In order to bring transparency in predictability in power sector, particularly for private investors, the committee had suggested that the bill be amended to require Regulatory Commissions to issue all regulations within one year.

Lliberalisation of distribution. Recommendation No. 6.35. The committee had recommended that distribution ought to be opened up subject to competition without which no reforms is possible. The Committee had recommended that distribution be subjected to non-discriminatory open access within a timeframe.

The committee had stated that in its opinion non-discriminatory open access to transmission systems is a panacea for ushering power sector reforms especially for private sector participation.

The committee had recommended that private Transmission Company should be prohibited from having ownership interest in generation and distribution as this was necessary to avoid conflict of interest. It is a very dangerous situation that we can get into because we were in the SEBs Government monopolies. We may be heading into a private sector monopoly if this is not accepted.

The committee felt that open access is key to the power sector reforms, particularly on distribution and recommended that open access might be introduced in a phased manner, within a definite timeframe. The government has not only rejected this recommendation but left it entirely with the sweet will of the respective state commissions. On the contrary let me say a new clause has been put forth there. This is Clause 42(4) and this will impose a new charge on open access. On top of it, all these provisions will only help monopolies and hurt consumer interest.

Our next point was re-employment of members of commission. At para 13.36 the committee had recommended that the members of the regulatory commissions should not be eligible for re-employment in the respective states. If the government wishes to reemployment in the same state it will compromise their independence. There will be no autonomy in SERCs.

Our next point was about power of removal at para 13.38. This is very dangerous. This will make the members vulnerable. There will be no autonomy then and they will have to be subservient to the government.

Our next point was about a separate fund for the commission at para 13.46. Several states suggested that creating a separate fund will result in lack of transparency and create doubts of financial probity or conduct of commission leading to lack of confidence and inviting public criticism.

While summing up I would like to say that the heart of new structure lies in the introduction of open access and competition. It also lies in a fair, independent and transparent regulation. Since all the recommendations of the committee on these crucial aspects have been rejected, the fate of power reforms to my mind, will stand severely compromised.

SEBs are in red. So we need reforms. But the problem is, wherever the question of reforms comes, it is equated with privatisation, as if privatisation is the panacea. It is not so. The world over, if you look at the experience, electricity is not just like any other commodity. It has become an input to improve the quality of life, industry and advancement of agriculture. In such a situation, we have to find a way out to properly address the difficulties being faced by the State Electricity Boards in respect of generation and loss. But here, we find that it is being proposed to encourage private sector participation in generation, transmission and distribution. Will they come? Why should they come? If at all they come, they will come only to earn profit. If electricity is left to those people and organisations whose sole aim is only profit, our industry, agriculture, small scale and cottage industries will never develop and particularly those areas which are already backward will suffer the most. Is the power divide existing in the country today going to improve in any way?

Is the situation, with regard to urban-rural divide that exist today, going to improve? No. Rather, the rural sector is left to take care of itself. It is a standby. There will be two sorts of consumers. One is the richer section in the urban areas and the other is the poor section, those staying in the remote villages. Who will take care of them?

Sir, my apprehension is that in the Ninth Five Year Plan, initially, the government, think had decided to generate 48,000MW of electricity. But this target was reduced to 28,000 mw of electricity. Again this target was reduced to 20,000 mw of electricity. So, it indicates that it was not possible for the government to meet the targets which were fixed by the government itself.

Now, here the government is trying to say that by privatizing, it would be possible to meet this target. It has to be considered by us – who are sitting in this parliament – whether this can be done.

On behalf of the Congress Party, I would like to say that if the private sector is willing to enter this area, is willing to generate electricity, and is willing to transmit and distribute this electricity, we shall have no objection. It is because electricity is required for development of industry, development of agriculture, development of so many other productive activities and for domestic and household purposes.

It has not been possible to attract enough investment in this area from the private sector also. One of the instances which can be quoted on the floor of the House is that of the power generation in Rajasthan. In Rajasthan, the Government had decided that the power generation will be done by the private sector; and for 15 years, they waited and waited for the private investment to come and to generate power. Since a decision was taken by the Government of Rajasthan that with the help of private investment electricity will be generated, the government was also not investing to produce electricity and the result was that not even one MW of electricity was added.

If this situation develops nation-wide, will it help us? This is the issue which has to be taken into account. In Maharashtra also, a decision was taken that we will allow not only the private sector to enter this area, but also the foreign sector. We went to the extent of guaranteeing returns on the power generated by the private sector in Maharashtra. The result is that today the foreign company is not generating power and the government of Maharashtra also didn’t investing that; and, in a state like Maharashtra were industrial development is taking place by leaps and bounds, there is a mismatch between demand for electricity and generation of electricity.

Supposing this happens in the country, what will be government of India do? If the private sector is willing to come into this area and invest, we should welcome then with open hands and give them encouragement. But if they think that they do not have enough funds or the gestation period is too long or they do not have the guarantee that there would returns and unless the government of India and the Government of Maharashtra gives a guarantee, they will not invest, what will happen? This is a real apprehension in my mind. I think that if this situation develops in the country, there will be a big gap between demand and supply of electricity. Industrial development is taking place, agriculture is asking for more electricity and people in their houses also are asking for more electricity. Where will the electricity –required come from, if it is not generated either with the help of private sector or with the help of the Government or with the help of any other source? That is the real apprehension in my mind. We would like the government to assuage our feelings, to dispel our apprehensions and tell us in the House and outside also that they would take precautions to see that this kind of a condition will not be allowed to develop in the country.

The present minister is in position; he has to apply his mind to this real problem. They shall have to have a policy or a plan to do that. Fortunately for us, they have said that there will be a national electricity policy. We would like to have a national electricity policy. But will that policy be a policy made by some officers and considered by one or two Ministers and not considered by the members in the House and people outside? I apprehend that even Five-Year Plans are not being discussed on the floor of the House.

Long term policies are also not being discussed. If you make the National Electricity Policy, will you present that policy to the House for the consideration of the Members before you take a final decision on that policy? The experts and the officers have to help us. Without their help we cannot really prepare a policy but at the same time, the input from the people’s representatives, who are working at village, taluka, district, State or at national levels, should also come before that policy becomes a really implementable policy, a policy which can produce the results. I am asking whether the government will present this national electricity policy to the Parliament for consideration of the people before a final decision is taken. This is a just demand by the Members of the Parliament. If the Government does it, we will welcome it. If it does not do it, we will demand it. If the government finds it difficult to present it, then there will be agitation both inside and outside the House. Ultimately they will keep quite and everybody will suffer. That kind of a condition should not develop in the country.

The Government wants to prepare a National Electricity Plan. I hope that Plan will also be presented to the House. Atleast let it be presented to the House so that those who want to consider that plan can consider it and if anybody wants to contribute anything towards this, he can contribute.

The third thing is about the distribution. I am afraid that transmission is going to be the easiest thing where the companies would be there and, in a way , by passing this Bill all the assets owned by the government will be given to the companies. At what cost they would be given, we do not know. We have apprehensions in our minds about that. This is not a property of the government. This is not a property of the BJP. This is not a property of the members of the Congress Party. This is a property of the people, If the government proposes to transfer this property to the private companies, then please get proper return on this property. Otherwise, you would be going against your own interest. We would be going against our own interest and we would be going against our own interests and we would be going against the interests of our people. This is not a property built on the money paid from the pockets of the members of the congress party. This is a property built by the previous Congress governments with the money paid by people. Please do not transfer this property to the comapny without getting proper remuneration for that. Privatisation is not a panacea. If necessary, the government may go for privatization by all means we are not going to object to that. That is why, when I got up to speak, I started by saying that I support this Bill. But still I have apprehension in my mind. I would be failing in my duty if I do not express my views on this. This is not your property. This is not my property. This is not the property of the government of the day. This is not a property that has been built by this government. This is a property that has been built by the previous governments. This is also not their property. They did not built it. This is the property of the people. Please get proper returns for the property that you would be giving to the companies. We have very clear doubts on this point. Please do not misunderstand us. We are not alleging things against any individual as such. We are alleging against the system, the policy that you have adopted. We have the bounden duty to express our views fearlessly on the floor of the House without having any regard for the feeling of anybody but without any malice towards anybody. But we do have apprehension in our minds.

The standing committee was criticised for taking more than two and a half years and sitting over the bill. Let me go on record that what we received as the first bill was not a bill for the government of India but was a bill for the government of Philippines. So what we were doing is, we are copying this bill that was drafted for another nation. The committee was trying to Indianise the bill. There were provisions which were not in favour of the nation. They were basically sought to be drawn on situations that were there in California and those situations were sought to be brought into this new bill.

Sir, let me on record that the main provisions which the committee has suggested have not at all been accepted and I am going to deal only with major provisions which are going to effect us. I have my own apprehensions that if the bill is passed as it is and accepted as it is, the first casualty is going to be the rural sector. I will just refer to the comparison that has been given by the Ministry. That was one of our major objections. A comparison was given to us between the 1948 Bill and the present Bill, and this is what it has to say.

"This clause aims at addressing the requirement and catering to the needs of the natural areas without connectivity to the Grid."

If there is no connectivity of the rural areas to the grid, where from the rural sector is going to draw its power? This is what the Ministry has to say: