Politics
International Relations
Economics
Energy
Power Generation
development strategy
Imported Fuel
THREAD
A shocking story of a power generation project and overlooking the utilization of indigenous resources in Afghanistan. The Tarakhil 105 MW diesel power plant in Kabul. This is 1 instance of how donors devised plans and spent money contrary to ANDS in 2008.
A shocking story of a power generation project and overlooking the utilization of indigenous resources in Afghanistan. The Tarakhil 105 MW diesel power plant in Kabul. This is 1 instance of how donors devised plans and spent money contrary to ANDS in 2008.
This project began as the ANDS had been completed, but it was not 1 of the projects identified in the development strategy. Back in 2008, ANDS had called for greater development of hydropower, as opposed to emphasizing diesel plants, bcz d fuel for these plants must be imported.
In spite of this preference, USAID entered into a contract with an American JV to build the 105MW plant on the outskirts of Kabul. USAID, MEW & DABS thought that the power plant would significantly reinforce the national grid through the continuous operation of 18 diesel engines.
They thought this would help mitigate potential shortfalls in available power resulting from natural disasters or neighboring country decisions to reduce power exports. As we experienced with Tajikistan's decision to reduce electricity exports from 350 MW to 40 MW.
The project, however, did not live up to expectations. According to a report by @SIGARHQ, the project was plagued by cost overruns, poor contractor performance, & delays. The US gov spent $335 million on the Tarakhil Power Plant, which was initially budgeted $95 million by USAID.
Moreover, assessments performed by other USAID consultants pointed out that the Tarakhil power plant was designed to be a base-load plant, operating 24/7, but it was being operated to support only peak load. DABS now says that it's the most expensive option for them.
The completed power plant was handed over to DABS in June 2010 for operation, and SIGAR found that between July 2010 and December 2013, the plant only produced about 2.2% of its potential production capacity during that period.
SIGAR's analysis also shows that from February 2014 through April 2015, the plant provided 8846 MWh of energy to the Kabul grid, which is less than 1% of Tarakhil's production capacity during that period, and only 0.34% of the total energy consumption on the Kabul grid.
The report further says that the underutilization of the plant has apparently resulted in the premature failure of equipment, which will raise O&M costs significantly.
Today, several years after the Tarakhil power plant's completion, one could ask if it was worthwhile to build a diesel power plant that cannot produce more than 1% of its total capacity. The project did not align well with ANDS & has not helped to provide affordable electricity.
ANDS had proposed building hydropower plants to help supply Kabul, and ten years ago, it is likely that the proposed Baghdara hydropower plant could have been built with the same $335 million the US gov spent on the diesel plant to produce over 200MW of generation capacity.
This situation with respect to poor planning & coordination has been exacerbated by the fact that most of the foreign aid for the energy sector has been spent โoff-budgetโ outside of the official budget of the government of Afghanistan. It is instead spent by donors directly.
Moreover, much of the on-budget funding for the power sector has been non-discretionary, allocated for specific projects endorsed by development partners that have a specific goal or agenda.
The government of Afghanistan has often had very limited influence and role in off-budget and non-discretionary project planning, as it is obliged to follow the international development partner's agenda. According to a review of ANDS in 2014,
it was found that from 2008 to 2013 the total investment on development projects was $15.6 billion. About $4.9 billion was spent on-budget, while the remaining $10.7 billion was off-budget, spent directly by donors, using their own plans, consultants & implementation mechanisms.
Loading suggestions...