Hon. Kumara Jayakody

Hon. Deputy Speaker, on this adjournment motion alleging falsehoods and delay: under the 2024/2025 supply contract the supplier had not delivered the scheduled quantity by April. By April, 11 ships were still due. Those 11 began arriving between September and December. At Norochcholai, a critical factor ignored in the tender selection was the site’s physical constraints. The coal jetty is offshore without a stable pier; unloading is in the open sea. Only one vessel can be discharged at a time; there is no back-to-back discharge. Coal from the previous controversial procurement was still in the stockpile from September to 7 December. Until then, there was no space or facility to offload new coal. From late December we commenced the new chain. As one Hon. Member also said, the supplier brought the first lot by 30 December. As of today, the ninth vessel is being unloaded, the tenth is at anchorage, the eleventh is en route, and coal is being loaded for the 12th and 13th. The chain is functioning continuously. There is no delay on our part; delays arose under earlier contracts. Many who shout about this do not seem to know these facts. As for the quality allegations: so-called “small coal” or low quality coal came even in 2014. In some years, not even five per cent of penalties were recovered; in some, over USD 8 million was left unrecovered. Those shouting now did not recover even five per cent during their administrations. Hon. Deputy Speaker, there has been no delay here. On “damages”: we investigated. They say the coal quality is good. Between September and December 2025 a unit at the coal plant was off for 72 hours, solely due to boiler tube leaks, not for planned maintenance. It cannot be said the coal was the cause. Since the plant began in 2011, there have been many years, months and days of outages. Anyone with sense knows units at the coal plant have gone off and tripped frequently. Only now are all three units operating reliably. Original Equipment Manufacturer recommendations are to operate typically in the 250–300 megawatt range per unit. We have been operating around 265 megawatts, within the OEM’s safe range; there has been no loss from that. No tube failures have been reported by plant engineers after these shipments. Although higher ash can cause boiler tube erosion over time, the extent requires detailed technical studies like comparative surface microstructure analysis. It cannot be determined by scribbles on paper. Therefore, without a comprehensive reliability assessment and historical data, the long-term impact of lower-grade coal cannot be quantitatively evaluated. The minimum recorded capacity during these shipments was 265 MW, within the OEM’s safe range and well above part-load during solar curtailments. During solar curtailments, lower coal output was maintained as needed. There is no evidence of adverse impact on the turbine from these shipments. Additional maintenance costs such as air preheater cleaning or blockage removal can be assessed if properly recorded; to date no such issues have been observed and further operational data are being collected. Emissions downstream of the FGD unit are continuously monitored by the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring System; recorded data show no significant increase or any problem with the FGD during the period of these coal shipments. Claims that there is damage requiring new repairs are not borne out by the data. Ambient air quality data show no unusual increase in pollution. On particulates, PM2.5 has remained in the 21–27 µg/m³ range against a 50 µg/m³ standard; PM10 remains below the 100 µg/m³ standard. For carbon monoxide, the eight-hour standard is 9,000 ppb; the maximum observed on a 24-hour check has not exceeded that—recorded maxima are around 8,868 ppb. For NO₂, against a 50 ppb standard, observations are around 3.3–5.6 ppb; for SO₂, against 30 ppb, observations are around 5.7–9.1 ppb. So we must examine the actual data, not technical-sounding words like “ash content” thrown around to mislead. We are conducting inquiries, and there has been no manipulation or intentional wrongdoing. This is not about “tampering”; some do not even seem to understand the definitions. On load- and discharge-port sampling: until about 2015 the practice was to pay 100 per cent on the Load Port Report alone. Thereafter, we introduced checks here as well. Procurement methods have evolved and improved over time. We will continue to study and rectify remaining issues, with due consideration of the grid situation in Sri Lanka and the state of our plants. Necessary instructions have already been issued through the Ministry Secretary to deepen examinations and identify needed improvements. On penalties and quality bands: the contract provides a formula—if the gross calorific value (GCV) falls below 5,900 kcal/kg within the 5,900–6,150 kcal/kg band, a double penalty applies. We are not here to “fix” for companies. We have no links to any company and have not made a single phone call to any company. We can therefore speak clearly. We will also consider further refinements. We seek relatively higher-end coal that is harder to source; many countries demand GCV around 4,000, but we ask higher. The number of countries that can supply that is limited, so variation can occur. The conditions are international standards, not ours; we have to procure on the world market and apply international conditions. We are following due process in procurement and supplier selection. For long there was no proper process; Cabinet Papers were used incorrectly without anyone noticing. If the 2022 tender had been taken then, coal would have cost USD 328 per metric ton all the way to yesterday. The tender being cancelled was a good thing. The Auditor-General criticized that award. Many who now cry have been sent home because we corrected it. We are continuing to fix this; there is no issue, and necessary instructions have been issued. On “direct feeding”: we typically cap system load to about 2,250–2,300 MW during midday because of high solar penetration. Detailed figures are available; there is no problem as claimed. Finally, we have not changed the procurement process or suppliers unlawfully. If a contract defaults we will act at that time, but we cannot do anything illegal. We act lawfully. Thank you.