EAC clears only one of nine coal plants seeking FGD exemption

In two consecutive sittings of the Expert Appraisal Committee for thermal power projects, held on February 24 and 25 under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), nine coal-based power plants came up for review under the July 2025 notification that opened the door for Category B plants to seek case-by-case exemptions from Flue Gas Desulphurisation requirements. Only one project walked away with approval. The remaining eight were deferred or returned, each tripped up by data inconsistencies, procedural gaps, or unresolved environmental liabilities.

38th meeting — February 24, 2026

Haldia Energy Limited secured approval for exemption from FGD installation for its 600 MW thermal power plant at Baneshwarchak in Purba Medinipur district, West Bengal. The EAC accepted the company’s ambient air quality data, which showed sulphur dioxide (SO₂) concentrations within the limits prescribed under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The committee also accepted the argument that the use of low-sulphur domestic coal combined with a 275 metre bi-flue stack provided adequate pollutant dispersion without FGD. However, the approval is subject to conditions. Haldia Energy will implement a supplementary Environmental Management Plan (EMP) involving capital expenditure of Rs 554 lakh and annual expenditure of Rs 233 lakh. The company will also install a second Continuous Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Station (CAAQMS) near the point of maximum ground-level concentration and undertake plantation of 50,000 saplings along the Haldia riverside within two years.

The application of MEIL Anpara Energy Limited for its 1,200 MW plant in Sonebhadra district, Uttar Pradesh was deferred. Data from the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) showed particulate matter (PM₁₀) levels at Renusagar Colony reaching 156 µg/m³ in October 2025, exceeding the 100 µg/m³ NAAQS limit. The company could not explain the difference between these readings and its own submitted data. The EAC also raised concerns about ash management, noting that the plant’s ash dyke is located adjacent to the Govind Vallabh Pant Sagar Dam without protective measures to prevent ash ingress into the reservoir. Ash utilisation over the previous three years remained between 20% and 60%. The company was also unable to provide drone footage of the site or a third-party performance test of its electrostatic precipitators (ESP).

The proposal from Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited (CSPGCL) for its 500 MW Hasdeo Thermal Power Station at Korba West in Chhattisgarh was also deferred. The EAC found the air quality dispersion modelling to be technically flawed, as the study placed maximum SO₂ ground-level concentration only 650 metres from the stack despite a stack height of 275 metres. The modelling also covered only SO₂ and did not include PM or nitrogen oxides (NOx). The committee also noted that the company appears to have initiated FGD installation at the site while simultaneously seeking exemption. CSPGCL was directed to submit retirement undertakings to the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and Central Electricity Authority (CEA) for four ageing 210 MW units expected to retire by 2030 under the July 2025 notification. The EAC also observed that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) consultant’s accreditation had expired two days before the meeting.

Dhariwal Infrastructure Limited’s proposal for its 600 MW plant in Chandrapur district, Maharashtra was deferred after discrepancies were found in the environmental submission. The company had stated that the plant is located 10 km from the Chandrapur Critically Polluted Area (CPA). However, the ministry’s satellite mapping system showed the project within the CPA, which has a Comprehensive Environmental Pollution Index (CEPI) score of 76.41. The committee sought an explanation for the discrepancy, noting that projects within the CPA are subject to additional safeguards under a 2019 MoEF&CC office memorandum. Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) data also indicated PM levels above permissible limits at nearby locations. A legal inconsistency was also identified, as the environmental clearance is held in the name of Dhariwal Infrastructure (P) Limited while the application was submitted by Dhariwal Infrastructure Limited without supporting transfer documentation.

Orissa Alloy Steel Private Limited’s application relating to its 300 MW plant at Thoothukudi in Tamil Nadu was also deferred due to conflicting emission data. The addendum EIA report listed the SO₂ emission rate for one unit at 1,206.6 kg per hour, while another document submitted for the same unit cited 11.04 grams per second. The EAC asked the company to reconcile the figures before resubmitting the proposal. The plant was originally granted environmental clearance in 2010 for Ind-Bharat Thermal Power Limited for three 150 MW units. Following insolvency proceedings at the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Orissa Alloy Steel acquired the assets through an e-auction in mid-2024. Two units are currently operational and resumed generation on January 31, 2026 after refurbishment. The committee also sought an update on compliance related to a Supreme Court case concerning wildlife clearance linked to the original approval.

39th meeting — February 25, 2026

The application of Hiranmaye Energy Limited for its 2×150 MW coal-based plant in Haldia, Purba Medinipur district, West Bengal was deferred. Although the company stated that it uses domestic coal with sulphur content below 0.5%, ambient air monitoring at the Priyambada Housing Society station recorded PM₁₀ levels of 219.89 µg/m³, more than twice the NAAQS limit. Stack emission levels for PM and NOx were also reported to be above prescribed standards. The EAC also found inconsistencies in the EMP budget, which was stated as both Rs 30.4 crore and Rs 39.26 crore in different submissions. The company is currently undergoing proceedings before the NCLT with an appeal pending before the Supreme Court, raising concerns about its financial capacity to implement mitigation measures. The committee directed submission of revised dispersion modelling, compliance details relating to the May 2020 coal usage notification, and a time-bound mitigation plan with clear financial allocations.

Moxie Power Generation Limited’s request for FGD exemption for its 2×600 MW plant in Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu was also deferred. The committee identified inconsistencies in stack emission data for PM, SO₂ and NOx between the addendum report and the figures presented during the meeting. The plant is located 5.2 km from the Gulf of Mannar Marine National Park, with the Eco-Sensitive Zone situated 2.72 km away. The environmental clearance granted in December 2008 required wildlife clearance from the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL), which has not yet been obtained. The EAC also observed that the predicted maximum ground-level pollutant concentration occurs at 4.8 km from the plant, but the proponent did not assess sensitive receptors in that zone. In addition, continuous ambient air quality monitoring systems and emission monitoring systems were not connected to the CPCB server.

GMR Kamalanga Energy Limited’s proposal relating to its 3×350 MW plant in Dhenkanal district, Odisha was deferred on technical grounds. The committee found that mass emission rates reported by the company did not align with stoichiometric calculations. The dispersion modelling also indicated maximum pollutant concentration at a distance of 1,000 metres from a 275 metre stack, which the committee asked the company to re-evaluate. Drone footage reviewed during the meeting showed gaps in the plantation area, and the proponent was directed to undertake gap filling in accordance with CPCB guidelines. As approximately 25% of the plant’s coal is transported by road, the company was also asked to submit environmental protection measures for road-based coal transport. The EAC suggested consulting the original equipment manufacturer to improve the performance of the plant’s ESP systems.

In a separate agenda item, National Aluminium Company Limited’s proposal to expand its captive power plant capacity from 1,200 MW to 2,280 MW by adding four 270 MW units was returned without consideration. The EAC stated that the proposal was premature as comments from the Ministry of Power were not available and information on ash pond requirements and location was incomplete. The company has been advised to revise and resubmit the proposal.

The featured photograph is for representation only.