The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC)’s notification on July 11, 2025, relaxing the 2015 mandate for Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) systems in coal-based thermal power plants (TPPs), has drawn sharp criticism for creating a hazardous health divide and undermining India’s environmental commitments.
The new Government of India (GoI) rules exempt approximately 79% of India’s coal-fired power plants (those over 10 km from major/densely polluted cities) from installing FGDs, while 11% near critically polluted areas face case-by-case reviews. Only about 10% of plants within dense urban areas like Delhi-NCR must comply, with an extended deadline of December 2027—an effective 12-year delay.
Critics question the logic of an urban-rural divide, highlighting that pollutants like Sulphur dioxide (SO2) from coal plants, which convert into harmful secondary PM2.5 linked to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, do not respect geographical boundaries. An independent analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) revealed that SO2 accounts for 12-30% of PM2.5 and that the rollback will undermine public health, despite claims of low ambient SO2 levels.
The report emphasizes that 462 plants (78% of units) are now fully exempt, even though studies show FGDs reduce sulfate aerosol concentration by 10-20% up to 200 km away. The short half-life of SO2, transforming rapidly into hazardous PM2.5 and sulfuric acid, underscores the urgency of pollution control. This move stands in stark contrast to the principles of the MC Mehta case, which established "polluter pays," while the current policy seems to enable "polluter profits."
Economically, the rollback is seen as regressive. While the government cites high costs (₹2.4 lakh crore nationwide) and minor CO2 increases from FGDs, experts argue that these deferred costs will translate into a substantial public health bill, including increased healthcare expenditure, lost productivity, and premature deaths. Data indicates a rising trend in deaths attributed to coal-fired power plants, potentially exceeding 3 lakh in 2024.
"We dare the Government to place a financial value on these potentially one and a half million deaths over the last decade," states the Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA). "Even if we take the figure of Rs. 1 crore paid to each victim of the recent Air-India plane crash in Ahmedabad, the total cost would come to about ₹15 lakh crore - 6 times more than the cost of installing FGDs nationwide."
Furthermore, the decision jeopardizes significant investments already made. India committed over US30 billion for FGDs under the 2015 plan, with NTPC alone having spent approximately US4 billion. This rollback could undermine these investments, discourage future environmental upgrades, and signal a concerning trend of easing environmental norms under the guise of "ease of business."
Such actions, driven by corporate lobbying from entities like Adani, Reliance, and Jindal, as revealed by the Reporters Collective, prioritize financial gains for a few over public welfare. This contrasts sharply with the automobile industry, which has seen stringent emission norms implemented consistently, even leapfrogging to BS VI standards, with industry support and higher costs for consumers but cleaner emissions.
"The bottom line is that the rollback of FGD rules is a shortsighted, unhealthy, and economically flawed move," the CFA stresses. "It sacrifices Indian lives by boosting particulate air pollution with long-term consequences, while giving the illusion of cost savings. In reality, those savings will be eroded by skyrocketing health expenditure, lost lives and productivity, and the costs of retroactive cleanup, besides stalling India’s clean-energy trajectory."
The organization demands the Union Government reinstate and fast-track FGD installation across all coal-fired plants, mandate CO2 and PM2.5 accounting in cost evaluations of pollution-control technology, and align with the National Clean Air Programme and global climate goals. The CFA concludes that this rollback trades immediate industrial cost relief for chronic public health degradation, economic leakage, and a derailed transition to cleaner energy, urging a pivot back toward strict, science-driven pollution standards.
Comments