印度的煤炭和鐵路是高度相互依賴的。a） 2017財年，電網(wǎng)發(fā)電消耗的574公噸煤炭（包括進口煤炭）中（中央電力局，2017年），有341公噸（或60%）通過鐵路運輸（鐵路局，2017年3月）。平均而言，鐵路運輸煤炭到火力發(fā)電廠的成本占到85%以上，因為許多發(fā)電廠都是坑口/煤礦附近，不采用這種運輸方式。b） 煤炭占IR貨運收入的44%，在其利潤中所占份額甚至更高。印度鐵路公司（IR）的商業(yè)模式是以乘客少付和運費多付為基礎(chǔ)的。運費收入由以下三部分組成：運輸噸、運輸距離（其產(chǎn)品變成噸公里或TKm）和收費價格（盧比/TKm）。在過去五年中，國際航空公司從煤炭運輸（稱為“鉛”）到火力發(fā)電廠（tpp）的平均距離下降了30%，這對收入產(chǎn)生了影響。這主要是由于煤炭聯(lián)合合理化的一次性努力，以及電廠負(fù)荷系數(shù)（PLFs）的下降。相反，為保持總收入，2012財年至2017財年，國際貨運煤炭運費增長超過批發(fā)通脹率的四倍。盡管在共享網(wǎng)絡(luò)上的客運量較高，但印度的客貨比最低，即客票和運費的比率為0.24，而其他幾個國家包括日本（1.9）、德國（1.5）和中國（1.2）。這種有意識的政策選擇，以保持乘客票價低導(dǎo)致運費超過其份額。今天，鐵路部門明確將煤炭運價上調(diào)了約31%，以抵消其“社會責(zé)任”或輔導(dǎo)損失。2017財年，從煤炭到火力發(fā)電廠（約1080億盧比或10800億盧比）的“超額收費”使印度的電力成本平均每千瓦時增加約10派薩。對于鐵路運輸?shù)拿禾浚?017財年的平均值為0.21盧比/千瓦時。對于那些原本依賴鐵路運輸煤炭的偏遠(yuǎn)州的發(fā)電廠來說，這個數(shù)字可能高出三倍。布魯金斯印度2030財年自下而上的煤炭需求模型1預(yù)測，在電力增長率下降、電廠效率提高（特別是超臨界燃煤電廠的出現(xiàn)）和可再生能源崛起的共同推動下，該國煤炭總需求的增長速度將低于過去。由于預(yù)計煤炭鐵路運輸增長放緩，這一問題更加嚴(yán)重。雖然從絕對值來看，到2030財年煤炭需求繼續(xù)增長，但其增長率卻在下降。由于對鐵路來說更重要的是煤炭需求的位置，國際鐵路的情況可能會更糟。在太陽能和風(fēng)能資源豐富的州，可再生能源的份額不僅會不斷增加，而且會不成比例地增長，這與遠(yuǎn)離煤礦的州不謀而合。對于偏遠(yuǎn)地區(qū)，高壓直流（HVDC）技術(shù)的興起意味著通過電線輸送電力比通過鐵路運輸煤炭更便宜、更高效。由于煤炭交叉補貼乘客，經(jīng)濟狀況進一步惡化。6。與目前全國運力相對分布的情況相比，煤電廠的規(guī)劃運力主要是坑口/煤礦附近或沿海地區(qū)。沿海電廠是為進口煤炭而設(shè)計的，雖然每噸煤炭價格昂貴，但在增加運輸成本和稅費后，價格仍然較便宜。對未來的預(yù)測和建模表明，完全基于交叉補貼模式來保持鐵路的償付能力，將導(dǎo)致運費上漲，從而使煤炭（以及熱電）失去競爭力。如果旅客票價以4.5%的復(fù)合年增長率（CAGR）增長（與歷史上2006-17財年相同），鐵路繼續(xù)按比例超額收取運費以彌補旅客損失，2030財年，每千瓦時的平均“超額支付”將在所有發(fā)電量的基礎(chǔ)上增加至每千瓦時18派薩，相比之下，2017財年為每千瓦時10派斯。當(dāng)然，名義上的成本要高得多，在遙遠(yuǎn)的地方也會更高。

Coal and railways in India are heavily interdependent.  a) In the Financial Year (FY) 2017, out of 574 MT of coal (inclusive of imports)  consumed for grid electricity generation (Central Electricity Authority, 2017), 341  MT, or 60 per cent, was transported through railways (Railway Board, March  2017). On average railways accounts for over 85 per cent of costs for transporting  coal to thermal power plants, as a number of power plants are pithead/near coal   mines and do not use this mode for transportation. b) Coal is 44 per cent of IR’s freight revenues and has an even higher share in its  profits. Indian Railway’s (IR) business model is based on passengers   underpaying and freight overpaying. Revenues from freight carried comprise a combination of the following three components:  tonnes carried, distance carried (whose product becomes tonne-kilometres or TKm),  and price charged (Rupees/TKm). IR’s average distance of coal transported (called  “l(fā)ead”) to thermal power plants (TPPs) has fallen 30 per cent in the past five years  which impacts revenues. This has happened mainly due to a one-time effort towards  coal linkage rationalisation and also due to falling power plant load factors (PLFs). On  the contrary, to maintain total revenue, IR coal freight charges have grown more  than four times the wholesale inflation rate during FY 2012 to FY 2017. Despite higher passenger volumes on a shared network, India has the lowest fareto-freight ratio—the ratio of passenger fares and freight charges—of 0.24, compared  with several other countries including Japan (1.9), Germany (1.5) and China (1.2).  This conscious policy choice to keep passenger fares low results in freight overpaying  its share.  Railways today explicitly over-prices coal freight by about 31 per cent to offset  its “social obligation” or coaching losses. In FY 2017, this “overcharge” from coal  to TPPs (~Rs. 108 billion or Rs. 10,800 crores) increases the cost of power, on an  average, by about 10 paisa per kWh on the basis of all electricity generated in India.  For coal carried by railways, on average, this number is Rs. 0.21/kWh in FY 2017. For  power plants in distant states, which inherently rely on railways for coal, this number can be three times higher. A Brookings India bottom-up coal demand model1 for FY 2030 forecasts a  slower growth in total coal requirement in the country than the past, driven by a  combination of falling electricity growth rates, improved power plant efficiencies (especially the advent of super-critical coal power plants), and the rise of renewable  energy (RE). This issue is worsened by the projected slowdown in railway traffic growth  for coal. While coal demand continues to grow through FY 2030 in absolute terms, its  growth rate declines. IR may fare worse as what matters more for railways is the location of coal  demand. Not only will growing RE displace coal generation but the share of RE will  disproportionately grow in states with high solar and wind resources - coincidently  those far from coal mines. For distant locations, the rise of high-voltage DC (HVDC)  technologies has meant it can be cheaper and more efficient to send power over the  wire than transport coal by railways. The economics are further skewed due to coal  cross-subsidising passengers. 6. Planned capacity of coal power plants is mostly either pithead/near coal mines or  coastal, compared to now when capacity is relatively distributed across the country.  Coastal plants are designed for imported coal, which, although expensive per tonne, is  still cheaper after adding transportation costs and levies. Projections and modelling for the future suggest that to keep railways solvent  based entirely on the cross-subsidy model would result in a freight rise that would  make coal (and thus thermal electricity) uncompetitive. If passenger fares increase at a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of  4.5 per cent (same as historical FY 2006-17) and railways continues to overcharge  freight to recover passenger losses pro rata, in FY 2030 the average “overpayment”  per kWh will increase to 18 paisa per kWh in real terms on the basis of all electricity  generated, compared to 10 paise per kWh in FY 2017. Naturally, the costs would be  far higher in nominal terms, and also higher in distant locations.