{{#ev:youtube|81Pxd3A2YsE|400|right|Kaayal Kadhaigal (stories from the lagoon/ current affairs)|frame}}
It has been reported that, "Fishermen in Panaiyur Periakuppam village, where the captive coal jetty for the plant would be situated, fear that the project would completely destroy their livelihood. A port is expected to come up between the village and its neighbouring hamlet occupying shorefront of 650 meters. The coal stockyard will hold 310,000 tonnes of coal and would be built on an 83-acre land. The villagers have challenged the clearance given to the coal jetty in the National Green Tribunal and say they would do the same for the power project. Interestingly, the plant and coal jetty are proposed to be set up 6 km apart."<ref>[http://ejatlas.org/conflict/cheyyur-ultra-mega-power-plant-tamil-nadu-india "Cheyyur Ultra Mega Power Plant, Tamil Nadu, India"] Environmental Justice Network, accessed April 21, 2014.</ref>
==Financing==
The 2015 IEEFA report by Tom Sanzillo, [http://ieefa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Cheyyur-UMPP-Financial-Plan-Will-Make-Electricity-Unaffordable-May-2015.pdf “Cheyyurr UMPP: Financial Plan Will Make Electricity Unaffordable,”] claims the Cheyyur project would undermine the Indian government’s public-policy goal of providing affordable electricity for all. According to the report:
*Although the India government is trying to make the project more attractive to investors, it would do this by passing along greater costs to the residential, industrial, and agricultural users, and requiring greater governmental subsidies.
*Already the ratepayer tariff required to build and operate the plant is estimated at 4.9 rupees per kilowatt-hour in 2021, its first of year operation, and the plant would require an average tariff of 5.95 rupees per kilowatt hour over its 40-year life. (By comparison, four other UMPP projects in India and several additional Indian power-generation projects have tariff costs of 1.15 rupee per kilowatt hour to 3.7 rupee per kilowatt hour.)
*The project is being developed under the assumption that it would require an annual 12 to 14 million tons of imported coal, a business model that would put its coal costs at roughly twice what they would be if domestic coal were used.