Author: PPD Team Date: 21/03/2025
The Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) reviewed several thermal and hydroelectric power projects in its February-March meetings. These projects faced scrutiny over environmental compliance, land use, and regulatory approvals. Here is a detailed look at the key discussions and decisions:
Expansion by Addition of 2 x 660 MW Supercritical Units in Korba West, Chhattisgarh
The project involves the expansion of Hasdeo Thermal Power Station (HTPS) in Korba West, Chhattisgarh, with the addition of 2 x 660 MW supercritical units by Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited (CSPGCL).
Initially, the proposal was discussed in the 14th EAC meeting on 4-5 November 2024 but was deferred due to the need for additional information. The project proponent submitted responses, and the proposal was reconsidered in the 17th EAC meeting on 30 December 2024.
The EAC deferred the proposal again, citing the need for further clarifications on land ownership and environmental compliance.
Gadarwara Super Thermal Power Project, Stage-II (2×800 MW), Madhya Pradesh
The project involves the expansion of the Gadarwara Super Thermal Power Project in Narsinghpur, Madhya Pradesh, with the addition of 2 x 800 MW units by NTPC Limited.
NTPC applied for EC, but discrepancies in land ownership and an increased land requirement were noted during the review. The EAC raised concerns regarding these issues and requested amendments to the environment clearance (EC) to reflect the revised land use.
The EAC deferred the proposal, requiring the proponent to address land ownership concerns and submit necessary clarifications.
2×800 MW Coal-Based Godda Thermal Power Plant, Jharkhand
The project involves an amendment in the EC for the installation of a 6.0 Million TPA Cement Grinding Unit (CGU) within the premises of the existing 2×800 MW Godda Thermal Power Plant by Adani Power Limited. The amendment aims to achieve 100% fly ash utilization in compliance with MoEFCC guidelines.
The proposal was reviewed by the EAC, which raised concerns regarding land availability, green belt development, and overall environmental compliance. The committee found the current submission inadequate to address these issues.
The EAC returned the proposal in its present form and advised the proponent to revisit the entire plan. A fresh submission will be required for reconsideration.
Expansion of 3×660 MW Super-Critical Nabinagar Thermal Power Plant, Bihar
The project involves the expansion of the existing 1980 MW (3×660 MW) Nabinagar Super Thermal Power Project in Aurangabad, Bihar, by adding 3×800 MW units (Stage-II). The proponent, Nabinagar Power Generating Company Limited, also sought an amendment in the EC to include 18.25 acres (7.39 Ha) of forestland within the acquired 1500 acres (607.028 Ha).
The proposal was initially considered in the 17th EAC meeting on 30 December 2024 and was later reviewed again on 11 February 2025 for expansion approval. The committee evaluated the request for additional land inclusion and its environmental implications.
The Ministry granted both the EC amendment and the expansion EC, allowing the project to proceed as planned.
Sharavathy Pumped Storage Project (2,000 MW), Karnataka
The project, proposed by Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (KPCL), aims to develop a 2,000 MW pumped storage facility in Begodi, Honavar, Uttara Kannada, Karnataka. The project benefits from an existing reservoir system, reducing the need for large-scale civil engineering work.
A sub-committee of the EAC conducted a site visit from January 24-26, 2025, noting that the project falls within the Western Ghats Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) and the ESZ of Sharavathy Wildlife Sanctuary. This necessitates Wildlife Clearance from the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL). While the proponent stated that no forest land would be submerged and muck dumping would be on non-forest land, independent verification was deemed necessary. The committee also suggested minimizing the width of approach roads to reduce forest land impact.
The EC decision is pending. The project requires Stage-I Forest Clearance and Wildlife Clearance from NBWL before further consideration. The proponent shallreassess forest land requirements and justify any unavoidable deforestation.
Meja Thermal Power Project Stage II (3×800 MW), Uttar Pradesh
Meja Urja Nigam Private Limited proposed the expansion of the Meja Thermal Power Project in Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh, with the addition of three 800 MW coal-based units. The project faced several compliance issues, including exceeding the approved land acquisition (1,295 Ha vs. 1,100 acres), an unapproved shift in coal sourcing from South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) to Central Coalfields Limited (CCL) and Northern Coalfields Limited (NCL), and a shortfall in fly ash utilization. While water supply compliance was confirmed, flue gas desulfurization (FGD) for Stage II remains pending, with a 2026 deadline.
The EAC deferred the proposal, requiring justification for excess land, approval for the coal source change, and compliance with fly ash utilization targets before granting EC for Stage II expansion.
Amarkantak Ultra Supercritical Thermal Power Project (1×660 MW), Madhya Pradesh
Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Company Limited (MPPGCL) proposed the development of a 660 MW ultra-supercritical thermal power unit in Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh. The project faced multiple compliance issues, including the requirement for 6.171 Ha of forest land approval under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, which remains pending. Ash disposal practices were non-compliant, as 60% of the ash was used for filling low-lying areas without approval from the Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board (CECB). Additionally, the project proponent had not submitted a carbon emissions mitigation plan, and water quality analysis needed reassessment for key parameters such as Dissolved Oxygen (DO), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), and Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD). Furthermore, out of 62 reported court cases, details for only 56 were provided, requiring full disclosure.
The EAC recommended returning the proposal in its present form. It further directed the Ministry to issue a letter instructing the proponent not to initiate any project-related activities until the required clearance under the Forest Conservation Act is obtained for the diversion of 6.171 Ha of forest land.
Ghatampur Thermal Power Project (3×660 MW), Uttar Pradesh
Neyveli Uttar Pradesh Power Limited (NUPPL) sought an amendment to its 2015 EC for the 3×660 MW Ghatampur Thermal Power Project in Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. The project faced multiple compliance issues, including incomplete Corporate Environment Responsibility (CER) activities, inadequate greenbelt development, and non-alignment of fly ash management with MoEFCC guidelines.
The Committee recommended returning the proposal, advising the proponent to confirm whether an EC amendment is required for switching from imported to domestic coal supplied by Coal India Limited (CIL) as per MoEFCC’s O.M. dated 11/11/2020. A fresh EC amendment proposal must be submitted via the PARIVESH portal by 15/03/2025, incorporating all changes related to coal source modification and the original EC conditions from 17/06/2015.
Jindal Power Limited (4×600 MW), Chhattisgarh
Jindal Power Limited sought an amendment to its EC for the 4×600 MW Thermal Power Plant at Tamnar, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. The request aimed to continue using the existing ash dyke of the 4×250 MW plant for unutilized ash from the 4×600 MW plant instead of constructing a new dyke.
Key issues were identified during the review. The project had changed its coal source from imported to domestic coal without prior EC amendment. Additionally, 236 hectares of land initially allocated for the new ash dyke was now proposed for solar power generation. An ash dyke stability study was mandated every six months. Further conditions were imposed regarding road maintenance, expansion of the green belt, and implementation of SO₂ control measures.
The Committee granted partial approval. Permission to use the existing ash dyke was extended until June 2026, subject to strict compliance with additional environmental conditions.
Durgapur Thermal Power Station Expansion (1×800 MW), West Bengal
DVC proposed the expansion of the Durgapur Thermal Power Station with a 1×800 MW Ultra Supercritical Thermal Power Project in Paschim Bardhaman, West Bengal.
The project site covers 220.15 hectares, with no forest land involved. Water allocation of 57,288 m³/day from the Damodar River has been approved. However, the project falls within a Severely Polluted Area (SPA), necessitating additional environmental safeguards. A greenbelt covering 40% of the project area is required, along with an FGD system for SO₂ control. Fly ash will be collected dry, with a 100% utilization target set, requiring strict monitoring.
The Committee granted Terms of Reference (ToR) for conducting an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environmental Management Plan (EMP) study before considering EC.
Lalitpur TPP Expansion (3×800 MW), Uttar Pradesh
Lalitpur Power Generation Company Ltd. proposed an expansion of the Lalitpur Thermal Power Plant (TPP) by adding a 2400 MW (3×800 MW) Ultra Supercritical Thermal Power Plant to the existing 1980 MW (3×660 MW) facility in Lalitpur, Uttar Pradesh.
The project requires an additional 121.6 hectares of land, with no forest land involved. Water allocation from Rajghat Canal and Kachnoda Dam has been approved. Coal supply of 12.4 million tonnes per annum (MTPA) will come from Coal India subsidiaries via rail.
A new ash pond (20.66 hectares) is planned with wet slurry disposal and HDPE lining, but its assessment is pending. The project site is near seven Reserved Forests (within 10 km), but no wildlife sanctuaries or biosphere reserves are present nearby. A greenbelt expansion is planned.
The ToR has been granted for an EIA study before considering EC.
Expansion of Existing 600 MW Thermal Power Project at Korba, Chhattisgarh
The project involves the expansion of the existing 600 MW (2×300 MW) thermal power plant in Korba, Chhattisgarh, by adding 1320 MW (2×660 MW) supercritical coal-based units. The expansion project, undertaken by Korba Power Limited under Adani Power Limited, initially received environmental clearance, but construction was stalled in 2017 due to insolvency.
The proponent sought a revival of the EC, citing that over 75% of construction activities for units 3 & 4 had already been completed. The EAC reviewed the proposal and found that fresh environmental clearance was necessary to complete the remaining construction.
The EAC recommended granting ToR for conducting an EIA study under the provisions of the EIA Notification, 2006, with specific conditions to be addressed in the assessment.
1×800 MW Supercritical Thermal Power Project in Gandhinagar, Gujarat
The project involves the installation of a 1×800 MW supercritical thermal power unit at the site of the demolished 2×120 MW units of the Gandhinagar Thermal Power Station. The project is proposed by Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Limited (GSECL).
The initial submission was returned due to data discrepancies. The proponent resubmitted the application with corrections, seeking a fresh ToR for the project. However, the EAC found the revised submission still incomplete and recommended returning the proposal.
The EAC instructed the project proponent and the EIA consultant to completely revise the ToR application with all necessary supporting documents before fresh submission. Additionally, a show cause notice was issued to Mantec Consultants Private Limited for repeatedly submitting incomplete applications.
Dharoi Off-Stream Open Loop Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project (500 MW), Gujarat
The project involves the construction of a 500 MW off-stream open-loop pumped storage hydroelectric facility in Banaskantha and Mahesana districts, Gujarat. As proposed by GSECL, the facility will use the existing Dharoi Dam on the Sabarmati River as the lower reservoir, while the upper reservoir will be artificially created by cutting a hill. The scheme is designed to provide 6.03 hours of peak power generation per day, with 7.16 hours of water pumping back to the upper reservoir.
The EAC raised concerns regarding the project’s proximity to the ESZ of the Balaram-Ambaji Wildlife Sanctuary, requiring a certificate from the Chief Wildlife Warden confirming that the project is outside the ESZ. The committee also noted that Stage-I Forest Clearance (FC) for 110.85 Ha of forest land had not yet been submitted. Additionally, the EAC advised exploring options to recharge the Dharoi reservoir to ensure sustainable water availability.
The EAC recommended the project for the grant of ToR under the EIA Notification, 2006, with additional conditions, including submission of the Forest Clearance application, environmental impact studies, and socio-economic assessments.
Sukhi Off-Stream Open Loop Pumped Storage Project (500 MW), Gujarat
The GSECL proposed a 500 MW pumped storage hydro project in Chhota Udepur, Gujarat, using a newly constructed upper reservoir and the existing Sukhi Dam on the Sukhi River, a tributary of the Narmada River. The project, spanning 191.53 hectares (124.85 Ha private land, 66.68 Ha forest land), is estimated to cost Rs 2,812.76 crores. The scheme is designed to provide 6.02 hours of peak power generation per day, with 7.02 hours of pumping operation.
The EAC identified key environmental concerns, including the project’s location within the ESZ of the Jambughoda Wildlife Sanctuary, where hydroelectric projects are not permitted. Additionally, the submergence of 28.11 hectares of forest land raised concerns about habitat destruction.
The EAC returned the proposal and advised the proponent to identify an alternative site outside the ESZ and submit a revised proposal.
Upper Bhavani Open Loop Pumped Storage Project (1000 MW), Tamil Nadu
The Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) proposed a 1000 MW pumped storage hydro project in Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu, utilizing an artificial upper reservoir and an existing lower reservoir.
The EAC raised concerns about the project’s proximity to Mukurthi National Park, highlighting potential risks to wildlife and ecosystem stability. Due to these environmental sensitivities, the committee directed the proponent to explore alternative locations outside protected areas.
The proposal was deferred until a suitable alternative site is identified.
Summary of Projects Reviewed by EAC:
