A report by the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL) has revealed that the use of recently imported coal at the Lakvijaya Power Plant in Norochcholai led to reduced electricity generation, increased coal consumption, higher fly ash discharge and elevated noxious gas emissions, while creating operational concerns including potential non-compliance with Environmental Protection Licence (EPL) conditions.
The report, which was handed over yesterday (4) to the Parliamentary Sectoral Oversight Committee on Infrastructure and Strategic Development, states the coal shipments supplied to the Plant resulted in lower generation efficiency and greater environmental impact. The investigation was carried out by the PUCSL following a directive by Committee Chairperson and Opposition Parliamentarian S.M. Marikkar, who had previously alleged that substandard coal imports had imposed a financial burden exceeding Rs. 1.8 billion on the public.
According to the report, which was seen by The Daily Morning, the Lakvijaya Power Plant did not operate at its full capacity when using the nine coal shipments received from the current supplier between December 2025 and February 2026. Under the previous supplier, each unit at the Plant had recorded an average gross generation capacity of around 300 MW. However, the output of Units One, Two and Three dropped during operations using the present shipments, with none of the units reaching the earlier benchmark.
The PUCSL report also records a notable rise in coal consumption rates. Plant data show that more coal was burned per hour across all nine shipments compared to the coal supplied by the previous supplier. Specific coal consumption, measured in g per kWh, also increased. The PUCSL notes this reflects reduced efficiency, since a larger quantity of coal was required to generate the same amount of electricity.
A comparison of the gross calorific value data has also raised questions about the declared quality of the coal shipments. The report notes that the calorific value calculated based on the Plant’s operational performance figures was much closer to the results obtained from laboratory tests conducted at the Plant than to the values indicated in the load port and discharge port reports. According to the PUCSL, this discrepancy raises concerns regarding the declared quality of the coal.
Operational records examined in the report further show repeated instances in which the prescribed steam temperature limits set out in the Plant’s control operation regulations were exceeded while operating with the current supplier’s coal. Logs indicate that the desuperheating valve, which regulates steam temperature by injecting water into superheated steam, had to be operated at full opening on several occasions. When other control mechanisms failed to bring temperatures within the required range, steam venting had to be used, resulting in efficiency losses and, in at least one instance, a sudden reduction in generation capacity.
The PUCSL report also highlights a significant increase in fly ash discharge levels. Data indicate that the average fly ash discharge rose to approximately 0.093 kg/kWh when using coal supplied by the current supplier, compared to about 0.046 kg/kWh recorded under the previous supplier. This represents an increase of roughly 102 per cent.
Emission data analysed for selected dates in February 2026 further indicate higher levels of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and sulphur dioxide during operations using the current coal shipments. Although these emission levels remained within the limits permitted under the Environmental Protection Licence, the PUCSL cautioned that sustained increases in stack emissions could raise ambient air pollution levels, particularly under changing weather conditions.
The report also flags concerns related to compliance with the Environmental Protection Licence, particularly Condition Number Eight, which requires a clearly defined coal rejection protocol and prohibits the use of coal consignments before the completion and verification of all required quality checks.
The PUCSL noted the rejection protocol submitted to the authorities does not clearly specify the scenarios under which coal shipments should be rejected. It further stated that feeding coal into the system before completing the required quality verification process creates a risk of non-compliance with EPL requirements.