India
Ex-Post Evaluation of Japanese ODA Loan Project“Eastern Gandak Canal Hydroelectric Project”
Third Party Evaluator: IC Net Limited
Kenji Momota
Field Survey: October 2009
1. Outline
N epalBhutanN ew D elhi
Banglad es h

Project site
Colcata

India

Myanmer

M umbai

Project site location

The

power

plant

seen

from

downstream of the irrigation canal
1.1 Project Objective:
The objective of this project is to improve the electricity shortage of the state through low
head hydropower generation1 by constructing a bypass channel for power generation in the
East Gandak irrigation canal in Bihar state, thereby contributing to regional economic
development.

1.2 Project Outline (Outline of Loan Agreement):
Approved

Amount/Disbursed

1,630 million yen / 1,628 million yen

AmountEnd Notes Exchange Date/Loan

December 1984/July 1996

Agreement Signing Date

1

Ex-post evaluation

2003

Executing Agency

BHPC (Bihar State Electric Corporation)

Main Contractor

Sumitomo Corporation (Japan)

Hydroelectric power generation performed with a dam of low height

2-1

(Over 1 billion yen)
Main Consultant

None(Over 100 million yen)
1.3 Background/Reason for Post Monitoring
The total annual quantity of electricity generated in 2003(at the period of ex-post
evaluation) remained less than thirty percent of that initially planned. The primary factor
was due to design/structural problems of discharge canal of the plant. Outlet water level
downstream of the power plant could not decrease sufficiently and the generating
capacity did not reach the expected level. The ex-post evaluation report suggested that
this problem could be resolved through establishment of an “escape channel” midway inthe drainage channel, and recommended its rapid construction. Consequently, this project
became subject to ex-post monitoring in order to reappraise the operating conditions of
the power plant and the progress of outfitting the said escape channel since the ex-post
evaluation. The ex-post monitoring was conducted in accordance with the distinct
evaluation criteria based on the results of the recent field survey.
The field survey for this project was first scheduled for June. However, BHPC,
the executing agency postponed the survey four times. It caused a significant delayin the schedule. In addition, parts of the data requested based on the questionnaireduring the field survey were not provided. Thus a detailed analysis of these items
was relinquished.
2. Monitoring Results
2.1 Effectiveness (Impact)
2.1.1 Quantitative Effects
2.1.1.1 Operation and Effect Indicators(1) Operating Conditions of the Power Plant
With the total amount of electricity generated at around 20 - 30% of originally projectedlevel and a capacity factor at 15 - 18%, no change in conditions is seen from the time of the
ex-post evaluation. As per the following details, the primary factors are shortages in water
quantity and insufficient outlet head etc.
Table 1 Results of Primary Operation and Effect Indicators for the Power Plant
Indicator/Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Operation Indicator
1 Accidental outage
138.98185.14
230.5
236.1
213.2
(Hours/Year)
2-2

Mechanical error
Human Error
Others2 Operating rate
% of planned value(69% attime of planning)
3 Planned outage(For Maintenance)
Effectiveness Indicators
1 Total Power Generated(GWh/Year)% of Planned value
2 Net Power Generated(GWh/Year)
3 Maximum Output (MW)% of Planned value(Max.
15MW)

28.9

70.05
115.09
20.6%
29.9%

90.5
140.0
18.8%
27.3%

87.5
148.6
16.0%
23.2%

78.1
135.1
15.6%
22.7%

110.08
18.5%
26.8%
2,080

2,150

2,190

3,100

2,840

25.48

27.9

25.4

22.6

21.2

28.3%
24.28

31.0%
27.07

28.2%
24.7

25.1%
21.1

23.5%
20.6

7
46.7%

7.4
49.3%

7.3
44%

7
44%

7
44%

(Source: BHPC)The reasons why there were not sufficient improvements in the operating conditions of
the power plant have not been seen are as follows.
1) Insufficiency of water quantity
The rated output of the power plant is 15MW (5MWx3), with penstock water quantity of
approx 297m3/s necessary to operate all three power generators simultaneously. However,
the water quantity diverted from the East Gandak irrigation canal is not maintained at thislevel. 198m3 /s is necessary to operate two generators simultaneously, but this level cannot
be regularly secured. At the time of the field survey, just one generator operating at a water
quantity of 99 m3/s. BHPC engineers have recognized the cause as a decrease in water flow
quantity due to silting in the irrigation canal, which is the source of the transmission water.
The irrigation canals are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Water Resources andnot the BHPC. BHPC has submitted application for silt removal operations. However, it
has not been implemented for the past 15 years. BHPC staffs assume that the water level ofthe irrigation canals has decreased to 50% of planned level due to silting.
The BHPC engineers have also mentioned that this silting might cause the high waterflow of the drainage channels as the irrigation canal is also the discharge point for thedrainage channels. This is possibly the cause of the insufficient outlet head described in 2).
Although this problem was not raised at the time of the ex-post evaluation, the executing
agency did not mention the conditions at that time. However, considering the fact thatremoval of silt for the irrigation canals have not been implemented for the past 15 years, acertain risk may have existed even though this problem had not surfaced at the time of
2-3

planning and starting operation of the power plant.
2) Insufficient water level of Outlet HeadThis problem has already been identified at the time of the ex-post evaluation, and still
no great changes were observed. Details are as follows.
1. The East Gandak hydroelectric plant generates power by using the outlet head. The
rated head at time of design was set at 5.3m. However, the head, when two units operate
simultaneously, is 4.3m, which is too small to operate the generators under optimum
conditions. The cause of this is the water level of the drainage channel reaching theupper limit of design of 104.9m, as pointed out at the time of the ex-post evaluation.
Sufficient water quantity could not let two generators operate simultaneously at
maximum output because it would cause overflow from the canal.
2. The operating test carried out in 2003 by the supplier described that elevation of waterlevel is an obstacle to the full operation of the generators. It recommended expansion ofwidth and depth of drainage channel.
3. At the time of the field survey, the engineer stated that the cause of the current problems
is the above 1-2 and that there is no problem with the condition of the power facilities
themselves. Also the opinion of the Central Water Commission which designed theescape channel as detailed below supports the view of the supplier. Thus, the resolutionof this outlet head problem is deemed the most effective measure to improve theoperating conditions of the power plant.
Fig. 1 Present Condition of the Outlet (OneFig. 2 Present Condition of the Outlet

Generator Operating)(Opposite Side)

2-4

3)

Present Condition of the escape channel

The present conditions of the escape channel, which was proposed by the ex-post
evaluation, are as follows. Although a contract of its civil work was signed in 2007, actual
construction has not yet begun and the start of construction has not yet been clearlyscheduled.
1. The location for the channel has already been confirmed 2 and a contract of civil work
was already signed in October 2007 (project cost: 230 million rupees). Also, the landacquisition has already reached agreement with respective landowners. (Thecompensation itself has not yet been paid.)
2. At present, the drainage channel has not been constructed and even the foundation work
has not yet begun. According to the contractor, commencement of the civil work wasplanned for November 2009 after the end of the rainy season3.
3. BHPC plans 50% of the budget from their own capital and thre rest to borrow from the
National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD).
4. BHPC did not clearly answered to enquiries why construction was not commenced at
the time of the ex-post monitoring, when two years or more had passed since thecontract.
Fig. 3 Scheduled Location for Construction

Fig. 4 Primary Canalof the escape channel(2) Position of the Project in the Total Power Distribution Network of the State
This power plant serves as a base load plant and is connected to the state grid except forthe power supplied to the project area (approx.1MW). The share of the power generated by
the plant is as follows, which only occupies less than 1% of the total power distribution
2

The design of the drainage channel was created by the Central Water Commission (a research and study
organization under the jurisdiction of the ministry of water resources)
3
The work did not yet started as of November 20092-5

network of the State.
Table 2 Position of the Power Plant in the Total Power Distribution Network of the State
Power generated (GWh)Item

2006-7

2007-8

2008-9Whole state

9,629

11,134

12,874BHPC Plant Total

111.45

90.85

95.95

25.33

20.67

19.14

0.26%

0.19%

0.15%

23%

23%

20%

East Gandak Power
Station% of Whole state% of BHPC Plant Total(Source: BHPC)(3) Accidental outage
The rate of outage stays approx. 2.4 to 2.7% over the past few years, which remains
under the standard rate4 and seems to pose no particular problem.
Table 3 Transition of Unscheduled Shutdown Time for the Power Plant
Index
Unscheduled

Shutdown

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

138.98185.14

231

236

213

1.59%

2.11%

2.63%

2.70%

2.43%

(Hours/Year)
Shutdown Rate
(Source: BHPC)(4) Recalculation of the Financial Internal Rate of Return (FIRR)
Recalculation of the FIRR was scheduled in this survey in accordance with the calculation
method at the time of the ex-post evaluation. However, FIRR was not calculated this timesince the requested data such as records of operation and maintenance costs was notprovided from BHPC.
2.1.2 Qualitative Results
This item is explained in the subsequent paragraph 2.1.3 as it overlaps the evaluation of
impact.

4
According to the Manual on Planning Criteria confirmed at the ex-post evaluation report, 4.5% is theupper limit of the outage rate.

2-6

2.1.3 Impact
Although the originally planned quantity of power generation is not achieved, 1MW of
the generated output is being supplied to the project area (Valmiki Nagar). In order toassess the impact of the supply of power to the project area, a beneficiary survey was
conducted.
1) Target beneficiaries
 99 electrified households, residing within a 10 km from the power plant (of which 18 arebusinesses) and 12 non-electrified households.
 79% of household are below the poverty line (BPL5).
(60% are of annual income 20,000 rupees or less, 40% are of annual income 100,000
rupees or less) A breakdown of the businesses includes tea processing, catering, electromechanical andrice production businesses, among others.
2) Survey Results
1. The principal purpose of electrification was to increase the time of education forchildren and the productivity of night-time household chores. Approximately 86%
responded that they were “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with the level of achievement of
the expected effects and goals due to electrification.
2. Approximately 83% of businesses replied that they were “very satisfied” or “satisfied”
with the level of achievement of goals due to electrification. Also, 94% of these businesses
replied that the economic level had improved by electrification. This probably reflects an
improvement in productivity due to electrification. Additionally one electromechanicalbusiness replied that the number of customers had increased thanks to the increase inhouses using electrical appliances due to electrification. It is thus fair to say thatelectrification has an impact in changing the business environment.
3. Meanwhile, 75% of households expressed discontent because of unstable electricalsupply such as the occurrence of power outages on an almost daily basis. In addition, theoccurrence of these power outages at the peak time of 6 - 10 PM aggravates thedissatisfaction.

5

Below Poverty Line

2-7

Fig. 5 Level of Satisfaction with

Fig. 6 Level of Satisfaction with

Electrification (71 Standard Households)

Electrification (18 Businesses)

3%
11%

17%

20%

66%

22%

61%

Highly satisfactory Satisfactory

Highly satisfactory Satisfactory

Fair

Fair

Unsatisfactory

Unsatisfactory(Source: created based on the beneficiary survey)

From the above, it is observed that a certain number of local people enjoy the benefits ofelectrification by the project and improve their daily life and economic environment.
Meanwhile, constant shortage of power supply and frequent occurrenceof interruption(almost daily) are confirmed. Urgent countermeasures should be taken since improvementsin the operating condition of the power plant would probably make a difference on thisproblem,.
Fig. 7 Appearance of the BeneficiaryFig. 8 Appearance of the Beneficiary

Survey (1)Survey (2)[Summary of Effectiveness and Impact]
Majority of the power generated by the plant has been sent to the Bihar State Grid, and2-8

part of the generation is supplied to the project area. Although this power distribution
contribute to the improvement of electric power supply of the whole state to a certain
extent, the project has not achieved satisfactory outcome, considering the fact that thepower generated only reaches approx. 30% of the original plan.
As mentioned earlier, the deficiency in water quantity and outlet head have been
hindering the optimal operation of the power plant, and the situation is deteriorating.
Although the construction of escape channel may improve the insufficiency in outlet head,
optimum performance is still unlikely to be achieved due to insufficient water quality.
Concerning the deficiency in water quantity, it is necessary to improve the quantity ofwater in the irrigation canal, which is the source of the water transmission.
2.2 Sustainability
2.2.1 Operation and Maintenance Agency
2.2.1.1 Operation and Maintenance Management System
The personnel of the power plant number 15 with a breakdown as below. No greatchange is seen concerning the total number of personnel or their classification. In theon-site interview survey, power plant personnel responded that the current number of
personnel is appropriate for the operation of the plant.
Table 4 East Gandak Canal Hydroelectric Plant - Personnel Structure

Position

At Ex-Post Evaluation

Current (October(2003)

2009)

Assistant chief engineer

11Superintending engineer

2

1

Executive engineer

42Assistant engineer

82Outsourced Contract

25

44

40

50

Personnel
Total(Source: BHPC)The operation of the plant is outsourced to the Patna-based Associated Engineering
Centre. BHPC staff are primarily responsible for supervising outsourcers. The manager ofthe power plant stated that there is no great problem concerning the personnel structure andsufficient number of personnel is secured in order to maintain the power plant.

2-92.2.1.2 Technical level for Operation and Maintenance1) There are no special problems concerning routine operations of the power plant. BHPC
has operated 11 hydroelectric plants in addition to this one. It is reasonable to assume
that BHPC is maintaining the plant at appropriate technical level.
2) However, BHPC claimed that final commissioning test of the generators was not
implemented by the supplier at the time of delivery and it causes issues in support inoccurrence of trouble.6
3) In the on-site interview survey, it was confirmed that the required training for personnel
and education through OJT are carried out. In addition, staff periodically participate
training of various education and research institutions (National Power Training
Institute etc.)
4) The outsourcers also have experience of operating other BHPC power plants, therefore
they are assumed to maintain sufficient technical level for the appropriate operation of
the power plant. BHPC also considers there is no problem with the quality ofoutsourcers.
2.2.1.3 Financial Status of Operation and Maintenance Management
In the on-site interview, staff of the power plant responded that appropriate funds areallocated for the necessary operational costs. However, a detailed analysis of the current
condition was not possible as detailed information relating to the financial statement was
not provided.
2.2.2 Operation and Maintenance Conditions
1) As detailed in the chapter of Effectiveness, the deficiency in water quantity due to silt
in the irrigation canal, which is the transmission water source for the power generation
channel, has become a large problem. The capacity of the irrigation canal, which is under
the jurisdiction of the Department of Water Resources, is declining as silt removal
operations have not been carried out over the past 15 years.
2) No major problems are seen concerning the principal functions of the power facilities. Ifwater quantity and outlet head can be improved, appropriate operation will be possible.
However, a fault with the flow meter to monitor the quantity of flow has been reported.

6

According to the report from supplier, final test was conducted on unit 1 and 2. Final test on unit 3, which
had been installed after termination of L/A due to the significant delay of civil work, was not conducted bysupplier as installation work was done by BHPC themselves.

2-10

Table 5 Status of Principal Power Facilities
Fig. 9 Irrigation Canal

Fig. 10 Appearance of the Inside of thePower Plant

2-11

3. Conclusion and Lessons Learned/Recommendations
3.1 Conclusion
Power generation still remains at around 30% of the original plan and almost no
improvement was observed since the ex-post evaluation. Several factors affected thisproblem such as a deficiency in water quantity and issues in design. With initiatives toimprove each problem delayed, no clear prospect toward improvements hereafter isobserved.
3.2 Lessons Learned
The deficiency in drainage channel capacity is the cause of the deficiency in outlet head.
As identified at the time of the ex-post evaluation, it is conceivable that a more carefulsurvey such as carrying out more thorough simulations should have been conducted at thedesign stage.

3.3 Recommendations for the Executing Agency
1) As construction of an escape channel, which has been delaying from original schedule,
seems one of the effective options for the operation of two generators, urgent
implementation is desirable.
2) It is necessary to coordinate with the Department of Water Resources concerning the silt
in the irrigation channel. Formal communication channel should be used, such as theestablishment of regulatory functions between the top of the organisations.

2-12Comparison of Original and Actual Scope
Item

PlannedActualLength

1,067m

1,432mDesigned water depth

4.88m

As planned

Installed capacity

5MW×3 Units=15MW

As planned

Type of hydraulic

Valve-regulated tubular

As planned

5.3m

5.1m

(1) Output
1)Headrace2)Power Plant

turbineHead (rated)(when only one generator isoperated)3)Drainage canal
Length3,230m4,282m

Depth

3.2m

3.2m

(1) Project period
Preparatory work

Nov.1983-Oct.1984

Not known

Land acquisition

Nov.1983-May.1984

1985-1990
1986-1993

Headrace and tailrace Oct.1984-1987
Power plant

Oct.1984-Nov.1986

1988-1992

Equipment

Dec.1983-Oct.1986

1984-1994

Feb.1985-May.1987

Completed in 1994

Aug.1986-Oct.1987

Completed in 1997

procurement
Switch yard
construction
Installation of theplant(2) Project Cost
Foreign currency

1,630 million yen

1,628 million yen

Local currency

3,630 million yen

2,192 million yen(165 million Rupees)(226 million Rupees)

Total

5,260 million yen

4,225 million yen

ODA loan portion

1,630 million yen

1,628 million yen

Rupee= 22 yen

1 Rupee=9.85 yen

Exchange rate

1

2-13

2-14