Godawari Power and Ispat Limited says EVs cut transport costs 75%

Godawari Power and Ispat Limited says electric transportation cut operating costs by about 75% and vehicle carbon dioxide emissions by about 88% versus conventional diesel vehicles during the reported quarter. GPIL listed a 57-unit fleet after adding two electric excavators and one electric forklift, while its pellet-plant carbon-capture project remained under civil construction.

How large is GPIL's electric transport fleet?

GPIL listed 57 electric transport units: 15 electric vehicle, or EV, dumpers, 24 EV loaders, one EV forklift and 17 excavators. The company said it added two new EV excavators and one EV forklift during the quarter, presenting the equipment under its EV-led transition towards greener operations.

The 24 EV loaders are GPIL's largest disclosed vehicle category, followed by 17 excavators and 15 EV dumpers. Those three categories represent 56 of the 57 listed units, leaving the single EV forklift as the remaining unit. The presentation does not provide a fleet total for conventional diesel vehicles or separate the equipment by mine and plant location.

The quarterly additions were two EV excavators and one EV forklift, while the resulting disclosed fleet included 17 excavators and one EV forklift. GPIL does not state the number of EVs in operation before these additions, nor does it give vehicle capacity, utilisation, distance travelled or the share of transport activity completed by electric equipment.

How much has GPIL's electric transport reduced costs and emissions?

GPIL says adoption of electric transportation reduced operating costs by approximately 75%. The presentation does not disclose the underlying rupee cost base, the measurement period, or the split between electricity, diesel, maintenance, labour and other operating expenses, so the disclosed result is a percentage reduction rather than an absolute saving.

GPIL also says electric transportation lowered carbon dioxide, or CO2, emissions by approximately 88% versus conventional diesel vehicles. This is a vehicle-transport comparison and is not presented as a reduction in CO2 emissions per tonne of steel. The source does not provide the diesel-use baseline, electricity source, vehicle utilisation or calculation method behind the 88% figure.

The two stated outcomes measure different effects of electric transportation: approximately 75% for operating costs and approximately 88% for vehicle CO2 emissions. The 13-percentage-point difference between the figures is not a financial or emissions conversion factor because GPIL gives no common cost or emissions denominator beyond comparison with conventional diesel vehicles.

What do GPIL's steel CO2 figures show?

GPIL's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, or CBAM, series declined from 3.29 tonnes of carbon dioxide, or tcO2, per tonne of steel in FY 25-26 to 3.18 tcO2 in FY 26-27 Q-1, then rose to 3.23 tcO2 in FY 26-27 Q-2. The Q-2 figure was 0.06 tcO2 per tonne below FY 25-26 but 0.05 tcO2 above Q-1.

GPIL's World Steel Association, or WSA, series moved from 3.09 tcO2 per tonne of steel in FY 25-26 to 2.81 in FY 26-27 Q-1 and 2.92 in FY 26-27 Q-2. The Q-2 reading was 0.17 tcO2 below FY 25-26 but 0.11 tcO2 above Q-1, showing a partial reversal from the first-quarter decline.

GPIL says both emissions series are calculated solely on a Total Carbon Basis. The presentation therefore does not provide a scope-based emissions split, an absolute CO2 total, steel output associated with the readings, or a direct reconciliation between the vehicle-level 88% CO2 reduction and the per-tonne-of-steel measures.

How are GPIL's CO2 calculations checked?

GPIL presents its CBAM CO2 series as calculated by SGS, with readings of 3.29 tcO2 per tonne of steel in FY 25-26 and 3.23 in FY 26-27 Q-2. The company separately presents its WSA series under the International Organization for Standardization, or ISO 14064, standard, assured by TÜV SÜD.

The two frameworks reported different Q-2 results: 3.23 tcO2 per tonne of steel for CBAM and 2.92 tcO2 for WSA. Their difference was 0.31 tcO2 in FY 26-27 Q-2, compared with 0.20 tcO2 in FY 25-26, when the respective readings were 3.29 and 3.09.

GPIL does not explain the methodological reason for the 0.31 tcO2 Q-2 gap between the CBAM and WSA figures. It does identify SGS as the CBAM calculation party and TÜV SÜD as the assurance provider for the WSA and ISO 14064 series, while stating that all calculations use the Total Carbon Basis.

What is GPIL's carbon-capture project and when is it due?

GPIL plans to replicate at its pellet plant a 3-tonnes-per-day, or TPD, carbon capture and utilization, or CCU, unit successfully commissioned by IIT Mumbai, with a planned capacity of 5 TPD. GPIL says its internal design and research and development team successfully designed the 5 TPD CCU unit.

Civil work on the 5 TPD CCU project was in progress and was expected to be completed by the end of Q-3 2026-27. GPIL describes the facility as a planned pellet-plant installation; it does not state that the 5 TPD project had been commissioned or was capturing carbon at the time of the presentation.

GPIL says IIT Mumbai proposed 50% of the project cost for the 5 TPD installation. The presentation does not disclose the total rupee cost, a commissioning date after civil-work completion, annual capture volumes, the eventual use of captured carbon, or a quantified effect on either the 3.23 CBAM or 2.92 WSA CO2 readings.

Conclusion

GPIL's disclosure connects a listed 57-unit electric transport fleet with approximately 75% lower operating costs and approximately 88% lower vehicle CO2 emissions versus conventional diesel vehicles. Its FY 26-27 Q-2 steel CO2 readings, however, rose from Q-1 to 3.23 tcO2 per tonne in the CBAM series and 2.92 tcO2 in the WSA series, while remaining below FY 25-26 levels.

The next disclosed milestone is completion of civil work for the 5 TPD pellet-plant CCU project by the end of Q-3 2026-27. GPIL's future disclosures may show whether the project is commissioned after that stage and whether it reports the project cost, carbon volumes captured or a measured effect on its Total Carbon Basis CO2 figures.