Missionary energy

The trigger for this ‘letter’ was this clarity. It sparked the thought that one of perhaps several other initiatives required to accelerate the drive towards energy security was to find an ‘energy champion’ — an individual of influence and public spirit; a person whose standing cut across political groups; a leader whose vision stretched beyond the electoral cycle — and for that champion to create an ‘extra parliamentary forum’ through which to mobilise public opinion and forge a parliamentary consensus on the way ahead. I decided to write to you to be that champion; to pull together a group of like minded individuals of renown, integrity and expertise from across the political spectrum, business, academics, bureaucracy and NGOs — the key stakeholders of our society; to make in effect, energy security your single point — ‘a political’ priority. I realise, of course, that such a group cannot substitute for the executive or circumvent the legislature. But it can hold up a mirror to them and endeavour to ensure that energy security is not ensnared by short-termism, vested interests and the electoral cycle. It can be the energy ombudsman of the country.

There are three reasons why I believe you should be the ‘champion’. First, your speech made clear that you regarded ‘energy security’ as a ‘people-centred’ issue and not one for political gamesmanship. Second, you have decades ahead of you in public life. You can push for decisions today in the confident expectation that you will be around in public life well after most of your critics have left the scene. And that in time (and possibly from the vantage point of executive authority) you will be able to look back and declaim with satisfaction that your initiatives did indeed transform the lives of Kalawati and her children. And third you are the legatee of a political lineage that no one can ignore. Whether in power or not, your voice will be heard.

I believe that the country cannot afford a repeat of the controversies that have surrounded the 123 agreement. We all know that it will take decades to reconfigure our vast and complex energy system. Plans that are approved today will take tangible shape years hence. The nuclear deal will make a meaningful contribution to our energy basket only sometime around 2020. We also know that energy security is our route to carbon abatement. Most of the measures related to energy security like energy efficiency, demand conservation, renewables, biofuels and nuclear are a positive for climate change. We cannot of course accept limits on carbon emissions but at the same time we cannot allow our economy to get locked onto a high carbon pathway. For we know that global warming will impact our economy disproportionately hard. It is because of these twin factors — the lengthy timescales involved in building a new energy supply infrastructure and the urgency to mitigate carbon emissions, that fractious politics must not be allowed to stymie further progress on energy security.

Intelligent commentary on energy security has hitherto been all about “what” needs to be done. There has however been scant discussion on “how” these corrective measures can to be implemented. Indeed conversations on the “how” inevitably falter because of reference to systemic roadblocks, the resistance of vested interests and the inbuilt inertia of our fragmented decision-making structure. We have, for instance, multiple government ministries dealing with energy. Each has a minister; a civil-service head, a distinctive constituency and a separate agenda. The result is incrementalism and separatism. The policy initiatives are small and inadequate. And more often than not, they address only one part of the energy problem without taking into account the impact on the other part. The government is of course aware of these problems. The Planning Commission and the Prime Minister’s energy coordination group have endeavoured to find ‘energy first’ integrated solutions. But as implementation is still through the separate ministries, this institutional shortcoming is yet to be overcome.

By suggesting that you be the champion of energy security and that you leverage the multiple skills of a body of experts I am hopeful that you will dispel this reluctance to focus on the “how”. I am also hopeful that by asking the right questions and by coming up with bold and pragmatic answers, you will help bridge the gap between the rhetoric of intent and the reality of action.

Your father triggered the telecom revolution. He envisioned the future when others were mired in the status quo. He pulled together the relevant experts and gave them the space to think and experiment. Had he been alive today he could have taken justifiable pride at the radical transformation that his early initiatives had wrought. The question that motivated me to write this letter was — is it not possible that you might catalyse an equally radical and durable transformation of the energy system?

The writer is Chairman of the Shell Group of Companies in India. The views expressed are personal