news details |
|
|
| It is very much needed to segregate the transmission losses from the theft losses China is accused of manufacture of poor quality goods but in China the projected T& D power losses are unimajinably low , the lowest in the World. | | | Daya Sagar | 3/27/2011 8:04:29 PM |
| The Transmission & Distribution losses as projected by J&K Power Department are the highest in India . By any technical / professional standards the professionaism is criminally assulted with such projections. Often China is accused of manufacture of poor quality goods but in China the projected T& D power losses are unimajinably low , the lowest in the World. Continued bad power supply economics in J&K has reaised questions on even the justifications for owning and operating an institution like the J&K State Electricity Regulatory Commission. It is being alleged that like many other institutions it is only serving as a rehabilitation center for some. J&K Cabinet had approved amendments to the Jammu and Kashmir Electricity Act of Samvat 1997 on 30 December 2004. It was then hoped that it would save the common man from undue burden of Taxes and inefficiency. But projections of the power cost to state in 2011-12 J&K Budget and the recovery of sales still paint a disgusting picture even after 5 years. Even after 2005 the power losses projected by JK Power development department have been nearly two thirds of the power distributed . Then also Minister for Finance and Planning Muzaffar Hussain Baig had said that the mounting deficit in the revenue from power was inflating debt liabilities. What better could Mr. A R Rather deliver under the circumstances where he had to keep Rs 2400 Cr for power purchased from outside sources as against just Rs 1330 Cr. Projected recovery of cost of sales in 2010-11 budget. May be under the circumstances it should be first priority of JK Finance Minister ( any Finance Minister ) to get the evaluations done professionally as regards technically permissible transmission losses, thefts of Power and even the institutional performance.
.As per JK State Power Development Department data in 2008/09 the total number of consumers was 12,27,435 { connections } and the connected load was 1357.11 MW. For 2009/10 the total connections projected were 12,70,432 with connected load as 1,435.38 MW in 2009/10. For 2010/11 133400 total connections with 1507 MW connected load have been estimated. On this basis taking an average family of 5 members per domestic connection there should be atleast 23 to 25Lakh families in JK for a population of 120 Lakh in 2010. So,if we go by the PDD data on number of domestic connections than not even 50 percent of JK state population is served with power supply. Surely it is not so.
No doubt the increase in power tariff in Jammu and Kashmir wef 1 April 2010 is just 12 percent on the over all { like 14 percent for domestic metered consumers } . But since the revenue deficit projected is very large , the power losses inflating the over cost to state are unrealistically large and the unbilled energy input is too very large, there are valid reasons for the consumers to question any further increase in tariff. Rather first there should be efforts to cut the present transmission and distribution losses from over 62 to 65 percent to 30 percent max. This way lot of revenue would be recovered even without raising the tariff..
Non performance of the PDD department is prominently apparent .Genuine metered consumers have all reasons to object to any increase in energy supply tariff increase even if it is formally stamped by JK State Electricity Regulatory Commission. It is so since the ratio of the energy input , both cost and quantity wise, to energy units billed is very very low { dismal}. The consumers are already paying hidden charges in the name of 22 percent Electricity Duty over the cost of units consumed. This 22 percent Electricity duty is being charged since the days when the electric tariff was very very low. Rather some consumers are asking for even reducing the Electricity duty to 10 percent from 22 percent . The fixed income group domestic consumers and small shopkeepers are already hard pressed. It is unfair to load them with the costs of inefficiency of the PDD. Government employees these days do not fall in fixed income category since on average they are getting atleast about 22 to 24 % wage rise every year in the shape of DA and annual increments.
The projected revenue gap to meet the cost of energy purchased has been projected as Rs.1891.75 Cr for 2010/11 by the JK Power Development Department {PDD } / JK State Electricity Regulatory Commission {SESRC}. The revenue gap is more due to nearly 58 percent projected “ Transmission and Distribution Losses “ { TD Losses} for 2010/2011. How far even these losses would be controlled has only to be seen. In earlier years the TD losses reflected by PDD have been not less than 62 percent { even PDD proposed about 65 percent TD losses in their revised proposals for earlier years.}.The losses are not simply due to lower transmission inefficiency or lack of proper machinery / systems or lack of man power . But the reasons lie more in non performance and non seriousness of the administrative and operational infrastructure. Even questions could be raised “on owning and operating cost for JK State Electricity Regulatory Commission {SESRC} “ since it appears not atall serving any designate purpose..
A careful examination of above data reveals that the Domestic Consumers { 50 percent metering } constitute nearly 38 percent of connected load and the billed sales on them { 38 percent of saleable energy } are also just 24 percent of the total sales billed { average tariff Rs.1.61 per unit }. Non Domestic Commercial Consumers { 66 percent metering} constitute nearly 9.5 percent of connected load and the billed sales{ for 5.75 percent of saleable energy } on them are just 5.8 percent of the total sales billed { average tariff Rs.2.69 per unit }.
The Agri Consumers constitute nearly 8.6 percent of connected load and the billed sales { 6.8 percent of saleable energy } on them are just 3.8 percent of the total sales amount billed { average tariff Rs.1.42 per unit }.. Central and State Government Departments Domestic Consumers constitute just 7.8 percent of connected load but the billed sales { 13.6 percent of saleable energy } on them are 26 percent of the total sales billed { Rs. 4.9 per unit }. The Public water Works Deptt constitute nearly 27.2 percent of connected load { 74 to 100 percent metering } and the billed sales { 11.85 percent of saleable energy } on them are 18.4 percent of the total sales billed { inspite of the average tariff being Rs.3.76 to Rs..4.03 per Unit. Industrial Units { nearly 100 percent metering} constitute nearly 6.6 percent of connected load and the billed sales { 15.6 percent of saleable energy } on them are 22 percent of the total sales billed { average tariff 2.46 to Rs.3.3 per unit } . General Bulk Supply { 100 percent metering } constitute nearly 2.5 percent of connected load and the billed sales{ 3.1 percent of saleable energy } on them are 4.5 percent of the total sales billed { Rs.3.78 per unit }. The data is self explanatory. NO logical relation ship exists any where for determining the key indicators to device corrective measure. Only thing that reflects is the even where the metering is 100 percent the data does not reflect a logical picture.
PDD has projected a general increase of 13.5 in sales for all categorized for 2010/11. The data / proposals made by department to support its demand for tariff increase do not appear to be truthful. For the year 2009/10 with 3.5 % growth in the number of consumers and 5.08 % growth in connected load 6.7% increase in power sold has been shown. Where as for 2010/ 11 for 5 % increase in number of consumers only 5 percent increase in connected load has been shown but increase in power sold has been shown as just 13.5 %r. So strangely sales in all categories at individual level too have been shown as 13.5 per. For Govt state / Central Govt departments in 2009/ 2010 with 2.9 per increase in connections there was 13.3 per increase in power sold where as for 2010/11 with 5 per increase in connections the increase in power to be sold has been projected as just13.5 per.
How has JKSERC still accommodated such proposals could be any body’s guess. So the data and presentation of PDD can not be relied upon. If we go by the projection proposals of JK PDD it would appear that the flat rate connections and unauthorized users of power are negligible. But it appears that there do exist large number of flat rate consumers { or metered consumers billed on minimum basis } and illegal consumers { otherwise there could be no any reason for 62 percent transmitted losses } in JK. So there is a need for a full time commercial expert audit for PDD. A good audit would reveal some concealed truths that would be worth many times the cost of such audit. Surely long term solutions would be suggested. Otherwise stereo type reports and proposals would be again submitted and vetted as have seen for last 3 years. May with such an exercise done, the number of existing consumers , unmetered connections and the registered connected load on own its own increases { the normal growth with would be the additional}. Otherwise also the Department must do the realistic verification of the connected loads to ascertain the overall accrual system load as well as drawn power from different stations. This is very much needed to segregate the transmission losses from the theft losses. Though JKSERC /PDD has not worked out costs with profession logics, still with the exercise as proposed , if done, the average cost of sales may fall from Rs.7.05 per unit to Rs.4.25 per unit in case for 10005 MU power purchase the transmission and distribution losses by cutting thefts are made to reduce from nearly 57.79 { approved for 2010/11} to 30% . No doubt still as per JKSERC taking the average sales tariff as Rs.2.70 per Unit the cost gap would l be Rs.1.55 per unit The infrastructure costs / salaries etc have been worked out over Rs.300 crore per year . The salary for 2010/2011 was projected by PDD as Rs. 385.32 Cr { 41.80 percent of Rs. 921.75 crore proposed realizable sales revenue ).So the management costs { as high as 41.85 percent of the realizable turnover revenue ) are not justifying the performance level of PDD as could be observed from their own displays. There fore, it should be first priority of JK Finance Minister ( any Finance Minister ) to get the evaluations done after separating technically permissible transmission losses from the “ thefts of Power”.
(*Daya Sagar is a senior coloumnist on Jammu &Kashmir Affairs, dayasagr45 @yahoo.com.9419796906)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
