The Hon. Hector Appuhamy

¶ 01 Hon. Presiding Member, my speaking time has been cut. The Minister said earlier, “Do not trust ‘Kota the Tiger’ or ‘Kota the Man’”—so who exactly is this “Kota”? If the Government begins with that anecdote, it owes fair answers to the Opposition; instead we get rehashed narratives. Remember, 159 MPs were sent here not to enrich the “Pelawatte account” but to work for the country. Yet from these issues it seems some are used only to feed that account.

¶ 02 Norochcholai is in my Puttalam electorate, in the Kalpitiya zone. People there sacrificed their lives and have borne severe environmental burdens to host this plant for the country’s benefit.

¶ 03 The tender is tied to the North Western Provincial Environmental Authority’s conditions—especially on calorific value and ash. The tender specs require GCV 5,900–6,150 kcal/kg and ash below 16%. The first vessel failed on arrival. If the first ship is rejected, the environmental protection licence (EPL) tied to those conditions should be revoked. If the NWP Environmental Authority cancels the EPL, the plant must be shut. That is the environmental law reality.

¶ 04 The EPL protects both the plant and the environment. There is a Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS) with chimney‑mounted sensors feeding online data, viewable by the NWP Environmental Authority. I ask the Minister: was the CEMS operating in January and February of this year, or was it mysteriously stopped? Reports indicate it was halted from the first ship’s test in January until February—does that connect to the racket?

¶ 05 Norochcholai has three units of 300 MW each (900 MW). Loading port reports said lots 1 and 6 passed; but India’s Cotecna reports show lots 1 and 6 rejected. How did these reports contradict? Is Cotecna wrong, or the Indonesian loading port? An immediate probe is needed.

¶ 06 We hear someone named Ruwan, linked to Kenya, is involved with the Government in this deal, reportedly above the Minister’s level. If coal were proper, each unit should produce around 300 MW; instead recent outputs were as low as 500–700 MW total, indicating poor coal. If coal is substandard, the NWP Environmental Authority should not continue the EPL due to environmental risk.

¶ 07 By end‑February earlier stocks run out; from early March the new coal will feed the plant. If that coal is poor and we run 24/7 at 900 MW, boilers and machinery will be damaged; repairing a boiler can take about six months. During that time, generation will be insufficient and we will burn expensive fuel oil/diesel instead—the other arm of this racket. Also, the new coal has excessive fines (dust). With April’s winds, coal dust will blanket homes and crops; trees die when coated in dust. This is a national harm: higher tariffs, supply risk, machine failure, and environmental devastation. The Government must take responsibility.

¶ 08 In conclusion, if we run full‑time, the plant is at risk; if we run at 50% to “protect the plant,” tariffs will triple or quadruple. By April, the country will face blackouts while money is made off this racket. Thank you.