| Sr. No. |
Parameter |
Remarks |
| 1) |
Location |
This project is proposed to be executed at tail race of Mukerian Hydel Channel-II before escaping into river BEAS at Harike Barrage. |
| 2) |
Main Features: |
The Project will harness residual /balance potential energy of Mukerian Hydel Channel after Mukerian Hydel Project stage-II before falling into the river at Harike Barrage. |
| 3) |
No. of Power Houses. |
4 |
| (i) Bhikhowal |
| (ii) Gorsian |
| (iii) Raipur Arian |
| (iv) Kishansinghwala |
| 4) |
No. of Units: |
4 (1 each at above Power Houses) |
| 5) |
Total generating capacity |
9+11+10+12= 42 MW |
| (i) Bhikhowal – 9MW |
| (ii) Gorsian – 11MW |
| (iii) Raipur Arian – 10MW |
| (iv) Kishansinghwala- 12MW |
| 6) |
Gross /Design Head: |
(i) Bhikhowal – 4.2 m at RD 330M |
| (ii) Gorsian – 5.32m at RD 6700M |
| (iii) Raipur Arian – 4.6m at RD 13700M |
| (iv) Kishansinghwala- 5.51m at RD 23700M |
| Total Head: = 19.63M |
| Total Length of proposed canal: = 23700 Mtr |
| 7) |
Design Discharge: |
(i) Bhikhowal – 274 cumecs |
| (ii) Gorsian – 277.12 cumecs |
| (iii) Raipur Arian – 272.12cumecs |
| (iv) Kishansinghwala- 272.12cumecs |
| 8) |
Type of Development |
Run of canal |
| 9) |
Commissioning: |
Under Consideration |
| 10) |
Cost of Project: |
Rs. 517 Crore ( 2011 level) |
| 11) |
Total Energy Contribution Annually |
246.51MUs |
| 12) |
Cost per unit: |
Rs.3.98 |
| 13) |
Present Status |
The pre-feasibility report prepared by AHEC Roorkee is very sketchy and proposal of PEDA differs from the AHEC report. Accordingly clarification from irrigation deptt. regarding final proposal to be accepted has been sought and the details are as under:-
As per directions of Govt. of Punjab this project is to be developed on B.O.O.T. basis through private sector and as per the Govt. of India Hydro Policy 2008, first a developer has to be selected. The developer will then prepare detailed DPR and obtain all the mandatory clearances/NOCs. The pre feasibility report got prepared by PEDA (the Nodal Agency for Small Hydro Projects of Punjab) from AHEC, IITRoorkee differs greatly with the surveys of Project Circle of PID (Punjab Irrigation Deptt.). AHEC report shows a head/fall of 19.63 m in just 23.7 km long proposed canal with 42 MW Power Potential. Punjab Irrigation Deptt. survey shows a head/fall of 5.675m only in 27km long proposed canal and only 15 MW Power Potential. Difference of power potential is about 3 times for the similar length of canal. As per letter of projects circle, PID, during a joint survey with AHEC only a very small fall/head was found available by PID against about 5m fall/head at the site of first power house as was assessed by AHEC in their pre feasibility report. AHEC or PEDA has not provided any clarification/amendment. The report of AHEC seems faulty as the Gross/Nett head available from tail race of MHP-II right upto pond level at Harike barrage which is about 96 km away is only 27.7/17.4 m as per ground elevation levels data, whereas AHEC has shown all the Nett fall/head of 19.63 m in 23.7 km only. So the technical feasibility and economic viability of the project has not yet been substantiated/proven and so PSPCL did not approve the Global Expression of Interest tender required under Hydro Policy of 2008, to be floated by PSPCL which would have cost PSPCL at least Rs. 50 lacs at 2009 price level.
The MHP-III project is proposed along the river bed of River Beas. MHP-II is also located along the same river bed but faced great problems due to high subsoil water near the river bed. The MHP-II project having a fall/head of 8.23 m and generation capacity of 2×9=18 MW was started in 2004 and could only be partially completed in 6/2017. Thus the construction practicality is also in doubt even if the economic viability is established. |