Harish Rao vs Congress: ₹ 82l Crs Thermal Power Units Row

Harish Rao vs Congress: The ₹ 82,000 crore Thermal Power Units Row

🔎 What’s the controversy about

Recently, former minister and senior leader Harish Rao has strongly criticised the Congress-led state government in Telangana over its proposed thermal power projects. According to him, the government’s plan to build new thermal-power units will impose an additional burden of ₹ 82,000 crore on the people over the next 25 years. [The Times of India+2The Hans India+2]

Harish claims that this burden arises from the choice to build expensive state-run thermal plants — rather than procuring cheaper ready power from established suppliers. [The Hans India+2Magzter+2]

He argues that the decision is not driven by necessity, but by profiteering — kickbacks and commissions accruing to those behind the new projects. [The New Indian Express+2Metro India+2]

In effect, Harish frames the ambitious thermal-power expansion as a massive public-cost scheme, masquerading as development. [Telangana Today+2The Hans India+2]

📌 What Harish Rao is Claiming — Details of the Allegation

At a press conference at Telangana Bhavan, Harish Rao laid out the core of his arguments:

• He pointed out that a major power generator, NTPC, had offered to supply 2,400 MW of power under obligation to Telangana, at a tariff of roughly ₹ 4.12 per unit. Yet the government chose instead to go ahead with new thermal plants built by the state-run Generator Company (GENCO). [The Hans India+2Magzter+2]
• The new plants — at locations like Ramagundam, Makthal and Palvoncha — are being estimated at a cost of around ₹ 14 crore per MW under GENCO’s DPR, while NTPC’s cost estimate was ₹ 12.23 crore per MW. [Magzter+2Metro India+2]
• This inflated cost per MW — even before project completion — signals overpricing. Harish claims this would lead to higher per-unit tariffs for electricity, burdening consumers. [The Hans India+2Deccan Chronicle+2]
• According to his calculations, the new power supply would cost roughly ₹ 7.70 per unit under the state’s plan, significantly higher than NTPC’s proposed ~₹ 4.12 per unit. This gap would cause extra daily burden — about ₹ 9 crore per day for the state. Over 25 years, that adds up to the allegedly inflated ₹ 82,000 crore cost. [The Hans India+2Telangana Today+2]
• Harish also alleges that 30–40% of the total investment on the new plants would be siphoned off as commissions and kickbacks for those in power. [The New Indian Express+2The Hans India+2]
• He raises questions about the government’s denial of cheaper, ready-to-use power from NTPC — calling that refusal illogical, especially when there’s no need for capital expenditure by the state and power is available immediately. [Deccan Chronicle+2Telangana Today+2]
• Harish’s accusations are not just economic — he also alleges administrative misgovernance: appointments of unspecified “non-local”/inexperienced officials to key posts in the power sector, and lack of transparency in decision-making. [The Hans India+2Deccan Chronicle+2]

🧾 Context & Background — Understanding What’s Being Proposed

The broader backdrop is that the Telangana government has proposed constructing three new thermal power plants totalling 2,400 MW (i.e. 800 MW each) under its GENCO/ state-power-sector plan. [Magzter+2The Hans India+2]

Officially, the government has stated that it will award the contract to whichever entity (NTPC or GENCO) offers the lowest cost per unit of electricity. [The New Indian Express+2The Hans India+2]

But Harish and his party argue that this is a façade: GENCO — the state-run entity — is being favored despite higher estimated costs, when a cheaper ready alternative with NTPC exists. [The Hans India+2Magzter+2]

Additionally, the claim is made that the state's own official documents — policy notes, white papers, energy plans — contain contradictory data about capacities, capacities contracted and planned expansions. Harish has flagged this mismatch to question the credibility of the entire exercise. [The New Indian Express+2The Hans India+2]

In short: the government appears to be pushing large-scale new thermal power capacity despite available cheaper thermal supply, under terms badly disadvantageous to consumers — according to these allegations.

⚠️ What Harish Rao Says This Means for Consumers & State Finances

• Higher electricity bills for households and businesses — because the cost of generating power from new plants is higher than what NTPC could supply for. Over decades, the extra cost would amount to thousands of crores paid by electricity consumers. [The Hans India+1]
• Wastage of public money & potential for corruption — through inflated project costs and commissions, which he claims could siphon off 30–40% of the total investment. [The New Indian Express+2The Hans India+2]
• Delay in benefits — new thermal plants will take years to build, while NTPC’s power could be available immediately, offering a ready — and cheaper — alternative in the short/medium term. [The Hans India+2Deccan Chronicle+2]
• Misuse of resources and ignoring existing capacities/agreements — By rejecting NTPC’s offer and preferring GENCO’s new plants, the government is allegedly ignoring efficient power supply, existing capacities, obligations under earlier statutes (e.g. AP Reorganization Act in the case of Telangana). [Magzter+2The Hans India+2]

Harish warns that this move represents an institutionalized burden on the public under the guise of power generation projects — but ultimately benefiting a few influential actors. [Telangana Today+2The Hans India+2]

🎙 Government / Congress Response & Counterarguments

• The cost estimate used by Harish is being dismissed as exaggerated. For example, the government argues that under current construction norms (~ ₹12–14 crore per MW), the total cost of one 800 MW plant will not exceed ~ ₹11,000 crore — far lower than the inflated figures being projected. [Deccan Chronicle+1]
• They also accuse the opposition of fear-mongering and political point-scoring — saying that the numbers being quoted do not stand up to a balanced cost–benefit analysis, especially given long-term demand forecasts. [Deccan Chronicle+1]
• On the larger point of energy strategy, the government appears to emphasise that reliance on a single large power supplier (NTPC) — or putting “all eggs in one basket” — may not be prudent or sustainable. Construction of state-run plants adds diversity to the generation mix, offering long-term energy security and local control.
• On timing: They argue that thermal plants represent a long-term infrastructure investment, and not merely to meet immediate demand — thus the costs and delays must be viewed in long-term perspective, not short-term tariffs alone.

Nevertheless, the counterarguments have so far not assuaged concerns raised by Harish and others about cost, transparency, and public burden.

⚙️ Broader Implications: Energy Policy, Governance, and Politics

Energy Policy & Economic Rationality

• Supply vs generation trade-off: Harish’s challenge raises a key question: when supply from existing efficient producers (like NTPC) is available at low cost, does it make sense to invest huge sums in building new generation capacity, especially thermal — which has long-term environmental and coal-dependency implications?
• Lock-in risk: By committing to large coal-based thermal plants now, the state may be locking itself into a generation portfolio that could become economically and environmentally unviable as India and the world push toward green energy and renewables.
• Tariff burden on citizens: The financial burden that Harish warns about will ultimately be borne by electricity consumers — households and industries — with limited ability to contest or opt out.

Governance, Transparency & Public Accountability

• Procurement opacity: The allegation of inflated project costs and kickbacks underscores the need for transparent bidding, independent audits, and clear accountability mechanisms, especially when public money and long-term state liabilities are involved.
• Policy consistency: As Harish pointed out, Telangana’s own official policy documents appear to have contradictory data on capacities, generation targets, and contracted supply — a worrying sign for credibility. [The New Indian Express+1]
• Long-term planning vs short-term politics: Decisions to build new plants must be grounded in long-term demand projections, fuel-supply realities, coal availability, environmental impact — not short-term political gains or commission-driven motives.

Political Stakes & Public Sentiment

For Harish and his party (Bharat Rashtra Samithi, BRS), these allegations are a hammer — a way to rally public opinion against perceived misuse of power by the ruling Congress.

For the Congress government in Telangana, this controversy becomes a credibility crisis: they must now justify (publicly, transparently) why they chose costly new plants over cheaper supply, and whether they can guarantee value for money to citizens.

More broadly, this debate could influence future energy policy decisions across other states — especially in India’s federal structure where state governments control power generation and procurement.

📝 Conclusion: A Defining Moment for Power Governance in Telangana

The clash triggered by Harish Rao’s allegations over the ₹ 82,000 crore thermal-power plan is more than a political outburst — it spotlights the fundamental trade-offs confronting Indian states today: between quick-fix energy expansion and long-term economic, environmental and fiscal prudence.

If Harish’s claims are correct, the proposed projects could saddle Telangana households with decades of inflated power costs, while enriching a few at the top through commissions and opaque deals. If the government’s rationale holds, then building new generation capacity might help ensure energy security, diversify supply, and meet future demand growth.

However — and this is crucial — such large-scale public-investment decisions must be accompanied by transparency, rigorous independent evaluation, and public accountability. The state must clearly share data: cost per MW, lifecycle tariffs, coal/fuel supply assurance, projected unit-costs over time, and alternative supply options — such as what NTPC had offered.

Public scrutiny and informed debate — such as what Harish Rao’s critique demands — are essential for good governance. As the dust settles, a thorough, independent look at the numbers, and perhaps a judicial or statutory audit (as Harish demands), could clarify whether this is genuine public infrastructure or a costly public burden disguised as development.

For citizens, the bottom line remains: whether electricity remains affordable, transparent, and reliably supplied — or becomes a long-term drain on household budgets and state finances.