied further if any of these sites are selected for development.
4.3.5 Construction Impacts

Most of the construction impacts are related to the activities of construction workers, and the waste
that may be produced during construction including packaging.
Care will be needed when constructing the workers’ camps, construction facilities and access roads
to ensure they do not interfere with reservoir users, including tourists, and that waste is disposed of
in an acceptable manner.
An issue for all of the sites, which has therefore not been included in the MCA analysis, is the end-of-
life recycling and disposal of the FSE components, including replacement of failed components
during the operating life of the schemes. Plans will need to be developed within the environmental
and social management plans.
4.3.6 Environmental Assessment Scores

The unweighted scores for the environmental impact sub-analysis are shown in Table 21.
34
McWILLIAMS energy
Table 21: Unweighted scores for environmental sub-analysis
ID Name Ecology Hydrology Pollution and Protected Construction

and Water Contamination Areas Impacts
Quality
1 Bowatenna 2 1 2 3 3
2 Castlereigh 3 3 2 4 3
3 Chandrika Lake 1 1 2 4 3
4 Gregory Lake 4 3 3 5 3
5 Iranamadu 3 3 3 4 3
6 Kalawewa 1 1 2 1 3
7 Kalu Ganga 2 3 4 4 3
8 Kantale 1 1 2 3 3
9 Kaudulla 3 4 3 2 3
10 Kotmale
11 Maduru Oya 4 4 4 3 3
12 Minneriya 1 1 2 1 2
13 Moragahakanda 2 4 4 3 3
14 Moussakele 3 2 3 3 3
15 Parakrama Samudra 3 3 4 4 3
16 Rajangana 2 3 3 3 3
17 Randenigala 3 3 3 3 3
18 Rantambe
19 Samanalawewa 3 3 3 4 3
20 Senanayake Samudra 2 1 3 1 2
21 Uda Walawe 3 3 4 1 3
22 Ulhitiya 4 4 4 4 3
23 Victoria 2 2 2 1 2
The weightings used in the environmental sub-analysis are shown in Table 22:
Table 22: Weightings for environmental sub-analysis
Characteristic Ecology Hydrology and Pollution and Protected Areas Construction

Water Quality Contamination Impacts
Weightings 0.6 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5
The weighted and normalised scores from the environmental sub-analysis are shown in Table 23.
35
McWILLIAMS energy
Table 23: Environmental sub-analysis weighted and normalised scores
ID Name Weighted and

Normalised
1 Bowatenna 2.32
2 Castlereigh 3.16
4 Gregory Lake 3.84
5 Iranamadu 3.32
6 Kalawewa 1.48
7 Kalu Ganga 3.29
8 Kantale 2.13
9 Kaudulla 2.84
10 Kotmale
11 Maduru Oya 3.52
12 Minneriya 1.32
14 Moussakele 2.84
16 Rajangana 2.81
17 Randenigala 3.00
18 Rantambe
21 Uda Walawe 2.52
22 Ulhitiya 3.84
23 Victoria 1.68
These weighted and normalised scores from Table 23 are presented in Table 24 in ranked order,
with Rank 1 being the site with lowest negative environmental impact.
Table 24: Ranked environmental assessment scores
Rank Name Weighted and

Normalised
1 Gregory Lake 3.84
2 Ulhitiya 3.84
3 Maduru Oya 3.52
5 Iranamadu 3.32
6 Samanalawewa 3.32
7 Kalu Ganga 3.29
8 Castlereigh 3.16
10 Randenigala 3.00
36
McWILLIAMS energy
11 Kaudulla 2.84
12 Moussakele 2.84
13 Rajangana 2.81
14 Uda Walawe 2.52
16 Bowatenna 2.32
17 Kantale 2.13
19 Victoria 1.68
20 Kalawewa 1.48
21 Minneriya 1.32
22 Kotmale
23 Rantambe
4.4 Socio-economic Assessment

As with the environmental assessment, many of the issues identified in the socio-economic
assessment are common across several sites, and will require more detailed studies in the projects
selected for development. These issues are described in the following sections. The assessment for
individual sites is presented in the project description sheets in Annex A.
4.4.1 Resettlement
Resettlement is not regarded as a significant issue for the FSE projects. No population will be
displaced for the panels, and it is anticipated that none will be required for the land-based facilities.
The lack of population displacement and minimal land required for land-based facilities is a key
advantage of FSE over other generation technologies.
4.4.2 Economic Activities

Economic activities observed in the reservoirs under consideration involve:
• Use of water for irrigation, water supply and hydropower

• Use of reservoirs for fisheries
• Recreation and tourism
• Landing for amphibious aircraft
The development of FSE on reservoirs in unlikely to interfere with irrigation or hydropower, although
the drawdown of reservoirs for these functions, as discussed in section 2.2.1, is a key factor when
considering the installation of FSE.
Shading of the reservoir by FSE has potential to affect the quality of water: shading has been used to
improve water quality, but the impact will need to be assessed at the individual sites.
Reduction in evaporation increases the amount of water available for irrigation, water supply and
hydroelectric generation, as discussed in section 6.2.2.
Several of the reservoirs are used for commercial fisheries. Assessment will be required to ensure
compatibility between the FSE location and the area used for fisheries. Studies are also required on
37
McWILLIAMS energy
the impacts of shading on the ecosystem that supports the fish, and the dissolved oxygen (DO) levels
in the water. Some of the impacts are expected to be beneficial, and others detrimental.
4.4.3 Cultural Property

A few of the reservoirs are noted as having significant cultural and historic sites in the area, and
some of the dams and associated structures have historic value themselves.
Cultural property generally does not have a significant impact on development of FSE, but further
studies will be required at the selected sites.
4.4.4 Health and Safety

All of the sites will have common health and safety risks during construction and operation, including
risks associated with electricity and working over water.
FSE plant includes long lengths of high current cabling, and both high and low voltage equipment.
The relative movement of floats and pontoons can abrade and loosen cables, and the presence of
water can aggravate the hazard.
The risks associated with working over water are significant, especially with moving floats and
pontoons with small walkways.
Implementation of well-defined health and safety plans will be necessary, both during construction
operation, including restriction of access to appropriately qualified personnel.
The health and safety risks peculiar to individual sites generally relate to different uses of the
reservoirs, such as by fishermen, and the use of reservoirs for washing and bathing.
Some of the reservoirs are known to host crocodile populations, and these may be a significant
threat to personnel involved in construction and operation. Other wildlife, including elephants, will
also pose a threat at some locations.
4.4.5 Leisure and Tourism

Most of the reservoirs are used for tourism and leisure. Tourist boat services are recorded at many
of the sites. Restaurants, safaris and other tourist activities are recorded for several sites.
Sensitive location of the FSE facilities and land-based structures will be required to minimise the
impact on tourist and leisure facilities, and to reduce the visual impact from popular tourist viewing
points.
4.4.6 Socio-economic Assessment Marking

The unweighted scores for the social impact sub-analysis are shown in Table 25.
38
McWILLIAMS energy
Table 25: Unweighted scores for social impact sub-analysis
ID Name Resettlement Economic Cultural Health and Leisure and

Activities Property Safety Tourism
1 Bowatenna 4 3 4 3 4
2 Castlereigh 4 4 4 3 4
3 Chandrika Lake 4 3 4 3 3
4 Gregory Lake 2 2 3 2 2
5 Iranamadu 3 3 4 3 3
6 Kalawewa 4 3 4 3 3
7 Kalu Ganga 4 3 4 3 3
8 Kantale 4 3 4 3 4
9 Kaudulla 4 3 4 3 3
10 Kotmale
11 Maduru Oya 4 3 4 3 3
12 Minneriya 4 3 4 3 3
13 Moragahakanda 4 3 4 3 4
14 Moussakele 3 3 4 5 3
15 Parakrama Samudra 3 4 4 3 3
16 Rajangana 4 3 4 3 3
17 Randenigala 4 3 4 3 3
18 Rantambe
19 Samanalawewa 4 4 5 3 3
20 Senanayake Samudra 4 3 4 3 3
21 Uda Walawe 3 3 4 3 3
22 Ulhitiya 4 3 4 3 3
23 Victoria 3 4 4 3 4
The weightings used in the social impact sub-analysis are shown in Table 26:
Table 26: Weightings for social impact sub-analysis
Characteristic Resettlement Economic Cultural Property Health and Safety Leisure and
Activities Tourism
Weightings 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.9 0.4
The weighted and normalised scores from the environmental sub-analysis are shown in Table 27.
Table 27: Social impact sub-analysis weighted and normalised scores
ID Name Weighted and

Normalised
1 Bowatenna 3.48
2 Castlereigh 3.69
39
McWILLIAMS energy
4 Gregory Lake 2.17

5 Iranamadu 3.17
6 Kalawewa 3.34
7 Kalu Ganga 3.34
8 Kantale 3.48
9 Kaudulla 3.34
10 Kotmale
11 Maduru Oya 3.34
12 Minneriya 3.34
14 Moussakele 3.79
16 Rajangana 3.34
17 Randenigala 3.34
18 Rantambe
21 Uda Walawe 3.17
22 Ulhitiya 3.34
23 Victoria 3.52
These weighted and normalised scores from Table 27 are presented in Table 28 in ranked order,
with Rank 1 being the site with lowest negative socio-economic impact.
Table 28: Ranked socio-economic assessment scores
Rank Name Weighted and

Normalised
1 Moussakele 3.79
2 Samanalawewa 3.72
3 Castlereigh 3.69
4 Victoria 3.52
5 Bowatenna 3.48
6 Kantale 3.48
10 Kalawewa 3.34
11 Kalu Ganga 3.34
12 Kaudulla 3.34
13 Maduru Oya 3.34
14 Minneriya 3.34
15 Rajangana 3.34
16 Randenigala 3.34
40
McWILLIAMS energy

18 Ulhitiya 3.34
19 Iranamadu 3.17
20 Uda Walawe 3.17
21 Gregory Lake 2.17
22 Kotmale
23 Rantambe
5 Cost Estimation
5.1 Methodology
Capital cost (capex) and operating cost (opex) estimates have been developed for each site based on
its characteristics, using unit rates for each component. For the floating solar facilities, the rates are
derived from the Floating Solar Handbook8, adjusted for expected rates in 2021, and disaggregated
to provide greater granularity. For other components, such as transmission lines and substations, the
rates are derived from experience of unit rates in Sri Lanka, verified in discussion with domestic
contractors.
All costs are presented in USD, as this is the currency in which most international cost data is
available.
5.2 Costing Data

Unit rates used to develop cost-estimates for the floating solar facility components are shown in
Table 29.
Table 29: Unit rates for floating solar components
ID Description Unit Rate (USD)

PV1 PV modules kWp 250
PV2 Inverter / booster transformer kWp 60
PV3 Mounting kWp 40
PV4 Balance of plant kWp 135
PV5 Floats m2 11
PV6 Anchorages m2 7
PV7 Design kWp 20
PV8 Installation kWp 115
PV9 Testing & Commission kWp 5
The cost of anchors has been adjusted by a factor to take account of the complexity that results from
the operating range of the reservoir. Reservoirs with a very small operating range of less than
5 metres are not adjusted, and the adjustment factor increases with the operating range, as shown
in Table 30. The cost model includes a facility to manually adjust the complexity, and this has been
8
World Bank Group, ESMAP and SERIS. 2019. Where Sun Meets Water: Floating Solar Handbook
for Practitioners. Washington, DC: World Bank.
41
McWILLIAMS energy
used on Iranamadu to allow for the cost of bed preparation to allow the floats to rest on the dry
reservoir bed.
Table 30: Anchor complexity cost adjustment factors
Complexity Description Threshold Cost Factor

(m)
Simple 5 1
Moderate 15 1.5
Complex 25 2
Very complex 35 3
Requires new technology 50 4
The unit rates used to estimate the cost of substations and transmission lines to interconnect each
site are shown in Table 31. These rates are applied to the transmission line lengths as shown in Table
11. The substation rates are applied as required for the components at each substation, as follows:
• Civil works costs are included for each new substation or switchyard, but are not required
when expanding an existing substation.
• Line bays are necessary for each line in and line out of a substation at the appropriate
voltage level.
• Transformer costs are applied to the MVA rating of the required transformers.
Table 31: Unit rates for substation and transmission lines
ID Description Unit Rate (USD) Comment

E1 Substation civil works 132 kV unit 1,000,000 Excluding equipment, not required when
expanding existing substation
E2 Substation civil works 220 kV unit 1,300,000 Excluding equipment, not required when
E3 MV line bay (12.5 - 33 kV) unit 100,000 For each line in/out; includes breakers,
switches, structures, protection
E4 132 kV Line bay unit 200,000 For each line in/out; includes breakers,
E5 220 kV Line bay unit 300,000 For each line in/out; includes breakers,
E6 33/132 kV transformer MVA 20,635
E7 33/220 kV transformer MVA 14,286
E8 132 kV transmission line km 212,000 single circuit zebra conductor
E9 220 kV transmission line km 400,000 single circuit zebra conductor
E10 MV transmission line km 144,000 single circuit, 12.5 kV to 33 kV
E11 Substation civil works 33 kV unit 10,000 Excluding equipment, not required when
The short lengths of access road have been priced at USD 300,000 per km.
42
McWILLIAMS energy
The estimated cost of land acquisition is shown in Table 32 in USD per ha. The sites are located
across a wide area of Sri Lanka, and land costs will vary at each site, and for different areas at each
site. For a study at this level it is only practical to use an average figure. However, land costs for
floating solar tend not to be significant. For this study the land costs are typically 1% or less of
capital cost, with the exception of Kalewewa and Kantale which have long transmission lines for
small projects.
Table 32: Unit rates for land acquisition
ID Description Unit Rate (USD)

CL1 Transmission Line ha 15,000
CL2 Access Road ha 50,000
CL3 Other Facilities ha 50,000
5.3 Capital Cost Estimates
The estimated cost of the FSE facilities at each site is shown in Table 33, together with the specific
cost in USD / kWp. This cost includes the floats, anchors, panels, cabling and electrical equipment up
to the land-based substation.
Table 33: Estimated cost of FSE facilities (USDm)
ID Name FSE Cost Floats & Total Facility Specific Cost

USDm Anchors USDm USD/kWp
1 Bowatenna 11.77 2.78 14.55 772
2 Castlereigh 62.92 17.52 80.44 799
3 Chandrika Lake 40.09 9.46 49.55 772
4 Gregory Lake 12.51 3.04 15.56 777
5 Iranamadu 65.06 22.85 87.91 844
6 Kalawewa 7.65 1.81 9.46 772
7 Kalu Ganga 61.96 21.76 83.72 844
8 Kantale 6.20 1.46 7.66 772
9 Kaudulla 66.11 15.60 81.71 772
10 Kotmale
11 Maduru Oya 68.75 16.22 84.97 772
12 Minneriya 53.57 12.64 66.21 772
13 Moragahakanda 62.18 21.84 84.02 844
14 Moussakele 61.01 17.24 78.25 802
15 Parakrama Samudra 64.14 15.13 79.28 772
16 Rajangana 64.05 15.11 79.16 772
17 Randenigala 68.78 29.44 98.22 892
18 Rantambe
19 Samanalawewa 61.36 26.65 88.01 896
20 Senanayake Samudra 62.74 17.21 79.95 796
21 Uda Walawe 62.27 17.09 79.36 796
22 Ulhitiya 68.78 16.23 85.01 772
23 Victoria 41.83 17.90 59.73 892
43
McWILLIAMS energy
The total project cost for each site is shown in Table 34. This cost includes the cost of the FSE facility
in Table 33 together with the cost of the grid interconnection, access roads and land required for the
permanent works.
Table 34: Estimated cost of FSE projects including interconnection
ID Name FSE Facility Transmission Access Land Total Capital

(USDm) & substation Road (USDm) Cost (USDm)
(USDm) (USDm)
1 Bowatenna 14.55 0.91 0.15 0.14 15.76
2 Castlereigh 80.44 8.34 0.15 0.55 89.48
3 Chandrika Lake 49.55 3.41 0.15 0.10 53.21
4 Gregory Lake 15.56 2.53 0.15 0.10 18.33
5 Iranamadu 87.91 5.31 0.15 0.22 93.59
6 Kalawewa 9.46 5.12 0.15 0.80 15.52
7 Kalu Ganga 83.72 9.21 0.15 0.65 93.73
8 Kantale 7.66 4.20 0.15 0.65 12.66
9 Kaudulla 81.71 9.95 0.15 0.71 92.53
10 Kotmale
11 Maduru Oya 84.97 13.56 0.15 1.08 99.76
12 Minneriya 66.21 6.47 0.15 0.38 73.21
13 Moragahakanda 84.02 6.40 0.15 0.35 90.91
14 Moussakele 78.25 8.47 0.15 0.57 87.44
15 Parakrama Samudra 79.28 6.80 0.15 0.38 86.61
16 Rajangana 79.16 10.72 0.15 0.80 90.82
17 Randenigala 98.22 4.93 0.15 0.11 103.41
18 Rantambe
19 Samanalawewa 88.01 6.22 0.15 0.33 94.70
20 Senanayake Samudra 79.95 8.12 0.15 0.53 88.74
21 Uda Walawe 79.36 8.56 0.15 0.58 88.65
22 Ulhitiya 85.01 7.56 0.15 0.45 93.17
23 Victoria 59.73 2.00 0.15 0.11 61.98
In Table 35 the estimated project cost is summarised, and the percentage for each major component
is presented. The specific cost per unit installed capacity is derived by dividing the total project cost
by the installed capacity. It can be seen that the specific cost varies significantly from 830 to 1277
USD/kWp, with the smaller schemes generally having higher specific cost. This is primarily due to the
smaller schemes having a relatively higher cost of interconnection to the grid.
Table 35: Summary of project costs and components
ID Name Installed Project Specific FSE % of TL & S/s Land %

Capacity Cost Cost Total % of Total of Total
(MWp) (USDm) (USD/kWp)
1 Bowatenna 18.8 15.8 837 92% 6% 0.9%
44
McWILLIAMS energy
2 Castlereigh 100.7 89.5 889 90% 9% 0.6%

3 Chandrika Lake 64.1 53.2 830 93% 6% 0.2%
4 Gregory Lake 20.0 18.3 916 85% 14% 0.6%
5 Iranamadu 104.1 93.6 899 94% 6% 0.2%
6 Kalawewa 12.2 15.5 1268 61% 33% 5.1%
7 Kalu Ganga 99.1 93.7 945 89% 10% 0.7%
8 Kantale 9.9 12.7 1277 61% 33% 5.1%
9 Kaudulla 105.8 92.5 875 88% 11% 0.8%
10 Kotmale
11 Maduru Oya 110.0 99.8 907 85% 14% 1.1%
12 Minneriya 85.7 73.2 854 90% 9% 0.5%
13 Moragahakanda 99.5 90.9 914 92% 7% 0.4%
14 Moussakele 97.6 87.4 896 89% 10% 0.7%
15 Parakrama Samudra 102.6 86.6 844 92% 8% 0.4%
16 Rajangana 102.5 90.8 886 87% 12% 0.9%
17 Randenigala 110.0 103.4 940 95% 5% 0.1%
18 Rantambe
19 Samanalawewa 98.2 94.7 965 93% 7% 0.3%
20 Senanayake Samudra 100.4 88.7 884 90% 9% 0.6%
21 Uda Walawe 99.6 88.6 890 90% 10% 0.7%
22 Ulhitiya 110.0 93.2 847 91% 8% 0.5%
23 Victoria 66.9 62.0 926 96% 3% 0.2%
In Table 36 the sites are shown ranked low to high by specific cost (USD/kWp). When comparing FSE
sites with similar capacity factors, the specific cost provides a reasonable indicator of the relative
economic performance of the sites in the absence of economic modelling. However in Sri Lanka
there is sufficient difference between the solar resource and energy output at each site for the
ranking based on levelized costs of energy (LCOE), as shown in Table 46 to differ from that in Table
36, and hence LCOE is preferred for the economic comparison.
Table 36: Sites ranked by specific cost (USD/kWp)
Rank Name Specific Cost

USD/kWp
2 Bowatenna 836.6
4 Ulhitiya 846.6
5 Minneriya 854.1
6 Kaudulla 874.7
8 Rajangana 886.3
9 Castlereigh 888.8
10 Uda Walawe 889.7
45
McWILLIAMS energy
11 Moussakele 895.7
12 Iranamadu 899.1
13 Maduru Oya 907.0
16 Victoria 926.2
17 Randenigala 939.7
18 Kalu Ganga 945.4
20 Kalawewa 1,267.9
21 Kantale 1,276.7
22 Kotmale
23 Rantambe
5.4 Operating Cost Estimates

5.4.1 Basis of Estimation
The operating costs for the FSE projects have been estimated from the data in the Floating Solar
Handbook. The cost rates are as shown in Table 37. These costs are effectively fixed and do not vary
significantly according to the amount of energy generated. Unlike thermal generators, there is no
significant operating cost component that depends on the energy generated. The costs are based on
2021 prices, and are expected to escalate with inflation.
Table 37: Annual O&M rates for FSE
Component Unit Rate (USD)

Variable O&M cost kWp 11.00
Insurance % of capex 0.30%
Inverter warranty kWp 4.00
A summary of the estimated O&M cost is shown in Table 38. The costs range from USD 0.19 for
small FSE facilities to USD 1.96 for the largest and most costly site. These costs are used in the
economic and financial models.
Table 38: Summary of operating costs for each site
ID Name Operating Insurance Inverter Total Fixed

cost (USDm pa) Warranty O&M Cost
(USDm pa) (USDm pa) (USDm pa)
1 Bowatenna 0.21 0.05 0.08 0.33
2 Castlereigh 1.11 0.27 0.40 1.78
3 Chandrika Lake 0.71 0.16 0.26 1.12
4 Gregory Lake 0.22 0.06 0.08 0.36
5 Iranamadu 1.15 0.28 0.42 1.84
46
McWILLIAMS energy
6 Kalawewa 0.13 0.05 0.05 0.23

7 Kalu Ganga 1.09 0.28 0.40 1.77
8 Kantale 0.11 0.04 0.04 0.19
9 Kaudulla 1.16 0.28 0.42 1.86
10 Kotmale
11 Maduru Oya 1.21 0.30 0.44 1.95
12 Minneriya 0.94 0.22 0.34 1.51
13 Moragahakanda 1.09 0.27 0.40 1.77
14 Moussakele 1.07 0.26 0.39 1.73
15 Parakrama Samudra 1.13 0.26 0.41 1.80
16 Rajangana 1.13 0.27 0.41 1.81
17 Randenigala 1.21 0.31 0.44 1.96
18 Rantambe
19 Samanalawewa 1.08 0.28 0.39 1.76
20 Senanayake Samudra 1.10 0.27 0.40 1.77
21 Uda Walawe 1.10 0.27 0.40 1.76
22 Ulhitiya 1.21 0.28 0.44 1.93
23 Victoria 0.74 0.19 0.27 1.19
6 Economic Analysis
6.1 Methodology
The methodology used to assess and compare the relative economic performance of the FSE sites is
based on the Levelized Cost of Energy. This metric determines the net present value of the
expenditure stream divided by the net present value of the energy expected to be generated.
For the purposes of this study, in order to allow all of the sites to be modelled and compared, a
simplified methodology using annuitized capital expenditure is adopted as follows:
((𝐶 × 𝐶𝑅𝐹) + 𝑂𝑓 )
𝐿𝐶𝑂𝐸 = + 𝑂𝑣 + (𝐻𝑅 × 𝑃𝑓 )
(8760 × 𝐶𝐹)
Where:
𝐶 = 𝑂𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 (𝑈𝑆𝐷/𝑀𝑊)

𝐶𝑅𝐹 = 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟
𝑂𝑓 = 𝐹𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑑 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 (USD pa)
𝐶𝐹 = 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟
𝑂𝑣 = 𝑉𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 (USD/MWh)
𝐻𝑅 = 𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 (GJ/Mwh)
𝑃𝑓 = 𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 (USD/GJ)
47
McWILLIAMS energy
For floating solar energy projects the variable operating cost is effectively zero, and no fuel is used to
create electricity, hence:
((𝐶 × 𝐶𝑅𝐹) + 𝑂𝑓 )
𝐿𝐶𝑂𝐸 =
(8760 × 𝐶𝐹)
The Capital Recovery Factor is the annuity formula, which is the same as Excel’s PMT function, giving
repayment of capital at a constant annual rate for a given interest and loan term in years, and is
derived from the following formula:
𝑖 × (1 + 𝑖)𝑡
𝐶𝑅𝐹 =
((1 + 𝑖)𝑡 − 1)
Where:
𝑖 = 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒
𝑡 = 𝑝𝑎𝑦𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑑 (𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒) in years
For this analysis the following parameters have been used:

Table 39: Economic parameters
Interest rate (base case) 9%

Interest rate (sensitivity case) 4%
Service life 25 years
A base case interest rate of around 9% is commonly used for LCOE analysis. However, this is a high
economic interest rate when evaluating projects in terms of national benefit, when perhaps a rate
closer to the national cost of borrowing9 might be more appropriate. High interest rates weigh
heavily against high capex/low opex technologies, such as FSE, in favour of low capex/high opex
technologies, such as coal and gas-fired generation. A sensitivity case of 4% is therefore also
presented, which may be more appropriate when evaluating technologies in the context of the
national economy.
The Capital Cost (capex), Operating Cost (opex) and Capacity Factors vary for each site, as shown in
Table 33 (capex), Table 38 (opex) and Table 17 (capacity factor).
In addition to the base case economic analysis that considers capex, opex and energy benefit,
sensitivity cases have been carried out considering the values of carbon emission displacement and
water savings through reduced evaporation.
9
The current (April 2021) IBRD Flexible Loan Rate for Sri Lanka for USD loans ranges from LIBOR+0.8% for up to
8 years, to LIBOR+1.02% for 18-20 years Lending Rates & Fees (worldbank.org). 6-month USD LIBOR (the
reference rate) is currently at historically low levels around 0.2%, although it has not exceeded 3% in the past
decade.
48
McWILLIAMS energy
6.2 Valuation of Externalities

The LCOE calculated above may be modified by external costs and benefits to achieve equivalence.
In the case of FSE in Sri Lanka, for the purposes of comparing sites, two external benefits are
considered:
• The benefit from displacing generation that is more carbon intensive, hence reducing the
overall CO2 emissions.
• The reduction in evaporation from the reservoir surface, saving water for other productive
uses.
These benefits can be taken into account by reducing the LCOE as follows:
((𝐶 × 𝐶𝑅𝐹) + 𝑂𝑓 )
𝐿𝐶𝑂𝐸 = − 𝐵𝑐 − 𝐵𝑤
(8760 × 𝐶𝐹)
Where
𝐵𝑐 = 𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑏𝑜𝑛 𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑡 (𝑈𝑆𝐷⁄𝑀𝑊ℎ)

𝐵𝑤 = 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑡 (𝑈𝑆𝐷⁄𝑀𝑊ℎ)
The LCOE with these externalities is presented in sensitivity cases.
6.2.1 Carbon reduction benefit

The carbon benefit is assessed in terms of the value of CO2 displaced by the FSE. At this stage of
analysis only the CO2 associated with energy generation is considered. The energy production of
each scheme, as shown in Table 17, is considered to displace other generation, at the average
carbon intensity of CEB’s system10. It seems likely that energy from FSE will displace older, less
efficient generation which would have higher than average carbon intensity, so adopting the average
may be conservative.
The shadow price of carbon has taken account of various advisory sources. World Bank11
recommends arrange from USD 40 to USD 80 per tCO2 for 2020, increasing over time. ADB and some
of the European institutions recommend a rate closer to USD 40 per tCO2. The adopted value of USD
40 per tCO2 is at the bottom end of World Bank’s range, and is therefore considered conservative.
Table 40: Carbon displacement parameters
Average carbon intensity (Sri Lanka) 700 kg / MWh

Shadow price of carbon 40 USD/ tCO2
6.2.2 Value of reduced evaporation

One of the benefits from FSE is reduced evaporation from the water surface that is covered by
floats. This provides additional water that can potentially be used in hydroelectric generation and
for irrigation. Most of the reservoirs under consideration have been constructed to provide
10
The average carbon intensity in 2017 from Figure 10.1 of the LTGEP is 700 kg/MWh.
11
Guidance note on shadow price of carbon in economic analysis, Nov 12, 2015.
49
McWILLIAMS energy
irrigation water, and it is likely that most of the water saved from evaporation would be used for
irrigation.
The value of water for irrigation has been estimated12 at US¢ 5.0 per cubic metre in 2020 prices.
The reduction in evaporation is taken as 1.00 metre / square metre of water surface area. This is an
approximation to give a high-level estimate of the additional water available, and an estimate of the
value.
In order to determine the value of additional water for hydropower generation, the hydro energy is
estimated from the power formula:
𝑄×𝐻×𝜂×𝑔×𝜌
𝑃=
10^6
Where:
𝑃 = 𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑖𝑛 𝑀𝑊
𝑄 = 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ 𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑚3 /𝑠

𝐻 = 𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠
𝜂 = 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠 (assumed 0.85)
𝑔 = 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑚⁄𝑠 2 (~9.81)
𝜌 = 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑖𝑛 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 (~1000)

For each site where there is hydropower generation downstream, this formula has been applied for
the cumulative head downstream. It is assumed that 80% of the water saving can be used for
hydropower generation. Energy generated from the additional water has been valued at USD 0.06
per kWh.
Table 41: Summary of parameters for water benefits
Reduction in evaporation 1.00 m /m2

Value of water for irrigation US¢ 5.0 / m3
% of saved water used for hydro 80%
Value of additional hydro energy generated USD 0.06 / kWh
6.2.3 Results of Externality Analysis

The quantum of CO2 displaced by each FSE facility, together with its value in USDm pa and the
carbon reduction benefit (Bc) in USD/MWh are shown in Table 42.
Table 42: Carbon benefit from displaced thermal generation
ID Name Generation CO2 Value of CO2 CO2 Benefit

Displaced Displaced (USDm pa) (USD/MWh)
(GWh pa) (tpa)
12
Balancing Irrigation and Hydropower: A case study from Southern Sri Lanka, Research Report 94, 2005. Value
Rs 1 to Rs 5 – say Rs 3 in 2005 = US¢ 3 or approximately US¢ 5 in 2020.
50
McWILLIAMS energy
1 Bowatenna 26.5 18,531 0.74 28.0

2 Castlereigh 131.4 91,972 3.68 28.3
3 Chandrika Lake 92.8 64,966 2.60 28.0
4 Gregory Lake 25.7 18,011 0.72 28.0
5 Iranamadu 150.3 105,221 4.21 28.0
6 Kalawewa 17.3 12,111 0.48 28.0
7 Kalu Ganga 137.9 96,533 3.86 28.0
8 Kantale 14.2 9,910 0.40 28.0
9 Kaudulla 151.0 105,667 4.23 28.0
10 Kotmale
11 Maduru Oya 156.3 109,413 4.38 28.0
12 Minneriya 122.6 85,793 3.43 28.0
13 Moragahakanda 142.3 99,635 3.99 28.0
14 Moussakele 124.3 86,979 3.48 28.3
15 Parakrama Samudra 147.9 103,523 4.14 28.0
16 Rajangana 145.1 101,570 4.06 28.0
17 Randenigala 158.3 110,804 4.43 28.0
18 Rantambe
19 Samanalawewa 138.7 97,120 3.88 28.1
20 Senanayake Samudra 142.0 99,426 3.98 28.0
21 Uda Walawe 143.8 100,651 4.03 28.0
22 Ulhitiya 157.5 110,233 4.41 28.0
23 Victoria 95.3 66,698 2.67 28.1
Based on the methodology in section 6.2.2 and the characteristics of the reservoirs, hydro plant and
FSE facilities, the secondary benefits associated with reduced evaporation have been calculated.
In Table 43 the value of water resulting from reduced evaporation when used for irrigation is
presented for each site.
Table 43: Value of water saved when used for irrigation
ID Name Area of Evaporation Value of water

Floats Saving for irrigation
m2 (mcm) USDm
1 Bowatenna 129,200 0.13 0.006
2 Castlereigh 700,672 0.70 0.035
3 Chandrika Lake 439,926 0.44 0.022
4 Gregory Lake 141,440 0.14 0.007
5 Iranamadu 714,000 0.71 0.036
6 Kalawewa 83,980 0.08 0.004
7 Kalu Ganga 680,000 0.68 0.034
8 Kantale 68,000 0.07 0.003
9 Kaudulla 725,560 0.73 0.036
10 Kotmale
51
McWILLIAMS energy
11 Maduru Oya 754,460 0.75 0.038

12 Minneriya 587,860 0.59 0.029
13 Moragahakanda 682,380 0.68 0.034
14 Moussakele 689,520 0.69 0.034
15 Parakrama Samudra 703,936 0.70 0.035
16 Rajangana 702,848 0.70 0.035
17 Randenigala 754,800 0.75 0.038
18 Rantambe
19 Samanalawewa 683,264 0.68 0.034
20 Senanayake Samudra 688,500 0.69 0.034
21 Uda Walawe 683,400 0.68 0.034
22 Ulhitiya 754,800 0.75 0.038
23 Victoria 459,000 0.46 0.023
In Table 44 the value of water resulting from reduced evaporation when used for generation in
downstream hydropower plants is presented for each site. This is based on 80% of the saved water
being used for generation, since some may be spilled to waste.
Table 44: Calculation of hydro benefit from water saving
ID Name Evaporation Hydro plant Aggregate Hydro Energy Value of

Saving benefitting Head of Uplift Energy Uplift
(mcm) Hydro (m) (MWh pa) (USDm)
1 Bowatenna 0.13 Bowatenna, 105 25 0.002
Moragahakanda
2 Castlereigh 0.70 Wimalasurendra, Old 1,015 1,318 0.079
Laxapana, Polpitiya,
Broadlands
4 Gregory Lake 0.14
5 Iranamadu 0.71
6 Kalawewa 0.08
7 Kalu Ganga 0.68
8 Kantale 0.07
9 Kaudulla 0.73
10 Kotmale Kotmale, Victoria, 502
Randenigala,
Rantembe
11 Maduru Oya 0.75
12 Minneriya 0.59
13 Moragahakanda 0.68 Moragahakanda 55 70 0.004
14 Moussakele 0.69 Canyon, New 1,064 1,359 0.082
Laxapana, Polpitiya,
Broadlands
52
McWILLIAMS energy
16 Rajangana 0.70
17 Randenigala 0.75 Randenigala, 111 155 0.009
Rantambe
18 Rantambe Rantambe
19 Samanalawewa 0.68 Samanalawewa, Uda 330 418 0.025
Walawe
21 Uda Walawe 0.68 Uda Walawe 10 13 0.001
22 Ulhitiya 0.75
23 Victoria 0.46 Victoria, Randenigala, 301 256 0.015
Rantambe
For use in the LCOE analysis the value of the water savings for irrigation and hydro in USDm pa need
to be combined and converted into the water benefit (Bw) in USD/MWh. The results of this
calculation for each site are shown in Table 45.
Table 45: Water benefit from irrigation and hydro
ID Name Value of Value of Combined Water

Irrigation Hydro Water Water Value Benefit
Water (USDm pa) (USDm pa) (USD/MWh)
(USDm pa)
1 Bowatenna 0.006 0.002 0.008 0.30
2 Castlereigh 0.035 0.079 0.114 0.88
3 Chandrika Lake 0.022 0.022 0.24
4 Gregory Lake 0.007 0.007 0.27
5 Iranamadu 0.036 0.036 0.24
6 Kalawewa 0.004 0.004 0.24
7 Kalu Ganga 0.034 0.034 0.25
8 Kantale 0.003 0.003 0.24
9 Kaudulla 0.036 0.036 0.24
10 Kotmale
11 Maduru Oya 0.038 0.038 0.24
12 Minneriya 0.029 0.029 0.24
13 Moragahakanda 0.034 0.004 0.038 0.27
14 Moussakele 0.034 0.082 0.116 0.94
15 Parakrama Samudra 0.035 0.035 0.24
16 Rajangana 0.035 0.035 0.24
17 Randenigala 0.038 0.009 0.047 0.30
18 Rantambe
19 Samanalawewa 0.034 0.025 0.059 0.43
20 Senanayake Samudra 0.034 0.034 0.24
21 Uda Walawe 0.034 0.001 0.035 0.24
22 Ulhitiya 0.038 0.038 0.24
23 Victoria 0.023 0.015 0.038 0.40
53
McWILLIAMS energy
6.3 Levelized Cost of Energy

6.3.1 LCOE Base Case (9% interest rate)
The Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) for each site calculated in accordance with the methodology in
section 6.1, is shown in the following tables. In Table 46 it can be seen that for the base case, with
9% interest rate, the LCOE without external benefits varies from 70.45 to 104.66 USD/MWh.
Including both water and carbon benefits the LCOE varies from 42.22 to 76.42 USD/MWh.
Table 46: LCOE Base Case with 9% interest rate
ID Name LCOE Case LCOE with LCOE with

without External Water Benefits Water and CO2
Benefits (USD/MWh) Benefits
(USD/MWh) (USD/MWh)
1 Bowatenna 73.14 72.84 44.81
2 Castlereigh 83.71 82.83 54.54
3 Chandrika Lake 70.45 70.22 42.22
4 Gregory Lake 86.36 86.08 58.08
5 Iranamadu 75.64 75.40 47.40
6 Kalawewa 104.66 104.42 76.42
7 Kalu Ganga 82.02 81.77 53.77
8 Kantale 104.21 103.97 75.97
9 Kaudulla 74.75 74.51 46.51
10 Kotmale
11 Maduru Oya 77.45 77.21 49.21
12 Minneriya 73.09 72.85 44.85
13 Moragahakanda 77.46 77.19 49.18
14 Moussakele 86.48 85.54 57.23
16 Rajangana 76.19 75.95 47.95
17 Randenigala 78.97 78.68 50.65
18 Rantambe
19 Samanalawewa 82.40 81.97 53.89
21 Uda Walawe 75.02 74.77 46.77
22 Ulhitiya 72.49 72.25 44.25
23 Victoria 78.92 78.52 50.44
The rank of the sites by LCOE without external benefits for the 9% interest rate base case is shown in
Table 47.
Table 47: Rank of sites by LCOE for Base Case (9% interest rate)
Rank Name LCOE base case

USD/MWh
54
McWILLIAMS energy

3 Ulhitiya 72.5
4 Minneriya 73.1
5 Bowatenna 73.1
6 Kaudulla 74.8
7 Uda Walawe 75.0
8 Iranamadu 75.6
10 Rajangana 76.2
11 Maduru Oya 77.4
13 Victoria 78.9
14 Randenigala 79.0
15 Kalu Ganga 82.0
17 Castlereigh 83.7
19 Moussakele 86.5
20 Kantale 104.2
21 Kalawewa 104.7
22 Kotmale
23 Rantambe
6.3.2 LCOE Sensitivity Case (4% interest rate)

For the lower interest rate (4%) sensitivity case, the LCOE for each site is shown in the following
tables. In Table 48 the LCOE for the case without external benefits, and with the two external benefit
scenarios is shown. Without external benefits the LCOE varies from 48.79 to 70.75 USD/MWh, and
with external benefits the LCOE varies from 20.55 to 42.50 USD/MWh. This illustrates the significant
impact of the interest rate on the LCOE.
Table 48: LCOE for Sensitivity Case with 4% interest rate
ID Name LCOE Case LCOE with LCOE with

without External Water Benefits Water and CO2
Benefits (USD/MWh) Benefits
(USD/MWh) (USD/MWh)
1 Bowatenna 50.62 50.31 22.29
2 Castlereigh 57.71 56.83 28.55
3 Chandrika Lake 48.79 48.55 20.55
4 Gregory Lake 59.43 59.15 31.15
5 Iranamadu 52.11 51.87 23.87
6 Kalawewa 70.75 70.50 42.50
7 Kalu Ganga 56.33 56.08 28.08
55
McWILLIAMS energy
8 Kantale 70.42 70.18 42.18

9 Kaudulla 51.59 51.35 23.35
10 Kotmale
11 Maduru Oya 53.33 53.09 25.09
12 Minneriya 50.52 50.28 22.28
13 Moragahakanda 53.31 53.04 25.03
14 Moussakele 59.59 58.65 30.34
16 Rajangana 52.54 52.29 24.29
17 Randenigala 54.26 53.96 25.93
18 Rantambe
19 Samanalawewa 56.52 56.10 28.01
21 Uda Walawe 51.71 51.47 23.47
22 Ulhitiya 50.13 49.89 21.89
23 Victoria 54.27 53.87 25.79
The rank of the sites by LCOE without external benefits for the 4% interest rate sensitivity case is
shown in Table 49. The values are substantially reduced, by an average of 31% compared with the
higher interest rate base case, but the ranking remains the same.
Table 49: Rank of sites by LCOE for Base Case (4% interest rate)
Rank Name LCOE sensitivity case

USD/MWh
3 Ulhitiya 50.1
4 Minneriya 50.5
5 Bowatenna 50.6
6 Kaudulla 51.6
7 Uda Walawe 51.7
8 Iranamadu 52.1
10 Rajangana 52.5
12 Maduru Oya 53.3
13 Randenigala 54.3
14 Victoria 54.3
15 Kalu Ganga 56.3
17 Castlereigh 57.7
19 Moussakele 59.6
56
McWILLIAMS energy
20 Kantale 70.4
21 Kalawewa 70.7
22 Kotmale
23 Rantambe
6.3.3 High Energy Case (15% uplift)

As discussed in section 3.5, the PV energy estimates from the Global Solar Atlas are potentially
conservative, and a higher energy output case has been considered in this LCOE Analysis, with the
annual energy production increased by 15%. This case uses the base case discount rate of 9%, and
the LCOE for each site is shown in Table 50. The ranking of sites is identical to the base-case analysis
and has not been repeated.
Table 50: LCOE for each site for High Energy Case (15% energy uplift)
ID Name LCOE high

energy case
(USD/MWh)
1 Bowatenna 63.60
2 Castlereigh 72.79
5 Iranamadu 65.78
6 Kalawewa 91.01
7 Kalu Ganga 71.32
8 Kantale 90.62
9 Kaudulla 65.00
10 Kotmale
11 Maduru Oya 67.35
12 Minneriya 63.56
14 Moussakele 75.20
16 Rajangana 66.25
17 Randenigala 68.67
18 Rantambe
21 Uda Walawe 65.23
22 Ulhitiya 63.03
23 Victoria 68.63
57
McWILLIAMS energy
7 Financial Analysis
Financial evaluation of the 21 projects was carried out in nominal terms to assess the financial viability
of each project separately for three financing arrangements:
(i) 70% of the capital cost financed with debt in United States Dollars (USD) and the
remaining 30% financed with equity in Sri Lanka Rupees (SLR) (Financing Arrangement 1),
(ii) 70% of the capital cost financed with debt in SLR and the remaining 30% financed with
equity in SLR (Financing Arrangement 2), and
(iii) 50% of the capital cost financed with debt in SLR, 30% of the capital cost financed with a
grant and the remaining 20% financed with equity in SLR (Financing Arrangement 3).
7.1 Cost of Capital

The analysis considered costs of debt and equity based on market rates and conditions prevailing at
present. Cost of debt denominated in USD was assumed to be the 12-month USD London Inter Bank
Offer Rate (0.2868% on 19th April 202113) plus a 2% margin. Cost of debt denominated in SLR was
assumed to be the six-month Average Weighted Prime Lending Rate (AWPLR) (5.83%14) plus a risk
premium of 2% for a 10-year tenure.
Cost of equity was estimated as 20.46% using the Capital Asset Pricing Model with beta estimated for
the power sector in the Colombo Stock Exchange (1.09), 8-year treasury bond rate (7.39%15) as the
risk-free rate and 11.98%16 as the equity risk premium.
The Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) estimated for the three financing arrangements are
provided in Table 51.
Table 51: Weighted Average Cost of Capital
Financing Debt Equity Grant WACC

Arrangement
Share Cost Share Cost Share Cost
1 70% 8.69%a 30% 20.46% 0% 0% 12.23%
2 70% 7.83% 30% 20.46% 0% 0% 11.62%
3 50% 7.83% 20% 20.46% 30% 0% 8.01%
WACC- Weighted Average Cost of Capital

a
Cost of debt denominated in USD (2.29%) plus average rupee depreciation in last 5 years (6.4%)
13
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USD12MD156N
14
AWPLR of March 2021, Central Bank of Sri Lanka,
https://www.cbsl.lk/eResearch/Modules/RD/SearchPages/CMB_LendingAndDeposit.aspx, 1st April 2021
15
8 year treasury bond auction on 16th January 2021, Central Bank of Sri Lanka, www.cbsl.gov.lk
16
Country Default Spreads and Risk Premiums, Aswath Damodaran, January 8, 2021,
http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/ctryprem.html, referred on 15th March
2021
58
McWILLIAMS energy
7.2 Depreciation of the Sri Lanka Rupee

The average annual depreciation of the SLR against the USD was estimated as 6.4% during the last five
years analysing monthly average foreign exchange rates published by the Central Bank of Sri Lanka.
Local inflation was assumed to be equal to the average annual depreciation of the SLR.
7.3 Electricity Tariff

No large scale (MW-scale) floating solar PV plants are in operation in Sri Lanka. Hence, tariffs offered
by bidders during competitive bidding for the award of a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) are not
available. However, the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB), the vertically integrated electricity utility and
the holder of the only transmission license in Sri Lanka, has concluded three bidding rounds to award
PPAs for a total of 300 MW of ground mounted solar PV projects of 1 – 10 MW capacities. Bid prices
CEB has received are in the range SLR 16 – 18 per kWh in the first two bidding rounds in 2016-17, while
the same is about SLR 10 per kWh in the third bidding round in 2020. About twenty projects of 1 MW
capacity each, awarded in the first and second bidding rounds, have been commissioned so far.
Considering the high capital cost and low plant factors compared to ground mounted solar PV plants,
the analysis assumed a flat electricity tariff of SLR 15 per kWh throughout the entire operational life
of twenty years17.
7.4 Financial Internal Rate of Return

The Financial Internal Rate of Return (FIRR) was estimated for each of the 21 projects under
consideration. Capital costs and operational costs considered for the analysis are as estimated in
Section 5.3 and Section 5.4 respectively. Revenue from the sale of electricity generated is the only
benefit considered, and the electricity generation is as estimated in Section 3.4. FIRR estimated for
each project is provided in Table 52.
Table 52: Financial Internal Rate of Returns of Projects
Name FIRR
Bowatenna 7.49%
Castlereigh 5.27%
Chandrika Lake 8.12%
Gregory Lake 5.51%
Iranamadu 6.72%
Kalawewa 7.18%
Kalu Ganga 5.93%
Kantale 7.39%
Kaudulla 7.79%
Maduru Oya 7.67%
Minneriya 7.85%
Moragahakanda 6.51%
Moussakele 4.70%
Parakrama Samudra 8.02%
Rajangana 7.62%
Randenigala 5.82%
17
PPAs for renewable energy projects are awarded only for twenty years as the Sri Lanka Sustainable Energy
Authority Act of 2007 does not permits issuance of Energy Permits for periods longer than twenty years.
59
McWILLIAMS energy
Samanalawewa 5.36%
Senanayake Samudra 7.16%
Uda Walawe 7.55%
Ulhitiya/Ratkinda 7.87%
Victoria 5.60%
Comparison of results provided in Table 52 with WACC of the three financing arrangements reveal
that only the floating solar PV systems on Chandrika Lake and the Parakrama Samudra are financially
viable and only in Financing Arrangement 3. None of the projects will be financially viable in Financing
Arrangement 1 and Financing Arrangement 2.
7.5 Scenario Analysis

Several scenarios under which the financial viability of projects is believed to increase were analysed.
The scenarios are:
(i) Scenario 1: The tariff is escalated at local inflation

(ii) Scenario 2: The tariff is escalated at half of local inflation
(iii) Scenario 3: Electricity generation increases by 15%
(iv) Scenario 4: The tariff is escalated at half of inflation and electricity generation increases by
15%
7.5.1 Scenario 1: The Tariff is Escalated at Local Inflation
Table 53 provides FIRR of projects if the tariff offered is escalated at local inflation. It is observed
that only inflation due to USD:SLR exchange rate movement is compensated, and therefore in this
scenario the tariff remains constant in USD terms.
Table 53: FIRR of Projects if the Tariff is Escalated at Local Inflation
Name FIRR
Bowatenna 16.79%
Castlereigh 14.77%
Gregory Lake 15.07%
Iranamadu 15.91%
Kalawewa 16.68%
Kalu Ganga 15.23%
Kantale 16.87%
Kaudulla 17.07%
Maduru Oya 16.97%
Minneriya 17.12%
Moragahakanda 15.73%
Moussakele 14.28%
Rajangana 16.92%
Randenigala 15.00%
Samanalawewa 14.59%
60
McWILLIAMS energy

Uda Walawe 16.79%
Victoria 14.81%
Comparison of FIRRs with WACC reveal that all 21 projects are financially viable in all three financing
arrangements if the tariff is escalated at local inflation.
7.5.2 Scenario 2: The Tariff is Escalated at Half of Local Inflation

Table 54 provides FIRR of projects if the tariff offered is escalated at half of local inflation.
Table 54: FIRR of Projects if the Tariff is Escalated at Half of Local Inflation
Name FIRR
Bowatenna 12.41%
Castlereigh 10.36%
Gregory Lake 10.63%
Iranamadu 11.59%
Kalawewa 12.24%
Kalu Ganga 10.88%
Kantale 12.44%
Kaudulla 12.70%
Maduru Oya 12.59%
Minneriya 12.75%
Moussakele 9.85%
Rajangana 12.54%
Randenigala 10.69%
Samanalawewa 10.27%
Uda Walawe 12.44%
Victoria 10.49%
Comparison of results provided in Table 54 with WACC reveal that all 21 projects are financially viable
on in the Financing Arrangement 3. Financing arrangements 1 and 2 will produce mixed results in the
project portfolio.
7.5.3 Scenario 3: Electricity Generation Increases by 15%

The PV output estimated by the GSA for floating solar PV systems is a conservative estimation.
Assuming more favourable conditions will prevail at reservoirs that are being considered and
technological improvements will assist to minimize the effect of unfavourable conditions the analysis
61
McWILLIAMS energy
estimated the FIRR for each project assuming the electricity generation will increase by 15%. Results
are presented in Table 55.
Table 55: FIRR of Projects is Electricity Generation Increase by 15%
Name FIRR
Bowatenna 10.41%
Castlereigh 8.10%
Gregory Lake 8.39%
Iranamadu 9.53%
Kalawewa 10.17%
Kalu Ganga 8.73%
Kantale 10.39%
Kaudulla 10.73%
Maduru Oya 10.61%
Minneriya 10.79%
Moragahakanda 9.32%
Moussakele 7.52%
Rajangana 10.55%
Randenigala 8.55%
Samanalawewa 8.08%
Uda Walawe 10.45%
Victoria 8.33%
Comparison of FIRRs with WACC indicate that all floating solar PV projects except for the project on
the Moussakele Reservoir are financially viable in Financing Arrangement 3. The Financing
Arrangement 1 and Financing Arrangement 2 produce mixed results.
7.5.4 Scenario 4: The Tariff is Escalated at Half of Inflation and Electricity Generation
Increases By 15%
The combined effect of Scenarios 2 and 3 were analysed and results are provided in Table 56
Table 56: FIRR of Projects if the Tariff is Escalated at Half of Local Inflation and Electricity Generation Increase by 15%
Name FIRR
Bowatenna 15.15%
Castlereigh 12.94%
Gregory Lake 13.25%
Iranamadu 14.21%
62
McWILLIAMS energy
Kalawewa 15.01%
Kalu Ganga 13.47%
Kantale 15.22%
Kaudulla 15.45%
Maduru Oya 15.35%
Minneriya 15.51%
Moussakele 12.40%
Rajangana 15.29%
Randenigala 13.23%
Samanalawewa 12.78%
Uda Walawe 15.16%
Victoria 13.02%
Similar to the Scenario 1, all 21 projects are financially viable in all three financing arrangements if
the tariff is escalated at half the local inflation and electricity generation increases by 15%.
7.6 Raising Capital for Projects

Renewable energy18 development in Sri Lanka had been driven by the private sector since mid-1990s
in capacities not exceeding 10 MW. Projects of larger capacities have been historically developed by
the CEB. However, the Government of Sri Lanka plans to invite the private sector, both local and
foreign, to develop larger projects. The Government of Sri Lanka has identified renewable energy
projects up to 100 MW capacity to be developed by the private sector, and plans to invite competitive
bids to award PPAs.
Small renewable energy projects of the order of 1 MW can be developed by Sri Lankan companies
using balance sheet finance. As well as potentially reducing the required return on equity, the cost of
debt is likely to be lower for balance sheet finance than for project finance used for larger projects
such as these FSE projects. This is because the debt is secured against the corporate balance sheet
rather than the future project revenue, hence reducing the risk to the lenders. Hence it would not be
expected that the larger, project-financed FSE will achieve tariffs as low as the 1 MW sized projects.
Participation of multi-lateral or foreign development banks or lending agencies, other than the World
Bank19, in financing renewable energy projects developed by the private sector has been minimal. The
private sector has relied upon local commercial banks for SLR denominated debt mainly to avoid the
foreign exchange risk involved with repayment of foreign currency denominated debt as the tariff is
18
Mini-hydro, wind, ground mounted solar PV and rooftop solar PV
19
Energy Services Delivery Programme and the Renewable Energy for Rural Economic Development
Programme of the World Bank played a vital role in capacity development and financing renewable energy
projects from mid 1990s until about 2010. Credit that was available through the programmes was disbursed
through local commercial banks as SLR denominated loans to project developers.
63
McWILLIAMS energy
denominated in SLR and because the funding requirements are small and are will within the funding
capacities of local commercial banks.
Except for the floating solar PV project on the Kantale Reservoir, all other projects are larger than
10 MW and most of them are larger than 60 MW requiring investments in excess of USD 50 million.
At a debt-to-equity ratio of 70:30, the debt requirement will be higher than USD 35 million. Local
commercial banks had been hesitant to finance wind power projects and ground mounted solar PV
projects at the early stages of development mostly due to banks not being familiar with the technology
and risks involved. Local commercial banks may react similarly to floating solar PV projects as well.
Hence, development of floating solar PV projects would require participation of international funding
agencies as lenders and guarantee providers.
8 Multi-criteria Analysis and Ranking

In order to compare the FSE sites, a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) has been carried out, utilising the
results of the preceding analyses. This analysis compares the sites on the basis of their performance
against a set of measurable criteria, and combines that criteria scores using pre-established
weightings. Most of the criteria used are objective, although the thresholds between scores is
subjective.
While the aim of the MCA is to rank the projects against the set of criteria, the results cannot be
used without further review. For example, a site that has high scores against most criteria but a very
low score against one criterion may present greater developmental risk than a lower scoring site
that has average scores against all criteria.
8.1 Methodology
The methodology for the MCA is presented in Figure 5, and summarised below.
64
McWILLIAMS energy
Figure 5: Methodology flow chart for MCA analysis
Define criteria, scoring

thresholds and weightings
Assess and score each site

against each criterion
Apply weightings to scores for

each criterion
Aggregate weighted scores and

normalise
Rank normalised scores and

present radar charts
8.1.1 Criteria
For this study seven criteria have been selected as follows:
• Power
• Solar Resource
• Technical Complexity
• System Integration
• Environment
• Social
• Economics
The criteria have been selected to be reasonably independent and to cover the range of attributes
that will determine the preference between sites. The criteria are not fully independent, since the
solar resource and complexity have impacts on energy production and cost, which feed into the
economic analysis. This is taken into account in the weighting of the criteria, with reduced weighting
for criteria that overlap.
8.2 Definition of Criteria, Scoring and Weighting

For each of the criteria a parameter has been selected to represent the criteria. These parameters
are defined in the following sections.
The scores allocated are integer values out of 5, with 5 being the most preferred and 0 the least
preferred. For some criteria a low value is better (for example LCOE), and these criteria are
considered to be ascending. For other criteria a high value is preferred (for example Global Tilted
Irradiation), and these are considered to be descending.
65
McWILLIAMS energy
Thresholds are defined for the transition values between scores – for example the 3-4 threshold for
installed capacity is 70 MWp, and the 4-5 threshold is 90 MWp. Hence sites with installed capacity
between 70 and 90 MWp score 4, and above 90 MWp score 5.
When scores are aggregated the totals exceed 5, and hence they are normalised such that the
maximum value that can be attained is 5.
8.2.1 Power
The parameter used for the Power criterion is the installed capacity in MWp. In order to make a
meaningful contribution to the renewable energy needs of the Sri Lankan power system and to
attract international finance, grid-scale installations are required. A target installed capacity of
100 MWp has been adopted for this study. Hence sites with installed capacity above 90 MWp are
awarded maximum scores (5), and below 5 MWp score zero. The MCA parameters for the Power
criteria are shown in Table 57
Table 57: Power criterion MCA parameters
Criterion Power
Parameter Installed capacity
Unit MWp
Ascending or descending D
Weight 0.7
Threshold 0-1 5
Threshold 1-2 20
Threshold 2-3 50
Threshold 3-4 70
Threshold 4-5 90
8.2.2 Solar Resource

The solar resource for each site is assessed from the Global Solar Atlas, and the parameters selected
for the quality of the solar resource is the Global Tilted Irradiation, which is the annual total of the
solar radiation on a unit area tilted at the default angle (10 degrees in the case of FSE) in kWh/m2
per year. The whole of Sri Lanka falls within an area of average GTI by international standards, and it
is considered appropriate to score the resource against international GTI levels, rather than the
narrow band in Sri Lanka.
The MCA parameters for Solar Resource are shown in Table 58.
Table 58: Solar Resource criterion MCA parameters
Criterion Solar Resource

Parameter Global Tilted Irradiation
Unit kWh/m2
Weight 0.7
Threshold 0-1 900
Threshold 1-2 1200
66
McWILLIAMS energy
Threshold 2-3 1500

Threshold 3-4 1800
Threshold 4-5 2100
8.2.3 Technical Complexity

The principal factor affecting the technical complexity of development of FSE in Sri Lanka is the
operating range of the reservoir and its impact on the anchor and mooring systems. Sites with an
operating range of less than 10 metres are considered to be technically simple, whereas an
operating range greater than 45 metres is probably not feasible with current anchorage technology.
The MCA parameters for the Technical Complexity criterion are shown in Table 59.
Table 59: Technical complexity criterion MCA parameters
Criterion Complexity
Parameter Reservoir operating range
Unit m
Ascending or descending A
Weight 0.7
Threshold 0-1 45
Threshold 1-2 35
Threshold 2-3 25
Threshold 3-4 15
Threshold 4-5 10
8.2.4 System Integration

The ability of the FSE to integrate with CEB’s electricity system is a significant focus of this study. In
particular the potential for the FSE to operate with adjacent hydropower plant is regarded as
beneficial, since the hydro plant can ramp up or down to balance variations in output of the FSE.
Where conjunctive operation with co-located hydro plant is not possible, there is still advantage in
operating conjunctively with downstream hydro plant. Additionally a strong link to the 220kV grid
enables the FSE to operate conjunctively with other plant on the system, including energy storage
systems, permitting good system integration. Such system integration may be possible through the
132 kV and lower voltage grids, but is less certain.
The assessment for enhanced grid integration is shown in Table 10, and the marks assigned are as
follows:
Conjunctive with Hydro 2 marks for ability to operate conjunctively with a co-located
hydro plant.
Conjunctive d/s Hydro 1 mark for ability to operate conjunctively with downstream
hydro plant (alternative to full marks above)
Strong link to 220 kV 1 mark for direct connection to 220 kV grid, or to a substation
with direct connection to the 220 kV grid.
67
McWILLIAMS energy
All of the FSE schemes have been designed to integrate well with the grid by connection to a grid
substation which should have adequate export capacity. Hence a basic mark of 2 is awarded to all
schemes, and the enhanced integration marks are added to this score, giving a maximum score of 5.
The MCA parameters for the System Integration criterion are shown in Table 60.
Table 60: System integration criterion MCA parameters
Criterion System Integration

Parameter Conjunctive operation
Unit 0
Weight 0.7
Threshold 0-1 0.5
Threshold 1-2 1.5
Threshold 2-3 2.5
Threshold 3-4 3.5
Threshold 4-5 4.5
8.2.5 Environmental Impacts

The scores for the MCA for environmental impacts are derived from a subsidiary MCA of the
environmental characteristics. Each of five characteristics has been marked individually for each
site. These scores have been weighted, aggregated and then normalised for a maximum of 5. These
normalised scores are then used in the main MCA.
The five environmental characteristics that have been marked are:
Ecology
Hydrology and Water Quality
Pollution and Contamination
Protected Areas
Construction Impacts
The marking of the environmental characteristics is presented in section Error! Reference source not f
ound., and the parameters for the environmental impact criterion are shown in Table 61.
Table 61: Environmental impact criterion MCA parameters
Criterion Environment
Parameter Environmental Impact
Unit 0
Weight 1
Threshold 0-1 0.5
Threshold 1-2 1.5
Threshold 2-3 2.5
Threshold 3-4 3.5
68
McWILLIAMS energy
Threshold 4-5 4.5
8.2.6 Social Impacts

The scores for the MCA for social impacts are derived from a subsidiary MCA of the social impact
characteristics. Each of five characteristics has been marked individually for each site. These scores
have been weighted, aggregated and then normalised for a maximum of 5. These normalised scores
are then used in the main MCA.
The five social impact characteristics that have been marked are:
Resettlement
Economic Activities
Cultural Property
Health and Safety
Leisure and Tourism
The marking of the social impact characteristics is presented in section 4.3.6Error! Reference source n
ot found., and the parameters for the environmental impact criterion are shown in Table 62.
Table 62: Social impact criterion MCA parameters
Criterion Social
Parameter Social Impact
Unit 0
Weight 1
Threshold 0-1 0.5
Threshold 1-2 1.5
Threshold 2-3 2.5
Threshold 3-4 3.5
Threshold 4-5 4.5
8.2.7 Economics
The economic performance of the schemes is assessed in terms of the Levelized Cost of Energy
(LCOE). For the purposes of the MCA, the base case with 9% interest rate and no externalities taken
into account is used.
In order to compare the relative performance of the schemes, the thresholds for marking used
bands based on the standard deviation from the mean, derived from statistical analysis of the LCOE
data. The thresholds selected are:
• Mean – 1 SD
• Mean – 0.5 SD
• Mean + 0.5 SD
69
McWILLIAMS energy
• Mean + 1 SD
• Mean + 3 SD
The parameters based on this analysis are shown in Table 63.

Table 63: Economic performance criterion MCA parameters
Criterion Economics
Parameter Levelized Cost of Energy (base
case)
Unit USD/MWh
Ascending or descending A
Weight 1
Threshold 0-1 107.3
Threshold 1-2 89.1
Threshold 2-3 84.6
Threshold 3-4 75.5
Threshold 4-5 71.0
8.3 Analysis and Results

8.3.1 MCA Analysis
The values for the seven MCA criteria are shown in Table 64. The thresholds for each criterion shown
in sections 8.2 are applied to these values to derive the MCA scores.
Table 64: Values for MCA criteria
ID Name Power Solar Complexity System Environment Social Economics

(MWp) Resource (m ) Integration (USD/MWh)
(kWh/m2)
1 Bowatenna 18.8 1922 13.9 2 2.3 3.5 73.1

2 Castlereigh 100.7 1738 21.2 4 3.2 3.7 83.7
3 Chandrika Lake 64.1 1984 10.6 2 2.5 3.3 70.5
4 Gregory Lake 20.0 1706 6.0 2 3.8 2.2 86.4
5 Iranamadu 104.1 1989 17.0 2 3.3 3.2 75.6
6 Kalawewa 12.2 1944 12.4 2 1.5 3.3 104.7
7 Kalu Ganga 99.1 1903 29.5 2 3.3 3.3 82.0
8 Kantale 9.9 1971 13.8 2 2.1 3.5 104.2
9 Kaudulla 105.8 1967 9.7 2 2.8 3.3 74.8
10 Kotmale
11 Maduru Oya 110.0 1960 13.5 2 3.5 3.3 77.4
12 Minneriya 85.7 1967 13.6 2 1.3 3.3 73.1
13 Moragahakanda 99.5 1962 32.0 2 3.1 3.5 77.5
14 Moussakele 97.6 1686 23.9 4 2.8 3.8 86.5
15 Parakrama 102.6 1987 10.3 2 3.5 3.4 71.8
Samudra
16 Rajangana 102.5 1951 12.7 3 2.8 3.3 76.2
70
McWILLIAMS energy
17 Randenigala 110.0 1958 55.8 5 3.0 3.3 79.0

18 Rantambe
19 Samanalawewa 98.2 1915 38.0 4 3.3 3.7 82.4
20 Senanayake 100.4 1944 20.3 2 1.7 3.3 76.1
Samudra
21 Uda Walawe 99.6 1977 15.4 2 2.5 3.2 75.0
22 Ulhitiya 110.0 1970 8.1 2 3.8 3.3 72.5
23 Victoria 66.9 1938 55.5 5 1.7 3.5 78.9
8.3.2 MCA Scores

The unweighted MCA scores for each criterion at each site are shown in Table 65.
Table 65: Unweighted MCA score for each criterion

Resource Integration
1 Bowatenna 1 4 4 2 2 3 4
2 Castlereigh 5 3 3 4 3 4 3
3 Chandrika Lake 3 4 4 2 2 3 5
4 Gregory Lake 2 3 5 2 4 2 2
5 Iranamadu 5 4 3 2 3 3 3
6 Kalawewa 1 4 4 2 1 3 1
7 Kalu Ganga 5 4 2 2 3 3 3
8 Kantale 1 4 4 2 2 3 1
9 Kaudulla 5 4 5 2 3 3 4
10 Kotmale
11 Maduru Oya 5 4 4 2 4 3 3
12 Minneriya 4 4 4 2 1 3 4
13 Moragahakanda 5 4 2 2 3 3 3
14 Moussakele 5 3 3 4 3 4 2
15 Parakrama 5 4 4 2 3 3 4
Samudra
16 Rajangana 5 4 4 3 3 3 3
17 Randenigala 5 4 0 5 3 3 3
18 Rantambe
19 Samanalawewa 5 4 1 4 3 4 3
20 Senanayake 5 4 3 2 2 3 3
Samudra
21 Uda Walawe 5 4 3 2 3 3 4
22 Ulhitiya 5 4 5 2 4 3 4
23 Victoria 3 4 0 5 2 4 3
71
McWILLIAMS energy
Table 66: MCA weighting for each criterion
Power Solar Complexity System Environment Social Economics

0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00
The unweighted scores in Table 65 are factored by the weightings in Table 66, to produce the
weighted scores shown in Table 67.
Table 67: Weighted MCA scores for each criterion

1 Bowatenna 0.7 2.8 2.8 1.4 2 3 4
2 Castlereigh 3.5 2.1 2.1 2.8 3 4 3
3 Chandrika Lake 2.1 2.8 2.8 1.4 2 3 5
4 Gregory Lake 1.4 2.1 3.5 1.4 4 2 2
5 Iranamadu 3.5 2.8 2.1 1.4 3 3 3
6 Kalawewa 0.7 2.8 2.8 1.4 1 3 1
7 Kalu Ganga 3.5 2.8 1.4 1.4 3 3 3
8 Kantale 0.7 2.8 2.8 1.4 2 3 1
9 Kaudulla 3.5 2.8 3.5 1.4 3 3 4
10 Kotmale
11 Maduru Oya 3.5 2.8 2.8 1.4 4 3 3
12 Minneriya 2.8 2.8 2.8 1.4 1 3 4
13 Moragahakanda 3.5 2.8 1.4 1.4 3 3 3
14 Moussakele 3.5 2.1 2.1 2.8 3 4 2
15 Parakrama 3.5 2.8 2.8 1.4 3 3 4
Samudra
16 Rajangana 3.5 2.8 2.8 2.1 3 3 3
17 Randenigala 3.5 2.8 0 3.5 3 3 3
18 Rantambe
19 Samanalawewa 3.5 2.8 0.7 2.8 3 4 3
20 Senanayake 3.5 2.8 2.1 1.4 2 3 3
Samudra
21 Uda Walawe 3.5 2.8 2.1 1.4 3 3 4
22 Ulhitiya 3.5 2.8 3.5 1.4 4 3 4
23 Victoria 2.1 2.8 0 3.5 2 4 3
8.3.3 MCA Summaries

The unweighted MCA scores from Table 65 are summed in Table 68, and are normalised for a
maximum score of 5.
72
McWILLIAMS energy
Table 68: Unweighted MCA scores - Sum and Normalised
ID Name Sum of Normalised

Unweighted Unweighted
MCA Scores MCA Scores
1 Bowatenna 20 2.86
2 Castlereigh 25 3.57
3 Chandrika Lake 23 3.29
4 Gregory Lake 20 2.86
5 Iranamadu 23 3.29
6 Kalawewa 16 2.29
7 Kalu Ganga 22 3.14
8 Kantale 17 2.43
9 Kaudulla 26 3.71
10 Kotmale
11 Maduru Oya 25 3.57
12 Minneriya 22 3.14
13 Moragahakanda 22 3.14
14 Moussakele 24 3.43
15 Parakrama Samudra 25 3.57
16 Rajangana 25 3.57
17 Randenigala 23 3.29
18 Rantambe
19 Samanalawewa 24 3.43
20 Senanayake Samudra 22 3.14
21 Uda Walawe 24 3.43
22 Ulhitiya 27 3.86
23 Victoria 21 3.00
In Table 69 the normalised scores from Table 68 are presented by rank, with the highest score (most
preferred) ranked number 1.
Table 69: Ranked Unweighted Normalised MCA Scores
Rank Name Unweighted MCA

Scores Normalised
1 Ulhitiya 3.9
2 Kaudulla 3.7
3 Castlereigh 3.6
4 Maduru Oya 3.6
6 Rajangana 3.6
7 Moussakele 3.4
8 Samanalawewa 3.4
9 Uda Walawe 3.4
73
McWILLIAMS energy

11 Iranamadu 3.3
12 Randenigala 3.3
13 Kalu Ganga 3.1
14 Minneriya 3.1
17 Victoria 3.0
18 Bowatenna 2.9
19 Gregory Lake 2.9
20 Kantale 2.4
21 Kalawewa 2.3
22 Kotmale
23 Rantambe
In Table 70 the weighted scores from the MCA, and shown in Table 67 are summed and normalised.
Table 70: Weighted MCA scores - Sum and Normalised
ID Name Sum of Normalised

Weighted Weighted
MCA Scores MCA Scores
1 Bowatenna 16.7 2.88
2 Castlereigh 20.5 3.53
3 Chandrika Lake 19.1 3.29
4 Gregory Lake 16.4 2.83
5 Iranamadu 18.8 3.24
6 Kalawewa 12.7 2.19
7 Kalu Ganga 18.1 3.12
8 Kantale 13.7 2.36
9 Kaudulla 21.2 3.66
10 Kotmale
11 Maduru Oya 20.5 3.53
12 Minneriya 17.8 3.07
13 Moragahakanda 18.1 3.12
14 Moussakele 19.5 3.36
15 Parakrama Samudra 20.5 3.53
16 Rajangana 20.2 3.48
17 Randenigala 18.8 3.24
18 Rantambe
19 Samanalawewa 19.8 3.41
20 Senanayake Samudra 17.8 3.07
21 Uda Walawe 19.8 3.41
22 Ulhitiya 22.2 3.83
23 Victoria 17.4 3.00
74
McWILLIAMS energy
In Table 71 the normalised scores from Table 70Table 68 are presented by rank, with the highest
score (most preferred) ranked number 1. This table represents the final outcome of the multi-
criteria analysis, and provides the basis for selection of sites to take forward to the next stage of
study.
Table 71: Weighted MCA scores by rank
Rank Name Weighted MCA Scores

Normalised
1 Ulhitiya 3.8
2 Kaudulla 3.7
3 Castlereigh 3.5
4 Maduru Oya 3.5
6 Rajangana 3.5
7 Samanalawewa 3.4
8 Uda Walawe 3.4
9 Moussakele 3.4
11 Randenigala 3.2
12 Iranamadu 3.2
13 Kalu Ganga 3.1
15 Minneriya 3.1
17 Victoria 3.0
18 Bowatenna 2.9
19 Gregory Lake 2.8
20 Kantale 2.4
21 Kalawewa 2.2
22 Kotmale
23 Rantambe
9 Preferred Sites and Next Steps

9.1 Preferred Sites
The top six ranked sites, based on the weighted MCA scores are:
1 Ulhitiya
2 Kaudulla
3 Castlereigh
4 Maduru Oya
5 Parakrama Samudra
6 Rajangana
75
McWILLIAMS energy
9.2 Comments on sites

Summary descriptions of the six top ranked sites are presented below, and more detail is given in
the project description sheets in Annex A.
9.2.1 Rank 1: Ulhitiya

Ulhitiya reservoir is a 22 sq km reservoir on the Ulhitya Oya, a right bank tributary of the Mahaweli
River. The reservoir is owned by the Mahaweli River Authority, and forms part of the System B and C
irrigation areas. It receives part of its inflow from the right bank canal system fed downstream of
Rantambe reservoir. Ulhitiya has a small operating range of around 8 metres, which makes it
technically attractive for FSE. A 110 MWp FSE is proposed, which would occupy some 10% of the
Figure 6: MCA radar chart for Ulhitiya
MCA Scores
Power
5
4
Economics 3 Solar Resource
2
1
0
Social Complexity
Environment System…
9.2.2 Rank 2: Kaudulla

Kaudulla Reservoir is a 27 sq km reservoir on the Kaudulla Oya. It is an ancient reservoir, and
receives most of its water from the historic Elahera-Kantale Giant Canal which begins at Elahera
Anicut on Amban Ganga. The reservoir operating range is less than 10 metres, making it technically
attractive. However it is in a popular national park with a sizeable elephant population, and FSE
development must be sensitive to this. A 106 MWp FSE is proposed, which would occupy some 11%
of the reservoir surface area at MOL.
76
McWILLIAMS energy
Figure 7: MCA radar chart for Kaudulla
MCA Scores
Power
5
4
2
1
0
Social Complexity
9.2.3 Rank 3: Castlereigh

Castlereigh is the uppermost regulating reservoir of the Kehelgamu Oya branch of the Laxapana
hydroelectric complex in central Sri Lanka. The reservoir is attractive for FSE development, as it
should be able to operate conjunctively with the downstream projects of the Laxapana complex. A
101 MWp FSE is proposed, which would occupy some 35% of the reservoir surface area at MOL.
Figure 8: MCA radar chart for Castlereigh
MCA Scores
Power
5
4
2
1
0
Social Complexity
9.2.4 Rank 4: Maduru Oya

Maduru Oya is a very large reservoir, with a surface area of 64 sq km, in the centre-east of Sri Lanka.
It has a reasonably small operating range of 14 metres and a very large water surface area, even
when drawn down in the dry season. The reservoir is in a national park and the FSE will therefore
require sensitive development. A 110 MWp FSE is proposed, which would occupy some 5% of the
77
McWILLIAMS energy
Figure 9: MCA radar chart for Maduru Oya
MCA Scores
Power
5
4
2
1
0
Social Complexity
9.2.5 Rank 5: Parakrama Samudra

Parakrama Samudra is a 25 sq km reservoir on the Amban Ganga in the centre-east of Sri Lanka. The
original dam is an ancient structure dating back to the 4th century AD. The main inflow to the
reservoir is from the Angammedilla Canal, which is diverted from the Amban Ganga at the
Angammedilla anicut. With a 10 metre operating range, this is an attractive site for FSE. A 103 MWp
FSE is proposed, which would occupy some 16% of the reservoir surface area at MOL.
Figure 10: MCA radar chart for Parakrama Samudra
MCA Scores
Power
5
4
2
1
0
Social Complexity
9.2.6 Rank 6: Rajangana

Rajangana reservoir is a 16 sq km reservoir in north-central Sri Lanka. It is fed from the Kala Oya and
is downstream of Kalawewa reservoir. The reservoir has a reasonably small operating range of 13
metres. Around one-third of the surface area when the reservoir is drawn-down in the dry season,
would be occupied by the FSE, which would have 102 MWp installed capacity.
78
McWILLIAMS energy
Figure 11: MCA radar chart for Rajangana
MCA Scores
Power
5
4
2
1
0
Social Complexity
System
Environment
Integration
On the basis of the results of the MCA and this assessment, it is recommended that the four top-
ranked sites are taken forward to the pre-feasibility stage.
1. Ulhitiya
2. Kaudulla
3. Castlereigh
4. Maduru Oya
These sites are considered likely to produce economic and sustainable FSE projects with low
technical, environmental and social risks. The remaining two sites of the top six may be kept in
reserve in case unforeseen impediments to development of the top four are encountered.
The Pre-feasibility studies will confirm the technical viability of the FSE projects, evaluate the cost
and economics and provide more detailed assessments of the environmental and social impacts,
regulatory regime and development options.
79
McWILLIAMS energy

SLFS Phase B Report Final Rev0 09062021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SLFS Phase B Report Final Rev0 09062021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

World Bank Group

Floating Solar Energy Review

Phase B Study: Multi-criteria Analysis

Project Name: Floating Solar Energy Review

Document Title: Phase B Study: Multi-criteria Analysis

This document has been prepared in

Annex B: PV Assessment for Each Site

4 Environmental and Social Impacts ................................................................................................ 31

Table 5: Key reservoir characteristics for FSE ....................................................................................... 12

Acronyms and Abbreviations

NAQDA National Aquaculture Development Authority (of SL)

Table 2: Description of six top-ranked sites

Rank Name Comment

1 Ulhitiya Ulhitiya reservoir is a 22 sq km reservoir on the Ulhitya Oya, a right bank

2 Kaudulla Kaudulla Reservoir is a 27 sq km reservoir on the Kaudulla Oya. It is an

3 Castlereigh Castlereigh is the uppermost regulating reservoir of the Kehelgamu Oya

5 Parakrama Parakrama Samudra is a 25 sq km reservoir on the Amban Ganga in the

6 Rajangana Rajangana reservoir is a 16 sq km reservoir in north-central Sri Lanka. It is

The locations of the six top-ranked sites are shown in Figure 1.

1.2 Summary of Phase A

The Phase A studies concluded that:

These reservoirs are listed in Table 3.

ID Name Primary function

A.31 Chandrika Lake Irrigation

1.3 Screening for Phase B

Table 4: Reservoirs included in Phase B Study

ID Name River Primary function

The location of these reservoirs is indicated in the map in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Map showing location of reservoirs considered in Phase B

Kaudulla Reservoir (9) Iranamadu Tank (5)

Minneriya Reservoir (12) Kantale Reservoir (8)

Bowatenna Reservoir (1) Madura Oya Reservoir (11)

Moragahakanda Reservoir (13)

Samanalawewa Reservoir (19)

1.4 Data Acquisition

Data was kindly provided by the reservoir owners:

• Mahaweli Authority of Sri Lanka (MASL)

ID Name Surface Area at Surface Area at Water Level

Table 6: Hydropower characteristics at reservoirs

ID Name Hydro Plant Installed Average Plant

Percentage of facility occupied by floats 68%

Percentage of float area occupied by panels 82%

Net area of panels as % of FSE area 56%

• Proximity to existing access roads

2.2 Critical Factors

2.2.1 Reservoir Operating Range

The operating range of hydropower reservoirs is usually constrained by the characteristics of

Table 8: Operating range of reservoirs by rank

Rank Name Range (m)

2.2.2 Reservoir Depth

2.2.3 Area at MOL

Rank Name Area at MOL irrigation

2.3 Scheme Integration with Grid

2.3.2 System Integration

ID Name Conjunctive Conjunctive d/s Strong link to

2.4 Grid Interconnection

2.4.2 Selected Interconnections

The transmission line parameters are summarised in Table 11.

Figure 3: Map of FSE interconnections with CEB Grid

Table 11: Transmission line parameters

ID Name Rated Voltage Grid Substation TL Length

ID Name Comments on Transmission Options