Sie sind auf Seite 1von 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. 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). Management of inventory and receivables. Transmission Company 1. 2. How has the transmission losses behaved in the period? Margin of profit/cost added to the pooled cost of power apart from losses. Distribution Company 1. 2. 3. 4. How has the transmission and distribution losses behaved? How has the billing efficiency worked? How has the collection efficiency been? 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. Management of turn over and receivables. The margin of establishment cost of per unit of electricity sold. Payment of dues/subsidies by the State Government in the stipulated time.

2. 3.

5. 6. 7.

154

National Report (Vol.-I)

Study on Impact of Restructuring of SEBs 8. 9. 10. Support of the State Government to the distribution utilities in controlling theft of electricity. Status of metering of the consumers and status of energy audit. Improvement in consumer services and handling of consumer complaints. Suggestions Suggestions for effective implementation of restructuring of the SEBs.

155

National Report (Vol.-I)

Study on Impact of Restructuring of SEBs

Annexure-II List of Experts Detailed for the Study Expert Dr. P. L. Sanjeev Reddy Shri P. Abraham Shri M.V. Dhekne Shri T. Sethumadhavan Shri R. Poornalingam Shri M. Sivarami Reddy Shri V.S. Ailawadi Shri V.K. Sood Shri P.N. Bhandari Shri P.S. Bami Shri D.P. Bagchi Shri P.C. Shekar Reddy Relevant Expertise Former Secretary, Government of India Former Secretary (Power), Govt. of India and Ex-Chairman, MSEB Former Member (Technical) MSEB Former AS&FA, Ministry of Power, GOI Former Secretary to Govt. of India and Ex-Chairman, Tamil Nadu SEB Former Chief Engineer (Reforms),APSEB Former, Special Secretary, GOI and Ex-Chairman, ERC, Haryana Former Chairman, Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission Former Additional Chief Secretary and Ex-Chairman, RSEB Former CMD, NTPC Ltd. Former Secretary, Govt. of India and Chief Secretary Govt. of Orissa Project Coordinator Job Profile Project Director Maharashtra and Gujarat Karnataka Tamil Nadu Andhra Pradesh Haryana and Madhya Pradesh Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh Rajasthan Assam Ex- Orissa and West Bengal Overall coordination

156

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 Power Sector 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. No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Name Shri E. Balanandan Shri Ranjit Singh Shri Akhtar Hussain Shri B.S. Meel Shri Chakradhar P. Singh Shri K.R. Unnithan Shri S. Pancharatnam Shri Ushinar Deb Shri Mohan Sharma Shri Sukhdev Singh Shri K.L. Gupta Organisation President, EEFI Vice-President, EEFI General Secretary, Mazdoor Mahasangh, BMS General Secretary, EEFI Gen Secy, All India Federation of Electricity Employees Secretary, Electricity Employees Federation of India Vice-President, EEFI Secretary, AIFEE AIFEE (MSEB) President, All India Federation of Power Diploma Engineer 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

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 private licensees 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 abovementioned 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. This means 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

National Report (Vol.-I)

Study on Impact of Restructuring of SEBs S Issue Raised by NCCEEE No. 1. The current reforms will lead to the profitable sections of the electricity 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 of the 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. 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 public review 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.

Comments of the Group of Experts The Group of Experts (GOE) is of the view that 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 of power 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 been commented upon in detail under item No. 14. 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 is important to note that restructuring is only the beginning and not the end of the process. It must be accompanied by continuous efforts to enhance efficiency and quality of service. The new structure makes it easier to bring about these changes.

159

National Report (Vol.-I)

Study on Impact of Restructuring of SEBs

3.

4.

5.

6.

It is time to take stock of these assumptions of the EA, 2003. The state 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. Competition and liberalisation in the electricity supply industry mergers have also taken place between distribution and generating 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. Open Access: After restructuring under EA, 2003, the transmission corporations, which will be stateowned, will be responsible for the cost of augmenting the transmission system. As these corporations are nothing but the residual portion of the earlier SEBs, who are already facing a severe financial crunch, it is not clear how these entities would raise the necessary resources. Power trading: Attempts to trade electricity can result in unscrupulous cornering of electricity, sweetheart deals between generators and distributors, using limitations in transmission capacity as a mechanism for arbitrage (Enron used this extensively during the California crisis) and so on.

The study by the Group of Experts clearly establishes that in most of the States, which have 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. The study establishes that SEBs were monopolistic and monolithic organisations. These were unwieldy from a management perspective and unviable from a financial point 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 consumer interests. On the other hand, the study establishes that transmission and distribution sub-sectors, which were neglected under the SEBs, are now 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. 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 regarding malpractices, the institution of Regulators is now in place to ensure that power trading is 160

National Report (Vol.-I)

Study on Impact of Restructuring of SEBs fair and transparent. The Group of Experts feels that restructuring and social equity need not be in conflict with each 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. The study brings out that the financial health and 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, this figure 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.

7.

Cross Subsidies Cross-subsidies are the only way to ensure social equity. While there 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 crosssubsidised category, but by reducing thefts and other losses.

8.

9.

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 central Government 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. Unmetered Electricity Supply for The Group of Experts is also of the same Agricultural Sector view and has made several recommendations Unmetered supply introduces on this aspect in its Report. 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 is given off-peak power, generating much needed base demand on the system. If populist measures such as free electricity are introduced, they can only be fulfilled by 161

National Report (Vol.-I)

Study on Impact of Restructuring of SEBs sporadic and poor quality supply. Impact of Unbundling of SEBs: Experience of Reforms There 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 most states to practice the model of power reforms prescribed by MOP-PFC, IBRD

10.

11.

Reform Implied in EA-2003 Out of eight (8) states where SEBs have been unbundled five (5) have shown 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.

This point has been answered at item 8 above. The fiscal distress of the power sector is 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 lackadaisical manner, 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. 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 shown perceptible improvements in reducing AT&C losses. The Utilities in other States (Group-1) have not shown the desired progress since they have not paid due attention to certain vital aspects, which have been brought out in our Report.

162

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 the flood-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 rising and 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 2002-03 to 43.55 per cent by 2004-05.The position regarding increase in tariffs in Delhi is given below: Tariff Year 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Increase projected by consultants 10per cent 10 per cent 10 per cent 5 per cent Actual Increase NIL 5.1 per cent 10 per cent 6.6 per cent

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 seen significant deterioration on this count.

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 of power 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. 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

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 under EA, 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 State Governments 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 practices followed in Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra and West Bengal in regard to new approaches to Rural Electrification. 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 to them. 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 sector attuned to the present-day needs and requirements. Hence, enactment of the EA, 2003 was imperative.

15.

16.

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 of electricity industry and not improved its poor financial conditions. The growth in generation capacity has also slowed down 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 as well 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. 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 the working of the Utilities. A major success factor for the efficient performance of the 164

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, which involves 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 to proceed against those who are using political clout to steal electricity. 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 Distribution Components of the industry functions. Utilities is HRD and the Report contains several recommendations on this aspect.

17.

18.

Each Distribution circle in various states 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.

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 West Bengal 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. The Group of Experts agrees on the need for developing 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

National Report (Vol.-I)

Study on Impact of Restructuring of SEBs

ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation ABT ACS ADB APCPDCL APDRP APEPDCL APNPDCL APSPDCL APSEB APTRANSCO APY ARR ASCI ASEB AT&C losses BESCOM BST CEA CERC CESCO Ckt. km. CMD CMP CPSU DAS DBST DHBVNL DISCOM DPS DTs EA EHV ERC ESCOMS ESP FD FDP FEEEA FIs Expanded Form Availability Based Tariff Average Cost of Supply Asian Development Bank Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Ltd. Accelerated Power Development and Reforms Programme Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Ltd. Andhra Pradesh Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd. Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation Akshay Prakash Yojana Annual Revenue Requirement Administrative Staff College of India Assam State Electricity Board Aggregate Technical and Commercial Losses Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Bulk Supply Tariff Central Electricity Authority Central Electricity Regulatory Commission Central Electricity Supply Company (of Orissa) Circuit Kilometre Chairman and Managing Director Common Minimum Programme Central Public Sector Undertaking Data Acquisition System Differential Bulk Supply Tariff Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitaran Nigam Limited Distribution Company Detailed Policy Statement Distribution Transformers Electricity Act Extra High Voltage Energy Review Committee Electricity Supply Companies Electrostatic Precipitator Functional Director Financial Development Plan Federation of Electricity Engineers and Employees Association Financial Institutions
A-30

National Report (Vol.-I)

Study on Impact of Restructuring of SEBs FRP FSA FY GEB GETCL GIS GVP GRIDCO GSECL GUVNL HERC HPGCL HRD HT/LT HV HVPNL HVDS IIM IIPA IPP IT JGY KVA kWh LE MD MOA MOU MoP MPSEB MPPGCL MSEDCL MTEF MW MYT NEP NES NHPC NTPC NPTI O&M OERC Financial Restructuring Plan Fuel Surcharge Adjustment Financial Year Gujarat Electricity Board Gujarat Electricity Transmission Corporation Limited Geographical Information System Grama Vidyuth Pratinidhi Grid Corporation of Orissa Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Limited Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited Human Resource Development High Tension/Low Tension High Voltage Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited High Voltage Distribution System Indian Institute of Management Indian Institute of Public Administration Independent Power Producer Information Technology Jyoti Gram Yojana Kilo Volt Ampere Kilo Watt Hour Life Extension Managing Director Memorandum of Agreement Memorandum of Understanding Ministry of Power Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Company Limited Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited Medium Term Expenditure Framework Mega Watts Multi Year Tariff National Electricity Policy Non-conventional Energy Sources National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited National Thermal Power Corporation National Power Training Institute Operation and Maintenance/Operation and Management Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission
A-31

National Report (Vol.-I)

Study on Impact of Restructuring of SEBs OHPC OPGCL OSEB PFC PGCI PLF PSRF PSUs PWC R&M RAO REC REL RGGVY RLA RMS SBM SCADA SEBs SERC SLDC SPCB ST&D T&D TFYP TOR TPC TTPS TRADECO TRANSCO UGVCL UPPCL Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Limited Orissa Power Generation Corporation Limited Orissa State Electricity Board Power Finance Corporation Limited Power Grid Corporation of India Limited Plant Load Factor Power Sector Restructuring Fund Public Sector Undertakings Price Water House Coopers Renovation and Modernisation Regional Accounting Officer Rural Electrification Corporation Limited Reliance Energy Limited Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojana Residual Life Assessment Revenue Management System Single Buyer Model Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System State Electricity Boards State Electricity Regulatory Commission State Load Despatch Centre State Pollution Control Board Sub Transmission and Distribution System Transmission and Distribution Tenth Five Year Plan Terms of Reference Tata Power Companies Talcher Thermal Power Station Trading Company Transmission Company Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited

A-32

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen