04.08.2013 Views

Report of Indian Institute of Public Administration ... - Ministry of Power

Report of Indian Institute of Public Administration ... - Ministry of Power

Report of Indian Institute of Public Administration ... - Ministry of Power

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Uttar Pradesh<br />

The figures <strong>of</strong> distribution losses shown during the pre-reform period does not appear to<br />

be realistic as there has been a signficant correction in the subsequent years, as has been<br />

the case in respect <strong>of</strong> other States.<br />

The distribution losses still remains a significant area <strong>of</strong> concern and account for loss <strong>of</strong><br />

more than 30 per cent <strong>of</strong> the power available for sale at the distribution interface level.<br />

There is a reduction in the level <strong>of</strong> losses since 2000-01 (as per UPPCL estimates).<br />

However, the numbers in the Tariff Orders <strong>of</strong> UPERC reveal a different picture. The<br />

high level <strong>of</strong> distribution losses has also negated the limited benefits <strong>of</strong> efficiency<br />

improvements achieved in generation and transmission to percolate down to consumers<br />

in the form <strong>of</strong> lower tariffs.<br />

Aggregate Technical and Commercial Losses<br />

The level <strong>of</strong> T&D losses does not reveal the complete picture <strong>of</strong> efficient operations in<br />

the distribution chain as there are <strong>of</strong>ten large discrepancies between the amounts billed to<br />

the consumers and the actual revenue collections. This section deals with the level <strong>of</strong><br />

Aggregate Technical and Commercial (AT&C) losses for the system, including the<br />

impact <strong>of</strong> collection efficiency on the T&D losses.<br />

The collection efficiency statistics for the State is provided in the following table. It can<br />

be seen that the collection level have gone down even further during the post-reform<br />

period:<br />

Billing and Collection Efficiency<br />

1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03<br />

Billing<br />

Government 590.43 645.71 677.88 785.27 804.34<br />

Non-Government 4,462.06 4,953.73 5,355.74 5,911.25 5,730.16<br />

Total Billing<br />

Collection<br />

5,052.49 5,599.44 6,033.62 6,696.52 6,534.50<br />

Government 435.6 334.69 592.84 331.58 418.36<br />

Non-Government 3,889.20 4,259.79 4,484.22 4,909.07 4,679.43<br />

Total Collections<br />

Collection Efficiency<br />

4,324.80 4,594.48 5,077.06 5,240.65 5,097.79<br />

Government (%) 73.78 51.83 87.46 42.22 52.01<br />

Non Govt. (%) 87.16 85.99 83.73 83.25 81.66<br />

Overall Collection<br />

Efficiency (%)<br />

85.60 82.05 84.15 78.26 78.01<br />

Excessive Government interference in organisational and operational matters has <strong>of</strong>ten<br />

undermined least cost procurement, led to unwise investment decisions, prevented<br />

rationalisation <strong>of</strong> tariff, and promoted excessive staffing. These shortcomings, combined<br />

7.23

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!