Upload
shekar-reddy
View
224
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/31/2019 Annexures-I,II, III & Abbreviation
1/15
National Report (Vol.-I)
Study on Impact of Restructuring of SEBs
Annexure-I
TERMS OF REFERENCE - Ministry of Power, GOI
The study should bring out the trends in following parameters starting five years
before the reorganisation exercise and thereafter.
Exercise of Restructuring
When was the process of restructuring initiated? Present status of restructuring.
Are new entities autonomous enough to function as independent commercial
entities?
Generation Company
1. How the Technical Parameters of generating company has behaved in general
as well as specifically in terms of PLF, heat rate, oil consumption, auxiliary
consumption, availability of plant, ABT incentive earned and unscheduled breakdowns.
2. How has the generating company planned new capacity to meet the demand
for power in the state (project demand of 5 years from now, i.e., 2010 for the purpose).
3. Management of inventory and receivables.
Transmission Company
1. How has the transmission losses behaved in the period?
2. Margin of profit/cost added to the pooled cost of power apart from losses.
Distribution Company
1. How has the transmission and distribution losses behaved?
2. How has the billing efficiency worked?
3. How has the collection efficiency been?
4. Study of transformer breakdown rate, average restoration time thereof,
interruptions per feeder per month both in terms of number of interruptions and duration
per interruption.
5. Management of turn over and receivables.
6. The margin of establishment cost of per unit of electricity sold.7. Payment of dues/subsidies by the State Government in the stipulated time.
154
7/31/2019 Annexures-I,II, III & Abbreviation
2/15
7/31/2019 Annexures-I,II, III & Abbreviation
3/15
National Report (Vol.-I)
Study on Impact of Restructuring of SEBs
Annexure-II
List of Experts Detailed for the Study
Expert Relevant Expertise Job Profile
Dr. P. L. Sanjeev Reddy Former Secretary, Government of India Project Director
Shri P. AbrahamFormer Secretary (Power), Govt. of India
and Ex-Chairman, MSEBMaharashtra
and
GujaratShri M.V. Dhekne Former Member (Technical) MSEB
Shri T. Sethumadhavan Former AS&FA, Ministry of Power, GOI Karnataka
Shri R. PoornalingamFormer Secretary to Govt. of India and
Ex-Chairman, Tamil Nadu SEBTamil Nadu
Shri M. Sivarami Reddy Former Chief Engineer (Reforms),APSEB Andhra Pradesh
Shri V.S. AilawadiFormer, Special Secretary, GOI and
Ex-Chairman, ERC, Haryana
Haryana and
Madhya Pradesh
Shri V.K. SoodFormer Chairman, Delhi Electricity
Regulatory Commission
Uttar Pradesh and
Madhya Pradesh
Shri P.N. BhandariFormer Additional Chief Secretary and
Ex-Chairman, RSEBRajasthan
Shri P.S. Bami Former CMD, NTPC Ltd. Assam
Shri D.P. BagchiFormer Secretary, Govt. of India and Ex-
Chief Secretary Govt. of Orissa
Orissa and
West Bengal
Shri P.C. Shekar Reddy Project Coordinator Overall coordination
156
7/31/2019 Annexures-I,II, III & Abbreviation
4/15
National Report (Vol.-I)
Study on Impact of Restructuring of SEBs
Annexure-III
Issues raised in the Interim Report of Study on the Experience of PowerSector Reforms by the National Coordination Committee of
Electricity Employees and Engineers (NCCEEE) and
comments thereon of the Group of Experts
List of Trade Union Representatives who Attended the Meeting on 21st July 2006
at IIPA, New Delhi
S.
NoName Organisation
1 Shri E. Balanandan President, EEFI
2 Shri Ranjit Singh Vice-President, EEFI
3 Shri Akhtar Hussain General Secretary, Mazdoor Mahasangh, BMS
4 Shri B.S. Meel General Secretary, EEFI
5 Shri Chakradhar P. Singh Gen Secy, All India Federation of Electricity Employees
6 Shri K.R. Unnithan Secretary, Electricity Employees Federation of India
7 Shri S. Pancharatnam Vice-President, EEFI
8 Shri Ushinar Deb Secretary, AIFEE
9 Shri Mohan Sharma AIFEE (MSEB)
10 Shri Sukhdev SinghPresident,
All India Federation of Power Diploma Engineer11 Shri K.L. Gupta
Deputy General Secretary
Akhil Bhartiya Vidyut Mazdoor Mahasangh (BMS)
ISSUES RAISED BY TRADE UNION REPRESENTATIVES
AND REPLIES THEREON
Introduction
Prior to enactment of the EA, 2003 itself, as many as ten States (including Gujarat,
which had enacted State Reform Act, 2003) had restructured their SEBs since they felt
the necessity to do so, rather than due to any imposition from the Central Government
etc. It is also pertinent to mention here that different political parties were in power in
the States both at the time of restructuring and during the transition period. Even at the
Centre, a number of political alliances held office at different points of time during this
period. Yet, all of them were convinced about the need for restructuring the power
sector. Wide political support (cutting across party lines) for the restructuring exercise
without any coercion from any Act or Central Government only proves beyond doubt
that it was only the need, and not any other consideration, that was the prime driver for
the restructuring of SEBs. Obviously, it was felt that SEBs as existing then were
proving to be a tremendous strain on the States financial resources and that it was
157
7/31/2019 Annexures-I,II, III & Abbreviation
5/15
National Report (Vol.-I)
Study on Impact of Restructuring of SEBs
imperative to bring about changes that would ensure a more balanced growth of the
electricity sector. The necessity for restructuring the SEBs was recognised by a national
consensus arrived at in the Chief Ministers Conference in 1996. In this Conference,
the Chief Ministers, belonging to various political parties, agreed to undertake power
sector reforms as a part of Common Minimum National Action Plan for Power
(CMNAP).
The EA, 2003 generally seeks to harmonise and rationalise the provisions in the existing
laws so as to bring about improvements in quality and reliability of service to the
consumers. It repealed all the three erstwhile Acts [namely, IE Act, 1910, Electricity
(Supply) Act, 1948 and ERC Act, 1998] that regulated the electricity sector. The privatelicensees have been co-existing with SEBs in various parts of the country and supplying
electricity to consumers in specified areas as per provisions of the Indian Electricity
Act, 1910. The EA, 2003 provides for distancing the Government from the regulatory
functions and to limit its role to broad policy formulations. It has also sought to
incorporate the best elements of the electricity reform legislations of the above-
mentioned States. The EA, 2003 has, therefore, obviated the need for individual States
to enact their own reform laws and laid a road map along with comprehensive
guidelines for the States, which are in the process of restructuring their SEBs or are yet
to initiate the process. Also, the States were given flexibility to adopt reform model,
which they consider to be the most suitable. Enactment of the EA, 2003 is considered as
a watershed in the Indian Power Sector on account of introducing newer concepts like
power trading, open access, Appellate Tribunal, etc., and special provisions for the rural
areas.
Reorganisation of SEBs has been accepted as a national necessity. Already 13 States
have restructured their SEBs. West Bengal too has already initiated steps to restructure
its SEB. This leaves only eight states, which are yet to restructure their SEBs. Thismeans that now the remaining SEBs only cater to 27.8 crore population (total
population of these eight states excluding West Bengal) as against countrys population
of 112.2 crore (i.e., less than 25 per cent of Indias population).
Since less than 25 per cent of the countrys population is being served by the SEBs, the
opposition to EA, 2003 need to be re-looked. The challenges of our times is how best to
carry forward the restructuring exercise so that the power sector plays its role as a
dynamic catalyst for the social, industrial, commercial and economic well-being of the
nation.
158
7/31/2019 Annexures-I,II, III & Abbreviation
6/15
National Report (Vol.-I)
Study on Impact of Restructuring of SEBs
S
No.Issue Raised by NCCEEE Comments of the Group of Experts
1. The current reforms will lead tothe profitable sections of theelectricity sector being privatised
while the publicly owned state
entities will own the rest including
the largely loss making rural
areas. The competition created
between private and public
utilities on such unequal terms
can then be used to promote the
argument of greater efficiency ofthe private sector in contrast to
the public sector or state run
entities. These arguments are
repeatedly being used against
SEBs. The real issue of how to
professionalise the SEBs and
reform the decision-making
process in the Government to
make it accountable is never
addressed in such discussions.
The Group of Experts (GOE) is of the viewthat the main objective of the current reform
is to strengthen the power sector and to
create a healthy competitive environment so
that both the economy and the consumers are
benefited. This will also improve efficiency
of the public sector. The GOE is certainly in
favour of making the management of the
Utilities more professional. The GOE
believes that the Government must distance
itself from the day-to-day management ofpower Utilities. A number of
recommendations have been included in the
Report on professionalising the management
of the Utilities and making them
autonomous, independent, and commercially
viable.
The issue of rural electrification has beencommented upon in detail under item No. 14.
2. If we dismantle the SEBs, we need
to address how are the above vital
objectives of National and social
concerns going to be achieved? So
before we dismantle the present
structure completely, the UPA
Government should take stock of
the current reforms and the
lessons learnt from them. There is
a need to have a thorough publicreview of what has been the
impact of dismantling the SEBs in
some of the states before
irrevocably dismantling the
existing structure. The provision
of dismantling of SEBs must be
deferred by another six months,
while such a review is carried out.
The study by the Group of Experts brings out
that restructuring of SEBs in a majority of
States have led to significant improvements
in their overall performance. The positive
impact is reflected by way of improved
technical and financial performance, and also
greater customer satisfaction. However, it isimportant to note that restructuring is only
the beginning and not the end of the process.
It must be accompanied by continuousefforts to enhance efficiency and quality of
service. The new structure makes it easier to
bring about these changes.
159
7/31/2019 Annexures-I,II, III & Abbreviation
7/15
National Report (Vol.-I)
Study on Impact of Restructuring of SEBs
3. It is time to take stock of these
assumptions of the EA, 2003. Thestate of the power sector after
unbundling of many of the SEBs
and also after enactment of EA,
2003 does not give any confidence
that these measures are
succeeding.
The study by the Group of Experts clearly
establishes that in most of the States, whichhave restructured their SEBs, significant
benefits have accrued to all the stakeholders.
In its Report, the Group of Experts has
presented notable and highly encouraging
achievements of some power Utilities after
restructuring.
4. Competition and liberalisation in
the electricity supply industry
mergers have also taken place
between distribution andgenerating companies. The end
result, as it is becoming evident
now, is that industry is growing
into bigger monopolies albeit of a
different mix than the earlier
vertically integrated electricity
utility.
The study establishes that SEBs were
monopolistic and monolithic organisations.
These were unwieldy from a management
perspective and unviable from a financialpoint of view. As of now, the SEBs are
functioning as monopolies, and customer
interest is not getting the due attention. The
Regulatory Commissions have adequate
powers to ensure that no private monopolies
emerge and also to protect consumerinterests.
5. Open Access:
After restructuring under EA,
2003, the transmissioncorporations, which will be state-
owned, will be responsible for the
cost of augmenting the
transmission system. As these
corporations are nothing but the
residual portion of the earlierSEBs, who are already facing a
severe financial crunch, it is not
clear how these entities would
raise the necessary resources.
On the other hand, the study establishes that
transmission and distribution sub-sectors,
which were neglected under the SEBs, arenow getting focused attention. Most of the
TRANSCOs and some of the DISCOMs
have now become viable. As a result, they
are now getting additional investments. The
initial phase of joint ventures in the
transmission sector has been encouraging.
This is indeed a clear benefit of
restructuring.
6. Power trading:
Attempts to trade electricity can
result in unscrupulous cornering
of electricity, sweetheart deals
between generators and
distributors, using limitations intransmission capacity as a
mechanism for arbitrage (Enron
used this extensively during the
California crisis) and so on.
Power trading in the country is in a nascent
stage. Even so, it has helped some
Utilities/SEBs to sell their surplus power to
needy power Utilities and earn some income.
Transmission Utilities have also been able to
earn some revenue by way of wheeling of
power. Power trading is thus a beneficial
proposition for the buyer and seller as well
as the state-owned Transmission Utilities. As
regards apprehensions regardingmalpractices, the institution of Regulators is
now in place to ensure that power trading is
160
7/31/2019 Annexures-I,II, III & Abbreviation
8/15
National Report (Vol.-I)
Study on Impact of Restructuring of SEBs
fair and transparent.
7. Cross Subsidies
Cross-subsidies are the only wayto ensure social equity. Whilethere is a case for reducing tariffs
for the industrial consumers who
are charged very steep rates, this
should be done not by drastically
raising the rates of the cross-
subsidised category, but by
reducing thefts and other losses.
The Group of Experts feels that restructuring
and social equity need not be in conflict witheach other. Restructuring has brought the
much-needed accountability in the power
sector. The separation of losses into various
restructured Utilities has facilitated focused
attention at all levels to reduce thefts and
losses. This can certainly bring down the
cost of power. The Group is of the view that
steady pace of restructuring is imperative to
achieve social equity.
8. Impact of Unbundling of SEBs:Experience of Reforms
The last 15 years of reforms with
frequent tinkering in the
Electricity(Supply) Act, 1948 and
the unbundling of SEBs have not
changed the deepening of the
financial crisis of the electricity
sector. Instead, these reforms
have added huge financial
burdens on the State and centralGovernment through APDRP and
other schemes The resultant
increase in price of electricity has
added burdens on agriculture,
industry and the domestic
consumers, without any
improvements in the quality of
supply.
The study brings out that the financial healthand operational performance of the
restructured Utilities are steadily improving.
The All-India ratio of subsidy booked by
Utilities to the total revenue has come down
from 20.75 per cent in 2001-02 to 11.19per
cent in 2004-05. The losses of Utilities,
which were on the increase until 2001-02 (Rs
29,252 crore) has come down to Rs 21,667
crore in 2004-05. In the normal course, but
for the improvements brought about, thisfigure may have gone up to a staggering Rs
38,000 crore. Major reduction of subsidy
was achieved in the States, which have
restructured their SEBs. An all round
improvement in the performance has been
observed. This has benefited the public at
large.
9. Unmetered Electricity Supply for
Agricultural SectorUnmetered supply introduces
distortions as it allows pilferage
and does not promote efficiency.
The rate of electricity for
agriculture needs to be pegged
lower than the average rate of
electricity as agricultural sector isgiven off-peak power, generating
much needed base demand on the
system. If populist measures suchas free electricity are introduced,
they can only be fulfilled by
The Group of Experts is also of the same
view and has made several recommendationson this aspect in its Report.
161
7/31/2019 Annexures-I,II, III & Abbreviation
9/15
National Report (Vol.-I)
Study on Impact of Restructuring of SEBs
sporadic and poor quality supply.
10. Impact of Unbundling of SEBs:
Experience of ReformsThere is no conviction among the
states that the reforms are
imperative. It is this allurement of
large financial assistance, which
is goading the states to reluctantly
show just enough progress on the
prescribed steps to qualify for
release of the next installment of
financial assistance. It is this
fiscal distress that compels moststates to practice the model of
power reforms prescribed by
MOP-PFC, IBRD
This point has been answered at item 8
above. The fiscal distress of the power sectoris the outcome of not adequately addressing
this issue for a long time. Reforms and
Restructuring are necessary and inevitable to
sustain Indias economic growth.
The study brings out that restructuring of
SEBs is a necessary condition but not a
sufficient condition for achieving a
turnaround of the power Utilities in the
States. In those States, where restructuring
has been undertaken in a lackadaisicalmanner, the results have not been up to the
mark. On the other hand, where restructuring
has been carried out with a greater
conviction, significant improvements have
been noticed. The GOE feels that majority of
the States have proceeded with restructuring
in the right earnest.
11. Reform Implied in EA-2003
Out of eight (8) states where SEBs
have been unbundled five (5) haveshown deterioration in AT&C
losses. On the other hand, out of
eight (8) States where SEBs
continue to exist only three (3)
have shown deterioration.
As per updated data, AT&C losses have
come down on a sustained basis in four
States (out of the seven States in Group-1).Delhi (which has not been covered in our
Study, but on which the Group had an
opportunity to look at the performance) has
also shown remarkable improvement in this
area. Hence, it can be easily inferred that
majority of the States which have
restructured their SEBs have shownperceptible improvements in reducing
AT&C losses. The Utilities in other States
(Group-1) have not shown the desiredprogress since they have not paid due
attention to certain vital aspects, which have
been brought out in our Report.
162
7/31/2019 Annexures-I,II, III & Abbreviation
10/15
National Report (Vol.-I)
Study on Impact of Restructuring of SEBs
12. The experience with private Orissa
Distribution Power Utilities that
failed to restore the supply in theflood-affected villages in 200001 is
a glaring example, some serious
issues of which were unveiled in the
Soven Kanungo Committee Report.
Delhi DISCOMs which were
privatised in great hope of reducing
losses, also failed in providing
economical, reliable and financially
efficient service to Delhi where
electricity prices are sharply risingand power cuts and interruptions
are increasing.
The experience of Delhi has been quite
encouraging and the AT&C losses have
come down from 59.51 per cent in 2002-03to 43.55 per cent by 2004-05.The position
regarding increase in tariffs in Delhi is given
below:
Year
Tariff
Increase
projected by
consultants
Actual
Increase
2002-03 10per cent NIL
2003-04 10 per cent 5.1 per cent2004-05 10 per cent 10 per cent
2005-06 5 per cent 6.6 per cent
Privatisation of electricity distribution in
Delhi has saved at least Rs 6,000 crore over a
five-year period. Although Orissa has been a
mixed success, it has saved an otherwise
payable subsidy of Rs 3,000 crore over the
last decade.
Orissa had not planned its transition phase ofpower sector restructuring as was done by
Delhi. It completely withdrew the support to
DISCOMs, once they were privatised. It did
not step in to support the DISCOMs even in
difficult times like super cyclone in the
State. This is one reason for the initial
setback to Reforms in Orissa.
13. Increase in Cost of Power
Generated/Purchased
After 10 years of reforms (2001-02),
the cost of generation of one unit of
SEB power was still in the range of
130 paise while the NTPC and IPP
power was of the order of 240
paise, the cost of SEBs have
doubled in these 10 years while that
of NTPC and IPPs has more than
tripled. The SEB finances have seensignificant deterioration on this
count.
As per information provided by NTPC, the
total cost of supply of power (including fixed
and variable costs) for all NTPC stations
have only increased from 144.86 paise/kWh
in 2001-02 to 164 paise/kWh in 2005-06. In
West Bengal, however, the NTPC cost of
supply of electricity has come down from
204 paise/kWh to 172 paise/kWh during the
same period.
163
7/31/2019 Annexures-I,II, III & Abbreviation
11/15
National Report (Vol.-I)
Study on Impact of Restructuring of SEBs
14. Rural Electrification
What is left unanswered is if the
SEBs disappear as mandated underEA, 2003, what happens to rural
electrification after this
restructuring? If all the distribution
companies run commercially, and
make profit as their primary
objective, obviously they would not
supply power to non-viable rural
areas.
Financially sound DISCOMs can address
issues of rural electrification better than sick
SEBs, which are subsisting on StateGovernments subsidies.
The Central Government has launched
RGGVY to address the crucial issue of Rural
Electrification. The scheme envisages 100
per cent village electrification by 2009. The
scheme has a grant component of 90 per cent
of the project cost which can even be availed
by private DISCOMs.
The Report has, among other things,
recommended adoption of the practicesfollowed in Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat,
Maharashtra and West Bengal in regard to
new approaches to Rural Electrification.
15. Alternative Approach to Power
sector Reforms
There is adequate evidence to prove
that unbundling of SEBs and
restructuring of the electricity
industry as envisaged under the EA:
2003 has only deepened the crisis ofelectricity industry and not
improved its poor financial
conditions. The growth in
generation capacity has also sloweddown and rural sector has been
isolated from the responsibility of
the state. If the objective was to
improve the health of the electricity
sector, this could have been
achieved under E(S) Act, 1948 aswell and did not need the new Act,
2003. It is now clear that the
solutions to the problems of the
electricity sector have to be found
within the parameters of an active
state sector and not by wholesale
dismantling of existing institutions.
It may be early to evaluate the final outcome
of the Reform efforts, as sufficient time is
needed for the Utilities to stabilise. However,
it has been seen that most of the restructured
Utilities are showing positive trends in
respect of almost all parameters wherever
reasonable autonomy has been accorded tothem. The level of consumer satisfaction in
these States also appears to be higher. This
could not have been achieved by these States
without adopting reforms and restructuring.Even the better performing SEB, i.e., West
Bengal SEB, has also decided to restructure
with an objective to improve its performance
further.
Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, did not have
adequate provisions to make power sectorattuned to the present-day needs and
requirements. Hence, enactment of the EA,
2003 was imperative.
16. Alternative Approach to Power
sector Reforms
Under the liberalisation policies,we have seen the demoralisation of
the employees due to gratuitous
The Group of Experts agrees on the necessity
of involving employees and their
representatives in efforts to improve theworking of the Utilities. A major success
factor for the efficient performance of the
164
7/31/2019 Annexures-I,II, III & Abbreviation
12/15
National Report (Vol.-I)
Study on Impact of Restructuring of SEBs
attacks on the engineers and
employees from the policy makers.
We need to establish a policy, whichinvolves the workers and other
employees in plugging electricity
losses and improving the efficiency
of the sector. If a time bound
programme of theft reduction is
taken with the participation of the
engineers and employees unions, it
is not difficult to bring down thefts.
But for this, the Government must
also have the political will toproceed against those who are
using political clout to steal
electricity.
Utilities is HRD and the Report contains
several recommendations on this aspect.
17. Mandatory unbundling of SEBs
should be excluded from the Act.
It could be replaced by the
necessary provisions to clearly
account for the transactions
between the Generation,
Transmission and DistributionComponents of the industry
functions.
Restructuring of SEBs is mandatory under
the EA, 2003. 13 States (about two-thirds of
the major States) have already restructured
their SEBs. In addition, Government of WestBengal has taken a decision to restructure its
SEB. Thus leaving only a handful of States,
which are yet to reorganise their SEBs.The restructuring of SEBs into independent
functional entities provides much needed
autonomy to the resultant entities, so that
these can perform better, instead of working
as parts of an omnibus organisation.
The GOE is of the view that restructuring of
SEBs is in the interest of managerial and
operational efficiency and in consumer
interest.
18. Each Distribution circle in variousstates should be made a separate
cost and profit centre and there
should be energy audit at the circle
level as well.
The skills and expertise of the
engineers, technicians and workers
from the States should be pooled to
fully exploit our hydro-potential in
most expeditious manner.
The Group of Experts agrees on the need fordeveloping the concept of cost and profit
centres within each Utility, at appropriate
levels, which forms part of every
professional management. Restructuring
itself addresses these issues.
165
7/31/2019 Annexures-I,II, III & Abbreviation
13/15
National Report (Vol.-I)
Study on Impact of Restructuring of SEBs
ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation Expanded Form
ABT Availability Based Tariff
ACS Average Cost of Supply
ADB Asian Development Bank
APCPDCL Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Ltd.
APDRP Accelerated Power Development and Reforms Programme
APEPDCL Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Ltd.
APNPDCL Andhra Pradesh Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd.
APSPDCL Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd.
APSEB Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board
APTRANSCO Andhra Pradesh Transmission CorporationAPY Akshay Prakash Yojana
ARR Annual Revenue Requirement
ASCI Administrative Staff College of India
ASEB Assam State Electricity Board
AT&C losses Aggregate Technical and Commercial Losses
BESCOM Bangalore Electricity Supply Company
BST Bulk Supply Tariff
CEA Central Electricity Authority
CERC Central Electricity Regulatory CommissionCESCO Central Electricity Supply Company (of Orissa)
Ckt. km. Circuit Kilometre
CMD Chairman and Managing Director
CMP Common Minimum Programme
CPSU Central Public Sector Undertaking
DAS Data Acquisition System
DBST Differential Bulk Supply Tariff
DHBVNL Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitaran Nigam Limited
DISCOM Distribution CompanyDPS Detailed Policy Statement
DTs Distribution Transformers
EA Electricity Act
EHV Extra High Voltage
ERC Energy Review Committee
ESCOMS Electricity Supply Companies
ESP Electrostatic Precipitator
FD Functional Director
FDP Financial Development PlanFEEEA Federation of Electricity Engineers and Employees Association
FIs Financial Institutions
A--30
7/31/2019 Annexures-I,II, III & Abbreviation
14/15
National Report (Vol.-I)
Study on Impact of Restructuring of SEBs
FRP Financial Restructuring Plan
FSA Fuel Surcharge Adjustment
FY Financial YearGEB Gujarat Electricity Board
GETCL Gujarat Electricity Transmission Corporation Limited
GIS Geographical Information System
GVP Grama Vidyuth Pratinidhi
GRIDCO Grid Corporation of Orissa
GSECL Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Limited
GUVNL Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited
HERC Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission
HPGCL Haryana Power Generation Corporation LimitedHRD Human Resource Development
HT/LT High Tension/Low Tension
HV High Voltage
HVPNL Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited
HVDS High Voltage Distribution System
IIM Indian Institute of Management
IIPA Indian Institute of Public Administration
IPP Independent Power Producer
IT Information TechnologyJGY Jyoti Gram Yojana
KVA Kilo Volt Ampere
kWh Kilo Watt Hour
LE Life Extension
MD Managing Director
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MoP Ministry of Power
MPSEB Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board
MPPGCL Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Company Limited
MSEDCL Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited
MTEF Medium Term Expenditure Framework
MW Mega Watts
MYT Multi Year Tariff
NEP National Electricity Policy
NES Non-conventional Energy Sources
NHPC National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited
NTPC National Thermal Power Corporation
NPTI National Power Training Institute
O&M Operation and Maintenance/Operation and Management
OERC Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission
A--31
7/31/2019 Annexures-I,II, III & Abbreviation
15/15
National Report (Vol.-I)
Study on Impact of Restructuring of SEBs
OHPC Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Limited
OPGCL Orissa Power Generation Corporation Limited
OSEB Orissa State Electricity BoardPFC Power Finance Corporation Limited
PGCI Power Grid Corporation of India Limited
PLF Plant Load Factor
PSRF Power Sector Restructuring Fund
PSUs Public Sector Undertakings
PWC Price Water House Coopers
R&M Renovation and Modernisation
RAO Regional Accounting Officer
REC Rural Electrification Corporation LimitedREL Reliance Energy Limited
RGGVY Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojana
RLA Residual Life Assessment
RMS Revenue Management System
SBM Single Buyer Model
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System
SEBs State Electricity Boards
SERC State Electricity Regulatory Commission
SLDC State Load Despatch CentreSPCB State Pollution Control Board
ST&D Sub Transmission and Distribution System
T&D Transmission and Distribution
TFYP Tenth Five Year Plan
TOR Terms of Reference
TPC Tata Power Companies
TTPS Talcher Thermal Power Station
TRADECO Trading Company
TRANSCO Transmission Company
UGVCL Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited
UPPCL Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited
A--32