The study group appointed by the Indian Institute of Public Administration to study “the impact of restructuring of the State Electricity Board” has submitted their report to the Government. The report is on the expected lines as well as meeting the guidelines of World Bank Report on ‘Indian Power sector’ in June, 2006. It supports the power policy of the government covering up the realities and the real effect of the reforms. Mr. Abraham who was the real coordinator had seen to that the report okays power policy and the restructuring of State Electricity Boards. We are reproducing below, the key findings of the study as per the report.

• Restructuring is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for turnaround of the power sector. It is important to note that restructuring is only the beginning and not the end of the process. It must be accompanied by continuous complementary efforts to enhance efficiency in the sector and improve the quality of service to consumers.
• Strong and sustained political support during all phases of restructuring is the key. Taking the employees into confidence and enlisting their willing support and strengthening the institution of Electricity Regulations are critical factors for success and sustainability of power sector reforms.
• Most of the GENCOs, TRANSCOs and some of the DISCOMs have now become financially viable. Consequently they are able to attract additional investments and better technological and managerial interventions.
• It has been noticed that most of the restructured Utilities are beaming positive trends in respect of key parameters wherever reasonable autonomy has been provided to them. The level of consumer satisfaction in these States is also significantly higher. Restructuring has brought in the required accountability in the power sector triggering improved performance. Such positive correlation needs to be further reinforced through well-designed systems and adoption of best practices on a continuing basis.
• Restructuring should not be misconstrued as privatisation. It requires demystification, aggressive education and creation of a strong constituency to preserve, promote and develop the essence of restructuring.
We after a close reading of the report found many deficiencies of which a few are given below:
The Commission does not put forward any plans to build the social dimension of its energy policy and does not address growing energy poverty, employment, social dialogue and skills.

 Impact of re-structuring on social obligations subsequent to the impact on tariff are ignored and does not address growing energy poverty, employment and skills.
 Achievements of non-restructured SEBs are not compared with re-structured SEBs (Group-1 states) to reach a logical conclusion.
 Achievements of gr.1 states are enlisted under gains of restructuring while the failures are accounted under management inadequacies.
 Even though Delhi includes gr.1 states, it is not included in the detailed study.
 When key financial parameters are evaluated, the biggest state in India, i.e. UP is excluded.

Page 1 of 2 | Next Page »