Cost Benefit Analysis of Kisan Hit Urja Shakti Yojana (KHUSHY)

Cost Benefit Analysis of Kisan Hit Urja Shakti

Yojana (KHUSHY)

Final Report

March 2014

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (GUVNL)

CONFIDENTIAL

MCB ISA A 0 0

P:\Ahmedabad\AMC\PROJECTS\326672AA01\Documents\Report\GUVNL - KHUSHY - Final Report-V3.docx

10 April 2014

Cost Benefit Analysis of Kisan Hit Urja Shakti Yojana (KHUSH

Final Report

Cost Benefit Analysis of Kisan Hit Urja Shakti Yojana (KHUSHY)

Final Report

March 2014

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (GUVNL)

CONFIDENTIAL

Mott MacDonald, 501 Sakar II, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad 380 006, Gujarat, India

T +91 (0)79 2657 5550 F +91 (0)79 2657 5558 W www.mottmac.com

Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan, Race Course, Vadodara 390007

Cost Benefit Analysis of Kisan Hit Urja Shakti Yojana (KHUSH Final Report

CONFIDENTIAL

MCB/ISA/A/0/0 10 April 2014 P:\Ahmedabad\AMC\PROJECTS\326672AA01\Documents\Report\GUVNL - KHUSHY - Final Report-V3.docx

Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description Standard00 December, 2013 BD, RR PM PS Draft Report

01 March, 2014 RR PM PS Final Report

02 May, 2014 RR PM PS Final Report

Issue and revision record

This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.

We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties.

This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it.


CONFIDENTIAL


Chapter Title Page

Executive Summary i

Overall Voltage Level/Quality ______________________________________________________________________ i Line break/Unscheduled Breakdowns _______________________________________________________________ i Incidence of Hooking ___________________________________________________________________________ ii Crop Output & Yield ____________________________________________________________________________ ii Transformer Failure ____________________________________________________________________________ ii Motor Failure ii Motor Starter Failure ___________________________________________________________________________ ii Bore Well iii View on continuation of the scheme _______________________________________________________________ iii PGVCL iii Year-Wise Sent Out and Units Billed _______________________________________________________________ iii Year-Wise Details on % Transformer Failure _________________________________________________________ iii Pay Back Period: Feeders Completed in 2008-09 _____________________________________________________ iii Pay Back Period: Feeders Completed in 2009-10 _____________________________________________________ iv Pay Back Period: Feeders Completed in 2010-11 _____________________________________________________ iv Pay Back Period: Feeders Completed in 2011-12 _____________________________________________________ iv Pay Back Period: Feeders Completed in 2012-13 _____________________________________________________ iv Pay Back Period: All Dedicated Feeders ____________________________________________________________ v Pay Back Period: All Scattered Connections _________________________________________________________ v Pay Back Period: Overall (All Feeders) _____________________________________________________________ v DGVCL v Year-Wise Sent Out and Units Billed _______________________________________________________________ v Year Wise % Theoretical Loss ____________________________________________________________________ vi Year-Wise Details on % Transformer Failure _________________________________________________________ vi Pay Back Period: Dedicated Feeders ______________________________________________________________ vi Pay Back Period: Scattered Feeders _______________________________________________________________ vi Pay Back Period: Overall (All Feeders) _____________________________________________________________ vi UGVCL vii Year-Wise Sent Out and Units Billed (Dedicated Feeders) _____________________________________________ vii Year Wise % Theoretical Loss ___________________________________________________________________ vii Year-Wise Details on % Transformer Failure ________________________________________________________ vii Pay Back Period: Dedicated Feeders _____________________________________________________________ vii Pay Back Period: Scattered Feeders ______________________________________________________________ vii Pay Back Period: Overall (All Feeders) ____________________________________________________________ viii MGVCL viii Year-Wise Sent Out and Units Billed (Dedicated Feeders) _____________________________________________ viii Year Wise % Theoretical Loss ___________________________________________________________________ viii Year-Wise Details on % Transformer Failure ________________________________________________________ viii Pay Back Period: Dedicated Feeders _____________________________________________________________ viii Pay Back Period: Scattered Feeders _______________________________________________________________ ix Pay Back Period: Overall (All Feeders) _____________________________________________________________ ix

1 Introduction 1

Contents


CONFIDENTIAL


1.1 Mott MacDonald Group ______________________________________________________________ 1 1.1.1 What we do _______________________________________________________________________ 1 1.1.2 Mott MacDonald India________________________________________________________________ 2 1.2 Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (GUVNL) _______________________________________________ 3 1.3 The Project ________________________________________________________________________ 4 1.4 Scope of Work _____________________________________________________________________ 4

Part A: Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited (PGVCL) 6

2 Profile of PGVCL 7

2.1 Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited ___________________________________________________ 7

3 Implementation of Kisan Hit Urja Shakti Yojana (KHUSHY) – PGVCL 8

4 Consumer Perception of Kisan Hit Urja Shakti Yojana (KHUSHY) – PGVCL 15

4.1 Approach and Methodology __________________________________________________________ 15 4.1.1 Sample Design ____________________________________________________________________ 15 4.1.2 Questionnaire Design _______________________________________________________________ 16 4.2 Key Results of Consumer Perception Study - PGVCL ______________________________________ 17 4.2.1 General Information ________________________________________________________________ 17 4.2.2 Level of Agreement on Technical and Financial Aspects ____________________________________ 20 4.2.3 Assessment of Tangible Benefits Accrued after implementation of KHUSHY ____________________ 27 4.2.4 Single Phase Connection and Bore well Details ___________________________________________ 35 4.2.5 View on continuation of the scheme ____________________________________________________ 36

5 Cost-Benefit Analysis of Kisan Hit Urja Shakti Yojana (KHUSHY) – PGVCL 37

5.1 Implementation Details of KHUSHY ____________________________________________________ 38 5.2 Benefits Accrued Under KHUSHY _____________________________________________________ 38 5.2.1 Transmission and Distribution Losses (PGVCL) __________________________________________ 38 5.2.2 Transformer Failures (PGVCL) ________________________________________________________ 40 5.3 Payback Period (PGVCL) ____________________________________________________________ 40 5.3.1 Selection of Baseline Loss/Sent Unit ___________________________________________________ 41 5.3.2 Selection of Cost Realization _________________________________________________________ 41 5.3.3 Cost of Capital ____________________________________________________________________ 41 5.3.4 Savings due to reduction in Transformer Failures _________________________________________ 41 5.4 Pay Back Calculations ______________________________________________________________ 42

Part B: Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited (DGVCL) 45

6 Profile of DGVCL 46

6.1 Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited __________________________________________________ 46

7 Implementation of Kisan Hit Urja Shakti Yojana (KHUSHY) – DGVCL 47

8 Consumer Perception of Kisan Hit Urja Shakti Yojana (KHUSHY) – DGVCL 49


CONFIDENTIAL


8.1 Approach and Methodology __________________________________________________________ 49 8.1.1 Sample Design ____________________________________________________________________ 49 8.1.2 Questionnaire Design _______________________________________________________________ 50 8.2 Key Results of Consumer Perception Study - DGVCL ______________________________________ 50 8.2.1 General Information ________________________________________________________________ 50 8.2.2 Level of Agreement on Technical and Financial Aspects ____________________________________ 53 8.2.3 Assessment of Tangible Benefits Accrued after implementation of KHUSHY ____________________ 62 8.2.4 Single Phase Connection and Bore well Details ___________________________________________ 69 8.2.5 View on continuation of the scheme ____________________________________________________ 70

9 Cost-Benefit Analysis of Kisan Hit Urja Shakti Yojana (KHUSHY) – DGVCL 71

9.1 Implementation Details of KHUSHY ____________________________________________________ 72 9.2 Benefits Accrued Under KHUSHY _____________________________________________________ 72 9.2.1 Transmission and Distribution Losses (DGVCL) __________________________________________ 72 9.2.2 Transformer Failures (DGVCL) _______________________________________________________ 75 9.3 Payback Period (DGVCL) ____________________________________________________________ 75 9.3.1 Selection of Baseline Loss/Sent Unit ___________________________________________________ 76 9.3.2 Selection of Cost Realization _________________________________________________________ 76 9.3.3 Cost of Capital ____________________________________________________________________ 76 9.3.4 Savings due to reduction in Transformer Failures _________________________________________ 76 9.4 Pay Back Calculations ______________________________________________________________ 77

Part C: Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited (UGVCL) 78

10 Profile of UGVCL 79

10.1 Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited _____________________________________________________ 79

11 Implementation of Kisan Hit Urja Shakti Yojana (KHUSHY) 80

12 Consumer Perception of Kisan Hit Urja Shakti Yojana (KHUSHY) 82

12.1 Approach and Methodology __________________________________________________________ 82 12.1.1 Sample Design ____________________________________________________________________ 82 12.1.2 Questionnaire Design _______________________________________________________________ 83 12.2 Key Results of Consumer Perception Study - UGVCL ______________________________________ 83 12.2.1 General Information ________________________________________________________________ 84 12.2.2 Level of Agreement on Technical and Financial Aspects ____________________________________ 87 12.2.3 Assessment of Tangible Benefits Accrued after implementation of KHUSHY ____________________ 94 12.2.4 Single Phase Connection and Bore well Details __________________________________________ 101 12.2.5 View on continuation of the scheme ___________________________________________________ 101

13 Cost-Benefit Analysis of Kisan Hit Urja Shakti Yojana (KHUSHY) – UGVCL 103

13.1 Implementation Details of KHUSHY ___________________________________________________ 104 13.2 Benefits Accrued Under KHUSHY ____________________________________________________ 104 13.2.1 Transmission and Distribution Losses (UGVCL) _________________________________________ 104 13.2.2 Transformer Failures (UGVCL) ______________________________________________________ 107


CONFIDENTIAL


13.3 Payback Period (UGVCL) ___________________________________________________________ 107 13.3.1 Selection of Baseline Loss/Sent Unit __________________________________________________ 108 13.3.2 Selection of Cost Realization ________________________________________________________ 108 13.3.3 Cost of Capital ___________________________________________________________________ 108 13.3.4 Savings due to reduction in Transformer Failures ________________________________________ 108 13.4 Pay Back Calculations _____________________________________________________________ 109

Part D: Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Limited (MGVCL) 110

14 Profile of MGVCL 111

14.1 Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Limited _________________________________________________ 111

15 Implementation of Kisan Hit Urja Shakti Yojana (KHUSHY) – MGVCL 112

16 Consumer Perception of Kisan Hit Urja Shakti Yojana (KHUSHY) – MGVCL 114

16.1 Approach and Methodology _________________________________________________________ 114 16.1.1 Sample Design ___________________________________________________________________ 114 16.1.2 Questionnaire Design ______________________________________________________________ 115 16.2 Key Results of Consumer Perception Study - MGVCL _____________________________________ 115 16.2.1 General Information _______________________________________________________________ 115 16.2.2 Level of Agreement on Technical and Financial Aspects ___________________________________ 118 16.2.3 Assessment of Tangible Benefits Accrued after implementation of KHUSHY ___________________ 125 16.2.4 Single Phase Connection and Bore well Details __________________________________________ 133 16.2.5 View on continuation of the scheme ___________________________________________________ 133

17 Cost-Benefit Analysis of Kisan Hit Urja Shakti Yojana (KHUSHY) – MGVCL 135

17.1 Implementation Details of KHUSHY ___________________________________________________ 136 17.2 Benefits Accrued Under KHUSHY ____________________________________________________ 136 17.2.1 Transmission and Distribution Losses (MGVCL) _________________________________________ 136 17.2.2 Transformer Failures (MGVCL) ______________________________________________________ 139 17.3 Payback Period (MGVCL) __________________________________________________________ 139 17.3.1 Selection of Baseline Loss/Sent Unit __________________________________________________ 140 17.3.2 Selection of Cost Realization ________________________________________________________ 140 17.3.3 Cost of Capital ___________________________________________________________________ 140 17.3.4 Savings due to reduction in Transformer Failures ________________________________________ 140 17.4 Pay Back Calculations _____________________________________________________________ 141

18 Observations & Recommendations 142

18.1 Consumer Perception of KHUSHY ____________________________________________________ 142 18.1.1 Overall Voltage Level/Quality ________________________________________________________ 142 18.1.2 Line break/Unscheduled Breakdowns _________________________________________________ 142 18.1.3 Incidence of Hooking ______________________________________________________________ 142 18.1.4 Crop Output & Yield _______________________________________________________________ 142 18.1.5 Transformer Failure _______________________________________________________________ 142 18.1.6 Motor Failure ____________________________________________________________________ 143 18.1.7 Motor Starter Failure_______________________________________________________________ 143


CONFIDENTIAL


18.1.8 Bore Well _______________________________________________________________________ 143 18.1.9 View on continuation of the scheme ___________________________________________________ 143 18.2 Estimated Monetary Benefit to Customers ______________________________________________ 144 18.3 Cost Benefit Analysis for DISCOMs ___________________________________________________ 144

Appendices 146

Appendix A. List of Feeders Covered Under KHUSHY _______________________________________________ 147 Appendix B. Feeder Wise Change in Units Billed ___________________________________________________ 154 Appendix C. Feeder-Wise Details on Transformer Failure & Customer Complaints _________________________ 162 Appendix D. Questionnaire ____________________________________________________________________ 169


CONFIDENTIAL

i MCB/ISA/A/0/0 10 April 2014 P:\Ahmedabad\AMC\PROJECTS\326672AA01\Documents\Report\GUVNL - KHUSHY - Final Report-V3.docx

The Government of Gujarat - through Kisan Hit Urja Shakti Yojana (KHUSHY) scheme - has been

implementing High Voltage Distribution System (HVDS) in place of Low Voltage Distribution System

(LVDS) on identified agricultural feeders. Approximately 65,000 No. of Agricultural consumers are

expected to accrue benefits under this scheme. In this context, GUVNL had engaged the service of Mott

MacDonald Private Limited to conduct a cost benefit analysis (CBA) and agricultural consumer survey to

assess tangible and intangible benefits of KHUSHY scheme.

The KHUSHY scheme has been implemented across all Distribution companies viz. PGVCL, DGVCL,

MGVCL and UGVCL. In total 174 feeders across all the distribution companies have been converted under

this scheme into HVDS. PGVCL and the agricultural consumers have benefitted immensely under this

scheme wherein 157 feeders have been converted into HVDS. All agricultural customers under these

feeders have been allotted dedicated transformers for their connections.

The consumer perception survey had to be done for a sample size of 5% of the total benefitted consumers

which were expected to be around 65000 Nos with an objective to assess the benefits to the consumer

because of the implementation of KHUSHY (HVDS) scheme. The survey has been conducted for 3265

HVDS customers. The distribution of the sample among the distribution companies and further at circle

and feeder level has been done on the basis of the actual conversion of feeders under KHUSHY (HVDS).

The discom wise sample size is as given in the below table

Discom Circle Division Sub-Division No. of Feeders No. of Beneficiaries

PGVCL 10 17 24 29 2865

UGVCL 2 4 5 6 151

DGVCL 3 4 4 5 149

MGVCL 1 1 1 2 100

TOTAL 16 26 34 42 3265

The key observations of the customer perception study for PGVCL are as under

Overall Voltage Level/Quality

There has been a major improvement in the voltage level/quality after the implementation of KHUSHY. The

continuity of power supply would not be effective in absence of low or constantly fluctuating voltage. The

effectiveness of the implementation of the scheme on this parameter is crucial and has led to improve

satisfaction levels of the customers.

Line break/Unscheduled Breakdowns

The incidences of line breaks and unscheduled shutdowns have also drastically decreased after

implementation of KHUSHY.

Executive Summary


CONFIDENTIAL

ii MCB/ISA/A/0/0 10 April 2014 P:\Ahmedabad\AMC\PROJECTS\326672AA01\Documents\Report\GUVNL - KHUSHY - Final Report-V3.docx

Incidence of Hooking

Theft and pilferage account for a substantial part of the high transmission and distribution losses. One of

the objectives of the scheme was to minimize these losses. The various steps and technical interventions

during the scheme have made it cumbersome for the customers indulge in such activities.

Crop Output & Yield

The primary objective of the project was to provide consumers with uninterrupted and quality Power related

benefits. The Crop output & yield are directly dependent on the monsoon & weather conditions. The

electricity has little impact on the crop yield especially in cases where there is levels of underground water

are low.

Transformer Failure

The transformer failures have decreased drastically after the implementation of KHUSHY. Majority of the

surveyed customers strongly agree or agree to the statement that the transformer failures have reduced

after the implementation of the scheme.

The survey results show that majority of the customers experienced transformer failures around 3-5 times

while other few experienced it more than 5 times. After the implementation of KHUSHY all the surveyed

customers experienced transformer failure in the bracket of 0-2 times. The results hence show that there

has been a considerable decrease in transformer failure after the implementation of KHUSHY.

The results also show that there has been a considerable decrease in average days loss per transformer

failure after the implementation of KHUSHY.

Motor Failure

The survey results show that a major portion of the customers experienced motor failures around 3-5 times


customers experienced motor failures in the bracket of 0-2 times. The results hence show that there has

been a considerable decrease in motor failure after the implementation of KHUSHY.

The results also show that there has been a considerable decrease in average days loss per motor failure

after the implementation of KHUSHY.

The results hence show that there has been a considerable decrease in expense incurred on motor

failures after the implementation of KHUSHY.

Motor Starter Failure

The survey results show that a major portion of the customers experienced motor starter failures around 2-

3 times/year while other few experienced it more than 3 times. After the implementation of KHUSHY all the


CONFIDENTIAL

iii MCB/ISA/A/0/0 10 April 2014 P:\Ahmedabad\AMC\PROJECTS\326672AA01\Documents\Report\GUVNL - KHUSHY - Final Report-V3.docx

surveyed customers experienced motor starter failure in the bracket of 0-1 times. The results hence show

that there has been a considerable decrease in motor starter failure after the implementation of KHUSHY.

The results also show that there has been a considerable decrease in average days loss per motor starter


The results also show that there has been a considerable decrease in expense incurred on motor starter


Bore Well

The operating hours of the bore well basically depends upon three variables including the monsoon, the

levels of ground water and availability of electricity. The electricity issue have been solved to a large extent

after the implementation of the scheme. The other two variables remaining unpredictable and largely

varying from location to location there, no major increase in the operating hours of the bore wells has been

observed.

View on continuation of the scheme

Out of the 3865 beneficiaries surveyed, 99% of them are happy & satisfied with the implementation of the

KHUSHY Scheme and have expressed their interest and willingness in support and continuation of the

scheme in other parts of the state.

PGVCL

Year-Wise Sent Out and Units Billed

Year Units Sent Out (MUs) Units Billed (MUs) Loss (MUS) % Dist. Loss

2006-07 523.12 216.46 306.66 59%

2007-08 612.54 256.94 355.6 58%

2008-09 663.37 280.44 382.93 58%

2009-10 747.45 316.83 430.62 58%

2010-11 615.68 331.86 283.82 46%

2011-12 672.02 359.97 312.05 46%

2012-13 748.39 426.52 321.87 43%

Year-Wise Details on % Transformer Failure

DISCOM 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

PGVCL 67% 59% 45% 29% 13% 9% 5%

Pay Back Period: Feeders Completed in 2008-09

Particulars Details Units

No. of Feeders 8

No. of Transformers 1415


CONFIDENTIAL

iv MCB/ISA/A/0/0 10 April 2014 P:\Ahmedabad\AMC\PROJECTS\326672AA01\Documents\Report\GUVNL - KHUSHY - Final Report-V3.docx


Total Expenditure 13.6 INR Crores

Base Year (1st Year) 2009-10

Payback Period 2.808 Years

Payback Year 2011-12



No. of Feeders 8








No. of Feeders 58








No. of Feeders 16








No. of Feeders 71







CONFIDENTIAL

v MCB/ISA/A/0/0 10 April 2014 P:\Ahmedabad\AMC\PROJECTS\326672AA01\Documents\Report\GUVNL - KHUSHY - Final Report-V3.docx

Pay Back Period: All Dedicated Feeders


No. of Feeders 161






Pay Back Period: All Scattered Connections


No. of Feeders -






Pay Back Period: Overall (All Feeders)


No. of Feeders 161+Scattered






DGVCL

Year-Wise Sent Out and Units Billed


2006-07 14.23 6.80 7.43 52%

2007-08 5.42 3.58 1.84 34%

2008-09 11.48 6.28 5.20 45%

2009-10 14.33 7.39 6.94 48%

2010-11 19.40 10.81 8.59 44%

2011-12 24.68 15.53 9.15 37%

2012-13 21.54 16.46 5.07 24%


CONFIDENTIAL

vi MCB/ISA/A/0/0 10 April 2014 P:\Ahmedabad\AMC\PROJECTS\326672AA01\Documents\Report\GUVNL - KHUSHY - Final Report-V3.docx

Year Wise % Theoretical Loss

Discom 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

DGVCL

Theoretical Loss (%)

14 88 74 70 63 61 61


DISCOM 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

DGVCL 39% 12% 31% 20% 20% 17% 6%

Pay Back Period: Dedicated Feeders

Particulars Units

No. of Feeders 6






Pay Back Period: Scattered Feeders

Particulars Units

No. of Feeders -







Particulars Units

No. of Feeders -







CONFIDENTIAL

vii MCB/ISA/A/0/0 10 April 2014 P:\Ahmedabad\AMC\PROJECTS\326672AA01\Documents\Report\GUVNL - KHUSHY - Final Report-V3.docx

UGVCL

Year-Wise Sent Out and Units Billed (Dedicated Feeders)


2006-07 14.32 12.94 1.38 10%

2007-08 17.88 14.2 3.68 21%

2008-09 18.42 16.28 2.14 12%

2009-10 23.51 19.43 4.08 17%

2010-11 20.75 20.05 0.7 3%

2011-12 21.67 19.66 2.01 9%

2012-13 24.98 20.71 4.27 17%


Discom 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

UGVCL


55% 54% 24% 31% 53% 35% 31%


DISCOM 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

UGVCL 14% 16% 9% 5% 5% 7% 4%


Particulars Units

No. of Feeders 7







Particulars Units

No. of Feeders -







CONFIDENTIAL

viii



Particulars Units

No. of Feeders -






MGVCL

Year-Wise Sent Out and Units Billed (Dedicated Feeders)


2006-07 11.4 9.0 2.4 21%

2007-08 12.9 9.7 3.3 25%

2008-09 13.6 10.8 2.8 21%

2009-10 14.0 11.7 2.3 16%

2010-11 10.9 9.3 1.6 15%

2011-12 13.1 11.4 1.7 13%

2012-13 14.3 11.9 2.3 16%


Discom 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

MGVCL


- 84% 41% 55% 79% 69% 66%


DISCOM 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

MGVCL - 4% 3% 4% 4% 4% 2%


Particulars Units

No. of Feeders 3







CONFIDENTIAL

ix MCB/ISA/A/0/0 10 April 2014 P:\Ahmedabad\AMC\PROJECTS\326672AA01\Documents\Report\GUVNL - KHUSHY - Final Report-V3.docx


Particulars Units

No. of Feeders -







Particulars Units

No. of Feeders -





Payback Year -


CONFIDENTIAL

MCB/ISA/A/0/0 10 April 2014 P:\Ahmedabad\AMC\PROJECTS\326672AA01\Documents\Report\GUVNL - KHUSHY - Final Report-V3.docx MCB/ISA/A/0/0 10 April 2014 P:\Ahmedabad\AMC\PROJECTS\326672AA01\Documents\Report\GUVNL - KHUSHY - Final Report-V3.docx

1

1.1 Mott MacDonald Group

Mott MacDonald is a U.K. based uniquely diverse £1 billion global consultancy, delivering leading-edge

solutions for public and private sector clients across 12 core business areas. As one of the world’s largest

employee-owned companies with more than 14,000 staff, the company has principal offices in nearly

50 countries and projects in 140.

Our breadth of skills, sectors, services and global reach makes us uniquely placed to bring our customers:

� Holistic, innovative thinking

� Global experience with local insight

� World-expert practitioners

� Multi-sector perspective

1.1.1 What we do

We work with our customers and use our worldwide resources and experience to:

� Plan, design, procure and deliver projects on any scale

� Provide management consultancy built on technical know-how

� Help shape and implement development policies and programmes

� Advance sustainability and promote the wellbeing of the planet

1.1.1.1 Our service to customers

By staying closely attuned to our customers’ needs and aspirations, we seek to keep ahead of the game,

proactively identifying new service requirements and gearing up to meet them. We understand what our

customer’s need, what’s required to satisfy those needs and we get on with it – adding real value in the

process by saving them as much money and time as possible without ever compromising on quality. We

take pride in every commission, no matter the size.

1.1.1.2 Sustainable solutions

We are committed to working in partnership with our customers and supply chains to incorporate

sustainable solutions into our projects. We are experts in sustainable design, construction and

management, seeking to include sustainability as a driver at the most critical conceptual, planning and

feasibility stages of all our projects – addressing the whole-life costs and impacts from a truly

multidisciplinary viewpoint.

We are also acting to reduce our own impact and have committed to an active programme to make

significant year on year reductions in our per capita carbon emissions.

1 Introduction


CONFIDENTIAL


2

1.1.1.3 Innovation

We pride ourselves in finding ways to solve existing challenges and tackle new ones. The value of our

innovation can be measured by the prestigious awards our people and projects win – over 200 in the last

three years.

1.1.1.4 Our people

Our principal differentiator is the quality of our staff. Our success is fuelled by their dedication, enthusiasm

and ingenuity. Many of our engineers, environmentalists, planners, economists, cost consultants; project

managers, safety experts, IT specialists, educationalists, healthcare advisors and management

consultants are recognised as innovators or world authorities in their fields. Understanding that to work

with the best we must be the best, we promote professional excellence and knowledge management,

which is why continuous learning and skills improvement are ingrained in our company culture.

1.1.1.5 Community spirit

As a multinational company with a global reach, we recognise our obligation to make a positive

contribution to communities in which we work. At a corporate level we engage and support local

communities sponsoring a number of charity projects each year. We also encourage and support our staffs

who invest enormous time and energy in a range of charitable, educational, disaster relief and

development work around the world.

1.1.1.6 Global presence

With major offices and centres of excellence across the globe, we bring our skills and resources directly to

our customers, wherever they or their projects are based. Each office has in-depth knowledge and

understanding of local conditions and practices, backed by our worldwide resources – enabling us to offer

services around the clock, around the world.

1.1.2 Mott MacDonald India

Mott MacDonald in India (hereinafter referred to as MM) has over 1600 staff engaged in planning,

developing and delivering projects across many sectors – from energy, industry, water and environment to

transport, buildings, urban infrastructure and social development. We are making our mark in many areas

of business and industry, serving not only the burgeoning domestic demand but also a wider customer

base in core markets such as industry, infrastructure and health.

1.1.2.1 Our Sectors

MM activities are focussed primarily on the growing need for physical and social infrastructure and the

creation of wealth and employment through manufacturing and the more efficient development of its

resources. These are extraordinarily diverse, ranging across:


CONFIDENTIAL


3

� Buildings

� Communications

� Energy

� Industry and industrial development

� Social development including health and

education

� Transportation infrastructure

� Urban development

� Water and environment

In all these markets, we address business and developmental issues as well as engineering. We aim to

serve the broader needs of our clients to create successful and sustainable projects. We bring to the

market an almost unique combination of management and engineering capability, both local and

worldwide, delivered in India with the maximum use of Indian and international resources.

Our Indian business has exceptional expertise in the industry sector, especially in chemicals,

pharmaceuticals and textiles where we lead the field in business case planning, business

conceptualisation, strategy, financial and demand modelling, basic and detailed engineering, project

management, procurement and validation services for some of the world’s largest chemical and

pharmaceutical manufacturers.

We are also one of the leading transportation and urban infrastructure service providers in India. Our

services in metros are well recognised and we are proud to be associated with Delhi Metro. We are

providing design work on almost 40% of the transport system all over Delhi including a 22km stretch from

the heart of Delhi to the city’s South-east border.

Our Indian experts are also enhancing project delivery for projects globally in key areas such as oil and

gas, water, power, pharmaceuticals, roads and highways, airports and buildings, health and education.

1.2 Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (GUVNL)

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (GUVNL) is engaged in the business of bulk purchase and sale of

electricity, Supervision, Co-ordination and facilitation of the activities of its six Subsidiary Companies

including

� GSECL - Engaged in the business of Generation of Electricity.

� GETCO - Engaged in the business of Transmission of Electricity.

� UGVCL - Engaged in the business of Distribution of Electricity in the Northern area of Gujarat.

� DGVCL - Engaged in the business of Distribution of Electricity in the Southern area of Gujarat.

� MGVCL - Engaged in the business of Distribution of Electricity in the Central area of Gujarat.

� PGVCL - Engaged in the business of Distribution of Electricity in the Western area of Gujarat.

One of the basic functions of the Company includes Co-ordination of the activities of its subsidiaries,

business, works to determine their economic and financial objectives/targets and to review, control, guide


CONFIDENTIAL


4

and direct their performance with a view to secure optimum utilization of all resources placed at their

disposal.

1.3 The Project

The Government of Gujarat - through Kisan Hit Urja Shakti Yojana (KHUSHY) scheme - has been

implementing High Voltage Distribution System (HVDS) in place of Low Voltage Distribution System

(LVDS) on identified agricultural feeders. In HVDS, the 11 kV lines are extended nearer to the loads as

much as possible and small size Distribution transformers (e.g. 10, 16 & 25 kVA) are erected and service

connection is released to the consumer through a short LT lines preferably through insulated overhead

cables known as Aerial Bunched Cable (ABC)/PVC Cable. HVDS entails benefits both to DISCOM and

consumer.

Till date, all four DISCOMs (viz. PGVCL, UGVCL, MGVCL and DGVCL) put together have invested around

Rs. 550 Crore under this scheme. The utilities and approximately 65,000 No. of Agricultural consumers are

expected to accrue benefits against this capital expenditure. In this context, GUVNL has engaged the

service of Mott MacDonald Private Limited to conduct a cost benefit analysis (CBA) and agricultural

consumer survey to assess tangible and intangible benefits of KHUSHY scheme.

1.4 Scope of Work

1. Collect circle-wise actual annual costs incurred for conversion of LVDS to HVDS in identified Areas /

feeders across all four DISCOMs of Gujarat:

a. Aggregate capital expenditure covering new equipment / material (e.g. distribution transformer,

conductor, cross arm etc.) and installation & commissioning;

b. Repair and maintenance costs for LVDS and HVDS (e.g. repairing of DTR in case of failure);

c. Interest costs (including interest during construction) on loans (if any)

d. Any other significant costs incurred by utilities which has impact on cost benefit analysis

2. Estimate tangible (quantitative) benefits accrued to DISCOMs due to conversion of LVDS to HVDS.

Consultant will estimate following benefits in monetary terms (to the extent possible and taking

reasonable assumptions, wherever needed):

a. Reduction in AT&C losses

b. Reduction in distribution transformer failure rate

c. Comparison of System interruptions

d. Comparison of Technical Losses (Theoretical Losses)

e. Comparison of per HP sent out units

f. Comparison of Average Ampere Loading on feeders

g. Reduction in greenhouse gas emission due to reduction in AT&C losses.


CONFIDENTIAL


5

3. Identify and list down intangible (qualitative) benefits to utilities and consumers due to conversion of

LVDS to HVDS.

4. Conduct a consumer perception survey of agriculture consumers {for a specific sample size

approximately 5% of total benefited consumers (approximately 65,000 No.) to assess the benefits to the

consumer due to implementation of KHUSHY (HVDS) scheme.

5. Develop a MS Excel based model for assessing total costs; total benefits and overall cost benefit

analysis. (to be submitted to GUVNL with all the calculation formulas)

6. Prepare a report covering cost benefit analysis and outcome of the consumer survey.

7. Verification of data and information provided by GUVNL, DISCOMs and other organization (if any) for

ascertaining its correctness and accuracy.

8. Representing GUVNL before the Govt. of Gujarat or its agencies, Gujarat electricity Regulatory

Commission, any statutory or regulatory body or any public forum for sharing of the results of this study.


CONFIDENTIAL


6

Part A: Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited (PGVCL)


CONFIDENTIAL


7

2.1 Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited

PGVCL was incorporated on

15th September, 2003 with

certificate of business w.e.f.

15th October, 2003.

Commercial operation of

company started on 1st April

2005. PGVCL is feeding

electricity in 8 districts of

Gujarat namely Rajkot,

Jamnagar, Junagadh,

Porbandar, Bhuj, Bhavnagar,

Surendranagar and Amreli

covering total 83 Talukas. For

better administration and

consumers' conveniences, administrative area of company is divided into 11 circles out of which 6 circles

are under direct control of Corporate Office, 4 circles are under the control of Bhavnagar Zonal Office and

1 circle under the control of Bhuj Zonal Office. PGVCL caters to almost 48,61,565 customers. The areas

covered by UGVCL are as depicted in the figure. The basic details of PGVCL are as illustrated in the table:

Particulars Details

Total Area Covered By Company 99,771 Sq. Kms.

Districts Covered 8

Talukas Covered 83

Villages Covered 5905

Total Consumers of Company 4861565 (As on 30.06.13)

Circles 11

Divisions 44

Sub Divisions 226

Source: PGVCL Website

2 Profile of PGVCL


CONFIDENTIAL


8

High Voltage Distribution System including KHUSHY (Kisan Hit Urja Shakti Yojana) is a scheme with an

objective of eliminating Line losses by installing smaller size of distribution transformers matching with the

load demand of individual consumer or very small group of consumers. The scheme has been largely

implemented in the Agriculture Sector since its roll out in the year 2008-09. The scheme had been aimed in

improving Voltage Profile as well as reduction in Technical loss and associated Commercial Loss. The

scheme had been designed to benefit both the agricultural customers as a result of uninterrupted power

with consistent voltage as well as the distribution companies in the long rum due to drastic decrease in

transmission and distribution losses.



this scheme into HVDS. PGVCL has benefitted immensely under this scheme wherein 161 feeders have

been converted into HVDS. All agricultural customers under these feeders have been allotted dedicated

transformers for their connections.

The details of feeders in PGVCL which have been converted into HVDS and the number of transformers

installed are as given in the table:

3 Implementation of Kisan Hit Urja Shakti Yojana (KHUSHY) – PGVCL

CO

NF

IDE

NT

IAL

Fin

al R

eport

Co

st B

en

efit A

na

lysis

of K

isan

Hit U

rja S

ha

kti Y

oja

na

(KH

US

H

9

MC

B/IS

A/A

/0/0

10 A

pril 2

014

P:\A

hm

edabad\A

MC

\PR

OJE

CT

S\3

26672A

A01\D

ocum

ents

\Report\G

UV

NL - K

HU

SH

Y - F

inal R

eport-V

3.d

ocx

Table 3.1: PGVCL Feeder Details

Circle Division Sub-Division Feeder 10 KVA 16 KVA 25 KVA 63 KVA 100 KVA Total

Project Cost

(Lakhs) Year of

Completion

Amreli Una Una-2 Amodra 212 19 0 0 0 231 220 2012-13

Amreli Una Kodinar-2 Anandpur Amr 331 13 2 0 0 346 335 2012-13

Amreli Una Kodinar-1 Balnath 187 38 9 0 0 234 281 2011-12

Amreli Una Kodinar-2 Batheshvar # 2010-11

Amreli Una Kodinar-2 Bhavani 404 10 0 0 0 414 524 2010-11

Amreli Amreli-2 Vadia Dhundhiya Pipaliya 116 41 21 3 0 181 235 2009-10

Amreli Una Kodinar-2 Fafani 233 5 4 0 0 242 296 2010-11

Amreli SKD Jafrabad Fichadi 340 7 0 0 0 347 250 2012-13

Amreli Una Kodinar-2 Gaytri 244 37 3 0 0 284 415 2010-11

Amreli Una Kodinar Gir Devali 360 16 2 0 0 378 436 2009-10

Amreli Amreli-1 Amreli Rural Giriya 74 21 10 1 0 106 144 2012-13

Amreli SKD Rajula Hindorana 172 4 0 0 0 176 250 2010-11

Amreli Una Kodinar-2 Khodiyar # 2011-12

Amreli Amreli-2 Dhari-2 Marvadi 49 54 13 0 0 116 108 2012-13

Amreli Amreli-2 Chalala Morzar 108 21 12 2 0 143 126 2012-13

Amreli Una Kodinar-2 Pichhava Ag 114 3 0 0 0 117 136 2009-10

Amreli Una Kodinar-2 Satyanarayan # 2010-11

Amreli Amreli-1 Babra Valaradi 107 40 15 0 0 162 175 2012-13

Amreli Amreli-2 Kunkavav Vavdi Road 251 48 21 3 0 323 370 2010-11

Bhavnagar Bhavnagar Rural Vartej Bcw 121 53 21 0 0 195 240 2012-13

Bhavnagar Mahuva Jesar Bhandariya 112 14 6 0 0 132 113 2010-11

Bhavnagar Palitana Talaja Borda Ag 111 27 3 0 0 141 113 2009-10

Bhavnagar Mahuva Mahuva R-2 Datha 151 6 2 0 0 159 179 2012-13

Bhavnagar Bhavnagar City-2 Ghogha Hathab 174 14 1 0 0 189 150 2012-13

Bhavnagar Mahuva Jesar Hipavadli 34 33 11 0 0 78 81 2012-13

Bhavnagar Bhavnagar City-2 Mamsa Jaspara 279 30 13 0 0 322 348 2010-11

Bhavnagar Bhavnagar Rural Vartej Khodiyar 4 118 29 2 0 153 164 2008-09

Bhavnagar Bhavnagar Rural Vartej Khokhara 310 46 11 0 0 367 399 2009-10

CO

NF

IDE

NT

IAL

Fin

al R

eport

Co

st B

en

efit A

na

lysis

of K

isan

Hit U

rja S

ha

kti Y

oja

na

(KH

US

H

10

MC

B/IS

A/A

/0/0

10 A

pril 2

014

P:\A

hm

edabad\A

MC

\PR

OJE

CT

S\3

26672A

A01\D

ocum

ents

\Report\G

UV

NL - K

HU

SH

Y - F

inal R

eport-V

3.d

ocx


Project Cost

(Lakhs) Year of

Completion

Bhavnagar Mahuva Mahuva R-2 Kotda 116 18 13 0 0 147 154 2010-11

Bhavnagar Palitana Golidhal Navagam 36 3 0 0 0 39 50 2012-13

Bhavnagar Palitana Talaja Padri 196 7 0 0 0 203 150 2012-13

Bhavnagar Bhavnagar Rural Sanosara Pipardi Ag 86 36 20 0 0 142 163 2012-13

Bhavnagar Mahuva Jesar Vadal 76 33 2 0 0 111 161 2011-12

Bhavnagar Bhavnagar Rural Sanosara Vavadi 151 34 23 0 0 208 220 2010-11

Bhuj Naliya Kothara Arjanpar Ag 7 11 21 21 0 60 86 2012-13

Bhuj Anjar Anjar Rural-1 Bhalot Ag 27 10 24 0 0 61 74 2011-12

Bhuj Anjar Anjar Rural Bhavanipar 33 20 26 22 2 103 100 2010-11

Bhuj Anjar Anjar T Dabda 0 1 18 22 0 41 67 2012-13

Bhuj Naliya Nakhtrana Devisar 25 45 23 5 0 98 133 2010-11

Bhuj Mandvi Mundra Gelda 0 5 33 41 11 90 82 2011-12

Bhuj Anjar Bhimasar Hamirpar 132 95 23 5 0 255 318 2012-13

Bhuj Anjar Bhachau Kharoi 9 2 10 50 9 80 26 2010-11

Bhuj Bhachau Rapar Khengarpar 30 38 26 3 0 97 124 2012-13

Bhuj Bhuj Deshalpar Khirsara Ag 1 5 31 7 0 44 56 2012-13

Bhuj Naliya Nakhtrana Mathal Ag 0 0 1 20 0 21 40 2012-13

Bhuj Mandvi Dahisara Meghpar 1 13 47 12 0 73 98 2012-13

Bhuj Mandvi Mundra Navinal 37 16 61 9 0 123 120 2010-11

Bhuj Bhuj Madhapara Vavdi 3 8 3 0 0 14 19 2012-13

Botad Botad Paliyad Babarkot 94 35 20 0 0 149 187 2009-10

Botad Botad Botad (T-2) Dhakaniya 87 23 3 1 0 114 125 2011-12

Botad Botad Barvala Mithapur Ag 13 126 12 0 0 151 149 2008-09

Botad Gadhada Dhasa Patana 17 266 44 8 1 336 545 2008-09

Botad Gadhada Gadhda-R Pipal 95 20 7 0 0 122 126 2012-13

Botad Botad Botad (R) Ratanvav 11 3 7 0 0 21 23 2012-13

Botad Gadhada DHASA Sitapar 67 22 6 0 0 95 88 2012-13

Botad Botad Botad Zamrala Ag 15 10 5 1 0 31 23 2012-13

Jamnagar Jamnagar City-1 Hapa Aliyabada (New) 18 229 18 1 0 266 231 2008-09

Jamnagar Jamnagar Rural Kalavad West Bamangam 237 32 7 0 0 276 289 2010-11

CO

NF

IDE

NT

IAL

Fin

al R

eport

Co

st B

en

efit A

na

lysis

of K

isan

Hit U

rja S

ha

kti Y

oja

na

(KH

US

H

11

MC

B/IS

A/A

/0/0

10 A

pril 2

014

P:\A

hm

edabad\A

MC

\PR

OJE

CT

S\3

26672A

A01\D

ocum

ents

\Report\G

UV

NL - K

HU

SH

Y - F

inal R

eport-V

3.d

ocx


Project Cost

(Lakhs) Year of

Completion

Jamnagar Jamnagar City-2 Rural Dhandha Ag 174 20 2 0 0 196 237 2012-13

Jamnagar Jamjhodpur Bhanavad Gunda 148 21 1 0 0 170 428 2010-11

Jamnagar Khamabhalia Khamabhalia-R Hapa Lakhasar 101 12 0 8 3 124 298 2010-11

Jamnagar Jamjhodpur Lalpur Haripar 126 15 10 2 0 153 194 2012-13

Jamnagar Khamabhalia Vadatra SD Juvangadh 267 9 0 0 0 276 344 2012-13

Jamnagar Jamjhodpur Jamjhodpur West Mota Vadiya 38 27 12 20 4 101 303 2010-11

Jamnagar Jamnagar City-2 Sikka Padana 150 10 0 0 0 160 186 2012-13

Jamnagar Jamnagar Rural Dhrol SD Rampar 409 24 0 0 0 433 648 2012-13

Jamnagar Jamnagar Rural Kalavad East Sanala 232 48 11 0 0 291 184 2010-11

Jamnagar Jamjhodpur Jamjhodpur East Sidsar 84 78 4 1 16 183 207 2010-11

Jamnagar Jamnagar City-2 Hapa Theba Ag. 158 11 5 0 0 174 203 2012-13

Junagadh Veraval Akolvadi Amblash 92 65 0 0 0 157 513 2010-11

Junagadh Junagadh-2 Vanthali Balot (Naredi) 196 25 2 0 0 223 279 2011-12

Junagadh Veraval Talala Bhalchel 142 2 1 0 0 145 168 2012-13

Junagadh Junagadh-1 Bhesan Bhatgam 136 19 10 0 0 165 147 2012-13

Junagadh Veraval P. Patan Dari Navapara 203 51 1 0 0 255 314 2010-11

Junagadh Veraval Pranchi Gorakhmadhi 215 45 0 0 0 260 426 2010-11

Junagadh Veraval P. Patan Govindpara (Old Talala)

83 101 1 0 0 185 280 2010-11

Junagadh Veraval P. Patan Harnasha 240 26 1 0 0 267 282 2012-13

Junagadh Veraval P. Patan Khodiyar Jnd 81 66 6 0 0 153 186 2010-11

Junagadh Veraval Akolvadi Kodidra 212 11 0 0 0 223 408 2010-11

Junagadh Junagadh-1 VSR-2 Leriya Ag 180 35 3 0 0 218 198 2012-13

Junagadh Veraval Pranchi Moradia 93 134 0 0 0 227 369 2010-11

Junagadh Veraval Talala Pipalava 249 147 5 0 0 401 504 2010-11

Junagadh Veraval Akolvadi Raydi (Rampara) 0 141 0 0 0 141 192 2010-11

Junagadh Junagadh City GIDC Junagadh Sonrakh 10 0 0 1 0 11 11 2012-13

Junagadh Veraval Pranchi Sunderpara 297 3 0 0 0 300 386 2010-11

Junagadh Junagadh-1 Bilkha Swami 234 20 3 0 0 257 265 2012-13

Morbi Halvad Sara Ambardi 2 16 35 7 0 60 81 2012-13

CO

NF

IDE

NT

IAL

Fin

al R

eport

Co

st B

en

efit A

na

lysis

of K

isan

Hit U

rja S

ha

kti Y

oja

na

(KH

US

H

12

MC

B/IS

A/A

/0/0

10 A

pril 2

014

P:\A

hm

edabad\A

MC

\PR

OJE

CT

S\3

26672A

A01\D

ocum

ents

\Report\G

UV

NL - K

HU

SH

Y - F

inal R

eport-V

3.d

ocx


Project Cost

(Lakhs) Year of

Completion

Morbi Morbi Tankara Ambavadi 15 61 34 0 0 110 125 2012-13

Morbi Morbi Morbi Rural Balwam 0 0 29 8 37 74 60 2012-13

Morbi Halvad Charadva Chupani 0 16 66 44 20 146 85 2010-11

Morbi Halvad Halvad Town Dhavana 1 0 11 19 0 31 62 2012-13

Morbi Morbi Tankara Hadmatia Ag 119 44 15 1 0 179 171 2012-13

Morbi Wankaner Wankaner Rural-1 Holmadh 136 14 0 0 0 150 160 2012-13

Morbi Halvad Sara Jay Bhavani 3 6 25 27 5 66 57 2010-11

Morbi Halvad Sara Jay Bhole 28 44 13 1 0 86 77 2012-13

Morbi Halvad Halvad Town Kansari 3 8 16 14 0 41 62 2012-13

Morbi Halvad Halvad Town Merupar 0 2 8 7 0 17 39 2012-13

Morbi Halvad Charadva Om 4 6 21 4 0 35 31 2012-13

Morbi Halvad Sara Pavan 7 15 34 26 8 90 22 2010-11

Morbi Halvad Sara Ranipat 24 18 18 1 0 61 74 2012-13

Morbi Wankaner Wankaner Rural-2 Ratadia 39 8 2 0 0 49 49 2012-13

Morbi Wankaner Wankaner Rural-2 Samtherava 89 45 21 0 0 155 268 2010-11

Morbi Halvad Halvad Town Shivlaheri 1 3 28 8 0 40 66 2012-13

Morbi Halvad Sara Sundari 5 47 41 8 0 101 116 2012-13

Morbi Halvad Charadva Sundergadh 7 38 62 19 1 127 129 2010-11

Porbandar Keshod-2 Keshod-O&M-1 Amarnath 137 161 4 0 0 302 353 2010-11

Porbandar Porbandar Rural Ranavav Boradi 162 23 0 0 0 185 140 2012-13

Porbandar Keshod-2 Mangrol(R) Chakivav 275 56 0 0 0 331 390 2010-11

Porbandar Porbandar Rural Bagvadar Chamunda 147 2 0 0 0 149 185 2012-13

Porbandar Keshod-O&M-2 Chorwad Devgam 42 165 0 0 0 207 232 2010-11

Porbandar Mangrol Madhavpur Diwasa 69 4 0 0 0 73 93 2011-12

Porbandar Kutiyana RURAL Khodiyar Pbr 93 45 5 0 0 143 147 2012-13

Porbandar Porbandar Rural Bagvadar Mariya 113 3 0 0 0 116 147 2012-13

Porbandar Keshod-1 Rural-1 Nonjalvav 165 35 5 2 0 207 243 2012-13

Porbandar Keshod-2 Keshod-O&M-1 Nunarda 69 93 0 0 0 162 205 2010-11

Porbandar Keshod-2 Mangrol(R) Satmarg 64 111 0 0 0 175 220 2010-11

Porbandar Keshod-2 Mangrol(R) Shepa 278 175 0 0 0 453 543 2010-11

CO

NF

IDE

NT

IAL

Fin

al R

eport

Co

st B

en

efit A

na

lysis

of K

isan

Hit U

rja S

ha

kti Y

oja

na

(KH

US

H

13

MC

B/IS

A/A

/0/0

10 A

pril 2

014

P:\A

hm

edabad\A

MC

\PR

OJE

CT

S\3

26672A

A01\D

ocum

ents

\Report\G

UV

NL - K

HU

SH

Y - F

inal R

eport-V

3.d

ocx


Project Cost

(Lakhs) Year of

Completion

Porbandar Keshod-1 Keshod-O&M-1 Shergadh 265 54 3 0 0 322 356 2011-12

Porbandar Keshod-O&M-2 Mangrol(T) Water Works 178 61 1 0 0 240 293 2010-11

Rajkot City Rajkot City-3 Rajkot Rural Sub-Div

Nakarawadi 202 13 3 0 0 218 138 2012-13

Rajkot City Rajkot City-3 Madhapar Sub-Div Rangpar 200 19 1 0 0 220 255 2012-13

Rajkot Rural Dhoraji Dhoraji (R) Bateshwar 258 24 5 0 0 287 303 2012-13

Rajkot Rural Gondal Kotda Bhadva 165 28 2 0 0 195 237 2010-11

Rajkot Rural Dhoraji Jetpur (R) Dedarva 85 49 18 2 0 154 166 2012-13

Rajkot Rural Gondal Lodhika Devda 420 6 1 0 0 427 519 2010-11

Rajkot Rural Gondal Vasavad Devgam Rrc 197 14 2 0 0 213 258 2010-11

Rajkot Rural Jasdan Sardhar Gadhka 207 57 0 0 0 264 311 2010-11

Rajkot Rural Jasdan Jasdan Godladhar 121 6 1 0 0 128 124 2012-13

Rajkot Rural Dhoraji Jetpur (R) Haripar Rrc 43 20 0 0 0 63 85 2010-11

Rajkot Rural Dhoraji Jamkandorana Kobeshwar 140 36 5 0 0 181 273 2010-11

Rajkot Rural Jasdan Jasdan Lilapur 124 4 0 0 0 128 153 2010-11

Rajkot Rural Dhoraji Navagadh Lunagara 313 13 2 0 0 328 389 2011-12

Rajkot Rural Rajkot Rural Div LODHIKA Makhavad 169 3 0 0 0 172 197 2012-13

Rajkot Rural Gondal Rural-2 Mevasha 151 16 5 0 0 172 175 2012-13

Rajkot Rural Rajkot Rural Div Paddhari Mota Rampar 268 7 4 0 0 279 327 2012-13

Rajkot Rural Rajkot City-3 Mpsd Rajdan 238 27 7 0 0 272 360 2011-12

Rajkot Rural Rajkot City-3 RSD Ranpur 134 13 4 0 0 151 214 2012-13

Rajkot Rural Jasdan Vinchhiya Sanali 232 19 0 0 1 252 357 2010-11

Rajkot Rural Rajkot City-3 RSD Sanosara 166 2 0 0 0 168 218 2010-11

Rajkot Rural Rajkot Rural Div Paddhari Thoriyali 323 25 0 0 1 349 464 2010-11

Surendranagar Dhangadhra Dhangadhra Rural Akalvad 3 27 15 3 0 48 36 2012-13

Surendranagar Surendranagar-2 Than Anandpur 64 89 10 1 0 164 179 2010-11

Surendranagar Surendranagar-2 Muli Bali 1 17 37 7 0 62 45 2010-11

Surendranagar Surendranagar-1 Chuda Borana 0 200 2 0 0 202 111 2008-09

Surendranagar Surendranagar-2 Than Dada # 2011-12

Surendranagar Surendranagar-2 Sayla Devgadh # 2011-12

CO

NF

IDE

NT

IAL

Fin

al R

eport

Co

st B

en

efit A

na

lysis

of K

isan

Hit U

rja S

ha

kti Y

oja

na

(KH

US

H

14

MC

B/IS

A/A

/0/0

10 A

pril 2

014

P:\A

hm

edabad\A

MC

\PR

OJE

CT

S\3

26672A

A01\D

ocum

ents

\Report\G

UV

NL - K

HU

SH

Y - F

inal R

eport-V

3.d

ocx


Project Cost

(Lakhs) Year of

Completion

Surendranagar Surendranagar-2 Sayla Fulgram 0 302 5 0 0 307 160 2008-09

Surendranagar Surendranagar-2 Than Gebinath 40 20 4 0 0 64 57 2012-13

Surendranagar Dhangadhra Bavli Jayshakti 17 11 20 5 0 53 68 2009-10

Surendranagar Surendranagar-1 Chuda Keriya 69 2 1 0 0 72 72 2012-13

Surendranagar Surendranagar-2 Than Khakharathal 32 64 10 0 0 106 138 2011-12

Surendranagar Surendranagar-2 Muli Khatdi 41 65 39 10 0 155 114 2010-11

Surendranagar Dhangadhra Rajsitapur Meghdev 0 11 9 5 0 25 33 2011-12

Surendranagar Surendranagar-2 Sayla Nagadka 70 9 2 0 0 81 83 2012-13

Surendranagar Dhangadhra Bavli Narichana 1 23 23 7 0 54 50 2012-13

Surendranagar Surendranagar-1 LSDR Navi Morvad # 2008-09

Surendranagar Surendranagar-2 Sayla Noli 129 61 10 0 2 202 219 2010-11

Surendranagar Surendranagar-2 SRSD Pandavra 54 40 15 12 0 121 140 2011-12

Surendranagar Surendranagar-2 Muli Ramperda 4 6 20 6 0 36 23 2010-11

Surendranagar Surendranagar-1 LSDR Sardar # 2008-09

Surendranagar Dhangadhra Bavli Siddhanath 4 2 27 24 1 58 81 2009-10

Total 17993 5779 1627 549 122 26070 30687.56

# Data Included in Parent Feeder


CONFIDENTIAL


15

The primary beneficiaries of Kisan Hit Urja Shakti Yojana (KHUSHY) are the agricultural consumers and

the individual distribution companies. While the agricultural consumers were expected to benefit with

quality voltage, freedom from frequent interruptions, timely supply or power, reduction of maintenance

costs, the distribution companies were expected to benefit from drastically reduced transmission and

distribution losses. To understand the actual benefits accrued by the agricultural consumers and in line

with the terms of reference a consumer perception study of agricultural consumers was conducted. The

approach and methodology adopted for the study is as given below

4.1 Approach and Methodology

The consultants have adopted a scientific methodology for the current study which was finalized in

consultation with GUVNL. The basic approach was primarily to design a sample which would represent all

the distribution companies adequately and to extract information from the consumers on several

parameters which can give a holistic understanding of the impact of the scheme.

4.1.1 Sample Design

As per the terms of reference the consumer perception survey had to be done for a sample size of 5% of

the total benefitted consumers which stand at around 65000 Nos. to assess the benefits to the consumer

due to implementation of KHUSHY (HVDS) scheme. Hence the sample size for the survey had to be

around 3250 Nos. The survey has been conducted for 3265 HVDS customers. The distribution of the

sample among the distribution companies and further at circle and feeder level has been done on the basis

of the actual conversion of feeders under KHUSHY (HVDS).

The details of sample design for PGVCL is as under

Table 4.1: Details of conversion of feeders under KHUSHY


PGVCL 10 17 24 29 2865

Source: Information submitted by DISCOMs

The sample distribution for the consumer perception study PGVCL is as given in the table below

Table 4.2: Sample Distribution

Discom Circle Division Sub-Division Name of Feeder No. of Beneficiaries

PGVCL Bhavnagar

Bhavnagar City – 2 Ghogha Hathab 110

Bhavnagar Rural Vartej Khokhara 173

Vavdi Sanosar 79

Jamnagar Jamjhodpur Bhanvad Gunda 151

Jamjhodpur- East

Sidsar 95

4 Consumer Perception of Kisan Hit Urja Shakti Yojana (KHUSHY) – PGVCL


CONFIDENTIAL


16


Junagadh JND - 1 Bhesan Bhatgam 106

Bilkha Swami 180

Kutch Anjar Anjar - R1 Bhalot 71

Bachau Rapar Khengarpar 78

Bhuj Madhapar Vavdi 33

Morbi Halvad Sara Ambavadi 118

Morbi Tankara Hadmatiya 119

Porbandar Porbandar – R Ranavav Bordi 110

Kutiyana Khodiyar 147

RRC RRD Paddhari Mota Rampar 139

Gondal Lodhika Devda 72

Lodhika Devda/Und 60

Jetpur Dedarava Dedarava 38

Lunagara Kerali 32

Dedarava Rupavati 50

Dedarava Arab Timbdi 55

Kobeshwar AG Dadvi 11

Kobeshwar AG Kanavadala 34

Surendranagar SNR1 Chuda Borana 113

LSDR Navi Morvad 109

Amreli Amreli-2 Kukavav Vavdi Road 189

Talali AG 136

Botad Botad Gadhada-R Pipal 88

Gadhada Dhasa Patana 37

Sitapar 132

Total PGVCL 2865

Source: IMM Field Survey

4.1.2 Questionnaire Design

The consultants have used a pre-designed questionnaire as a research tool for the consumer perception

study. The approach while designing the questionnaire was to extract information on several parameters

as to understand the overall impact on the agricultural consumers. The details which the questionnaire

fetched broadly included the following

� Location Details including district, taluka, Discom, circle, division, subdivision and feeder details.

� General Information including name of beneficiary, address, contact details, number of family

members, source of income, land area, cultivation area, ownership of land, year of connection, billing

type, contract demand, connected load, transformer rating etc.


CONFIDENTIAL


17

� Technical Details including voltage quality, line break or shutdown details, transformer failure,

incidence of hooking, crop output and yield, aricultural income etc, power usage details etc.

� Operational Details including average number of days loss per failure, motor maintenance, average

expense per failure, operating days of borewell, operating hours of borewell, number of crops cultivated

during year, income per acre, primary type of crop etc.

� Socio Economic Details including type of house, house hold assets, farm assets, number of cattle etc.

� Broad view and suggestion on the implementation of KHUSHY

The questionnaire includes 51 broad questions in total. A copy of the questionnaire has been appended

with the report.

4.2 Key Results of Consumer Perception Study - PGVCL

The consultants have surveyed a total of 2865 agricultural consumers across PGVCL. The key survey

results are as given below

4.2.1 General Information

The General Information including name of beneficiary, address, contact details, number of family

members, source of income, land area, cultivation area, ownership of land, year of connection, billing type,

contract demand, connected load, transformer rating etc. we gathered during the field survey. The analysis

of the same are given in subsequent sections.

4.2.1.1 Source of Income

Economic resources have a significant direct impact on family wellbeing, as family members depend on

each other to meet basic needs and attain a certain standard of living. Changes to economic

circumstances (such as reduced income or wealth, or increased expenditure needs) may prevent a family

from being able afford necessary or desirable items or services. It is coherent that in order to sustain the

family wellbeing (dependency of family members on the head of the family), The source of income needs

to be upheld.

From the below table 4.4 the relationship between the family wellbeing and the source of income can be

depicted. Out of the 2865 beneficiaries surveyed, 100% have their major source of income as Agriculture

with 72% of them having 4-7 dependent family members, 11% having 1-4 family members dependent,

13% having 7-10 family members dependent and 4% having >10 family members dependent on the

income & earnings of the head of the household.


CONFIDENTIAL


18

Figure 4.1: Number of Family Members Figure 4.2: Source of Income

Source: IMM Analysis Source: IMM Analysis

Table 4.3: Number of Family Members and Source of Income

No of Family Members No of Respondents Primary Source of Income No of Respondents

1-4 300 Agriculture 2865

4-7 2054

7-10 371

>10 122

Total 2865 Total 2865

Source: IMM Analysis

Continuing to achieve the economic prosperity it is equally important to have ownership of the assets &

basic amenities (such as land, house, utilities etc.) which are contributing in the family well-fare and at the

same time in maintaining the living standards.

Out of 2865 Beneficiaries surveyed, 96 % of them were having land of their own whereas only 6% of the

totals were using land on lease for cultivation of crops and carry out their agricultural activities. It was also

observed that 62% of them were having Metered connections whereas 38% of them were un-metered

connections.

11%

72%

13%

4%

1-3

4-7

7-10

>10

100%

0%

Agriculture

Others


CONFIDENTIAL


19

Figure 4.3: Ownership of Land Figure 4.4: Billing Type


Table 4.4: Ownership of Land and Billing Type

Ownership of Land Number of Respondents Billing Type Number of Respondents

Owned 2753 Metered 1777

Leased 112 Un-Metered 1088



To cater the power demand & supply needs of the state under the KHUSHY scheme across DISCOMs,

erection of new transformers and HVDS supply lines have taken place to enable the agricultural

consumers to receive benefits like assured quality supply of power with the aim to improve reliability.

In view of the same & as an effective outcome, Table 4.6 below , depicts that out of the 2865 beneficiaries

surveyed, 51% of were having contractual demand in the range of 1-5 KVA, 31% were having in the range

of 5-10 KVA and the remaining 18% were having in the range of > 10 KVA.

It was also found that almost 97% of the total 2865 beneficiaries were having distribution transformers

having ratings in the range of 10- 25 KVA, 3% of them were using transformers with ratings in the range of

25 – 65 KVA and only 0.3% were having transformers with ratings in the range of > 65 KVA.

96%

4%

Owned

Leased 62%

38%

Metered

Un-Metered


CONFIDENTIAL


20

Figure 4.5: Contract Demand Figure 4.6: Transformer Rating


Table 4.5: Contract Demand and Transformer Rating

Contract Demand Number of Respondents Transformer Rating Number of Respondents

1-5 KVA 1467 10 – 25 KVA 2782

5-10 KVA 898 25 – 65 KVA 74

>10 KVA 500 >65 KVA 9



4.2.2 Level of Agreement on Technical and Financial Aspects

The surveyed consumers were asked to give their level of agreement on specific statements related to

changes in the technical aspects after implementation of KHUSHY. Their levels of agreement on the

specific statements are as illustrated below.

4.2.2.1 Voltage Level / Quality and Stability

Complementary to price, quality is an important feature of the electricity service provided to consumers.

With Quality comes Stability which together defines the value that customers derive from consuming

electricity. To ensure that the Quality & Stability is delivered effectively to the consumers, it is essential to

maintain the voltage at different levels.

51%

31%

18%

1-5

5-10

>10

97.1%

3% 0.3%

10 - 25 KVA

25 - 65 KVA

>65 KVA


CONFIDENTIAL


21

The overall outcome of the survey states

that 90% consumers strongly agree with the

statement that the overall voltage level/

quality and stability has improved after the

implementation of the KHUSHY scheme.

Table 4.6: Voltage Level/Quality and Stability

Statement DISCOM

Stro

ng

ly

Ag

ree

Ag

ree

No

Ch

an

ge

Dis

ag

ree

Stro

ng

ly

Dis

ag

ree

To

tal

The overall voltage level/quality and stability after implementation of KHUSHY has improved.

PGVCL

90% 8% 2% 0% 0% 100%

2582 228 52 3 0 2865


4.2.2.2 Frequent Line break or Unscheduled Shutdown

The overall outcome of the survey states that 53% consumers strongly agree with the statement that the

frequent line break or unscheduled shutdowns has reduced after the implementation of the KHUSHY

scheme.

Figure 4.7: Voltage Level/Quality and Stability


90.1%

8%1.8%

0.1%

Strongly Agree Agree No Change Disagree


CONFIDENTIAL


22

Figure 4.8: Frequent Line break or Unscheduled Shutdown has reduced


Table 4.7: Frequent Line break or Unscheduled Shutdown

Statement DISCOM

Stro

ng

ly

Ag

ree

Ag

ree

No

C

ha

ng

e

Dis

ag

ree

Stro

ng

ly

Dis

ag

ree

To

tal

The frequent line break or unscheduled shutdown after implementation of KHUSHY Scheme has reduced

PGVCL 53% 39% 7% 1% 0% 100%

1509 1129 208 17 2 2865


4.2.2.3 Transformer Failure

There can be various reasons to a transformer failure, some of the reasons why a transformer fails

includes design failures, inadequate or defective installation, oil contamination, insulation deterioration,

short circuits, line faults, unknown failures, improper maintenance & operation, lightning, moisture, aging

etc. The risk of a transformer failure is actually two-dimensional: the frequency of failure, and the severity

of failure.

To overcome such issues DISCOMs have provided the consumers with Step-Down Transformers ranging

from ratings 10, 16 & 25 KVA with a service connection through short LT lines and insulated cables Ariel

bunched cables (ABC/ PVC). In continuation to the same all possible measures are taken care by the

respective DISCOMs to carry out its maintenance activities.

53%

39% 7%1%

0%

Strongly Agree Agree No Change

Disagree Strongly Disagree


CONFIDENTIAL


23

The overall outcome of the survey states that nearly 83% consumers strongly agree with the statement

that the transformer failure has reduced after the implementation of the KHUSHY scheme.

Table 4.8: Transformer Failure

Statement DISCOM

Stro

ng

ly

Ag

ree

Ag

ree

No

Ch

an

ge

Dis

ag

ree

Stro

ng

ly

Dis

ag

ree

To

tal

The transformer failure has reduced after the implementation of KHUSHY scheme.

PGVCL

83% 14% 3% 0% 0% 100%

2376 390 97 2 0 2865


4.2.2.4 Incidence of Hooking

Normally theft and pilferage accounts for a substantial part of the high transmission and distribution losses,

which are mainly committed by two categories of consumers i.e. non-consumers and bonafide consumers.

Antisocial elements avail unauthorized/unrecorded supply by hooking or tapping the bare conductors of

L.T. feeder or tampered service wires. Pilferage is also done wilfully by way of damaging and / or creating

disturbances to measuring equipment installed at their premises.

Figure 4.9: Transformer Failure has reduced after the implementation of KHUSHY Scheme


83.0%

14%

3% 0.0% 0%

Strongly Agree

Agree

No Change

Disagree

Strongly Disagree


CONFIDENTIAL


24

To stop or minimize such activities

DISCOMs under the implementation of

KHUSHY have provided the consumers

with insulated overhead cables known as

Arial Bunched Cables (ABC/PVC) and

other devices and equipment’s. Reducing the length of LT lines by

relocation and installations of additional

distribution transformers. The overall

outcome of the survey states that nearly

94% consumers strongly agree that the

incidence hooking has reduced after the


Table 4.9: Incidence of Hooking

Statement DISCOM

Stro

ng

ly

Ag

ree

Ag

ree

No

Ch

an

ge

Dis

ag

ree

Stro

ng

ly

Dis

ag

ree

To

tal

Incidence of Hooking has reduced after implementation of KHUSHY Scheme

PGVCL

93% 5% 2% 0 0 100%

2670 131 64 0 0 2865


4.2.2.5 Crop Output & Yield

As the primary objective of the project was to provide consumers with Power distribution related benefits,

whereas Crop output & yield are directly dependent on the monsoon & weather conditions for which the

electricity has no significant impact. The survey results show that 23% of the customers strongly agree

while other 20% agree that the crop output and yield has increased after the implementation of KHUSHY.

57% of the customers are of the opinion that there has been no change in the crop output and yield after

the implementation of KHUSHY.

Figure 4.10: Incidence of Hooking


93%

5% 2%Strongly Agree

Agree

No Change


CONFIDENTIAL


25

Figure 4.11: Crop Output & Yield has increased

Source: Insert source text here

Table 4.10: Crop Output & Yield

Statement DISCOM

Stro

ng

ly

Ag

ree

Ag

ree

No

Ch

an

ge

Dis

ag

ree

Stro

ng

ly

Dis

ag

ree

To

tal

The Crop output & yield has yield has increased after implementation of KHUSHY scheme

PGVCL

22.8% 20% 57% 0.2% 0% 100%

673 565 1622 5 0 2865


4.2.2.6 Agricultural Income

The perception regarding Agricultural

income can be depicted from the able,

however the overall outcome of the

survey states that nearly 17%

consumers strongly agrees with the

statement that the Agricultural income

has increased after the

implementation of the KHUSHY

scheme, whereas 61% states that

there has been no change in terms of

their income.

Figure 4.12: Agricultural Income


17%

22%61%

0%

Strongly Agree Agree No Change Disagree


CONFIDENTIAL


26

Table 4.11: Agricultural Income

Statement DISCOM

Stro

ng

ly

Ag

ree

Ag

ree

No

Ch

an

ge

Dis

ag

ree

Stro

ng

ly

Dis

ag

ree

To

tal

Agricultural Income has increased after the implementation of KHUSHY Scheme

PGVCL

17% 22% 60.8% 0.2% 0% 100%

490 636 1733 6 0 2865


4.2.2.7 Availability of Free Time

The perception regarding availability of free time,

the overall outcome of the survey states that

nearly 70% consumers strongly agree with the

statement that the availability of free time after

the implementation of the KHUSHY scheme.

It was found that after the implementation of the

KHUSHY scheme, the power supply to the

consumers was distributed as per schedule &

timings which was an advantage for them. The

free time which was after the implementation

was available with the consumers are utilized by

them for other working & revenue generating

activities, also with a possibility to start a small

shop/business to increase their sources of

income which will be ultimately helping them &

their families to enhance the lifestyle and

standards of living.

Table 4.12: Availability of Free Time

Statement DISCOM

Stro

ng

ly

Ag

ree

Ag

ree

No

Ch

an

ge

Dis

ag

ree

Stro

ng

ly

Dis

ag

ree

To

tal

You get free time for yourself after implementation of KHUSHY Scheme

PGVCL 70% 17% 13% 0% 0% 100%

2005 496 363 1 0 2865


Figure 4.13: Availability of Free Time


70%

17%

13%



CONFIDENTIAL


27

4.2.2.8 Overall Satisfaction with the KHUSHY Scheme

The perception regarding Overall satisfaction

can be depicted from the table, however the

overall outcome of the survey states that

nearly 89% beneficiaries strongly agrees with

the statement that they are overall satisfied

after the implementation of the KHUSHY

scheme.

Table 4.13: Overall Satisfaction with the KHUSHY Scheme

Statement DISCOM

Stro

ng

ly

Ag

ree

Ag

ree

No

C

ha

ng

e

Dis

ag

ree

Stro

ng

ly

Dis

ag

ree

To

tal

You are overall satisfied with the KHUSHY Scheme

PGVCL 89% 8% 3% 0% 0% 100%

2524 263 77 1 0 2865


4.2.3 Assessment of Tangible Benefits Accrued after implementation of KHUSHY

The consumers were asked specific questions related to Technical, Operational and Financial aspects to

gauge the quantitative difference in tangible benefits before and after the implementation of KHUSHY.

Figure 4.14: Overall Satisfaction with the KHUSHY Scheme


89%

8%

3%



CONFIDENTIAL


28


The perception regarding Transformer

Failure & Average no. of days per

failure can be depicted from the table.

The survey results show that more

than 38% of the customers

experienced transformer failures

around 3-5 times while other few

experienced it more than 5 times.

After the implementation of KHUSHY

all the surveyed customers

experienced transformer failure in the

bracket of 0-2 times. The results

hence show that there has been a

considerable decrease in transformer

failure after the implementation of

KHUSHY.

The survey results show that around 27% of the customers experienced 6-10 days loss due to each

transformer failure while other 24% experienced 11-15 days loss due to each transformer failure. After the

implementation of KHUSHY more than 99% of the surveyed customers experienced 0-5 days loss due to

each transformer failure and also the rate of failure has decreased to 0-2 per year.

Figure 4.15: Transformer Failure (Times In a Year)


Table 4.14: Details on Transformer Failure Before and After KHUSHY

Parameter DISCOM

Total No. of Beneficiaries Surveyed Transformer Failure (No. of times)

Transformer failures before and after implementation of KHUSHY

Before After

0-2 3-5 > 5 0-2 3-5 >5

PGVCL 2865 60% 38% 2% 100% 0% 0%

1711 1076 78 2865 0 0


0102030405060708090

100

0-2 3-5 > 5

Re

spo

nse

(in

%)

Transformer Failure (No. of times)

Before After


CONFIDENTIAL


29

Table 4.15: Details on Average number of Days Loss per Failure Before and After KHUSHY

Parameter DISCOM

No. of Beneficiaries Surveyed Average No. of Days Loss per Failure

Average No. of Days

Loss Per Failure

BEFORE AFTER

0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 > 20 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 > 20

PGVCL 2865 33% 27% 24% 9% 6% 99.9% 0.1% 0% 0% 0%

953 778 691 267 176 2861 4 0 0 0


Figure 4.16: Average Number of Days Loss Per Failure


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 > 20

Re

spo

nse

(in

%)

Average No. of Days Loss per failure

Before

After


CONFIDENTIAL


30

4.2.3.2 Motor Maintenance / Failure

The perception regarding Motor

Maintenance & Average no. of days per

failure can be depicted from the table

The survey results show that more than

30% of the customers experienced

motor failures of around 3-5 times while

other few experienced it more than 5

times. After the implementation of

KHUSHY more than 99% of the

surveyed customers experienced motor

failures in the bracket of 0-2 times. The

results hence show that there has been

a considerable decrease in motor failure


Table 4.16: Details on Motor Maintenance / Failure (Times In a Year)

Parameter DISCOM

No. of Beneficiaries

Surveyed Motor Maintenance / Failure (Times In a Year)

Motor Maintenance/ Failure

BEFORE AFTER

0-2 3-5 6-8 >8 0-2 3-5 6-8 >8

PGVCL 2865 68% 30% 1% 0% 99.97% 0.03% 0% 0%

1959 865 28 13 2864 1 0 0


Figure 4.17: Motor Maintenance / Failure (Times In a Year)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0-2 3-5 6-8 >8

Re

spo

nse

(in

%)

Motor Maintenance per failure

Before After


CONFIDENTIAL


31

The survey results show that around 33%

of the customers experienced 6-10 days

loss after each motor failure while other

11% experienced more than 10 days loss

after each motor failure. After the

implementation of KHUSHY more than 99%

of the surveyed customers experienced day

loss after each motor failure in the bracket

of 0-5 times. The results hence show that

there has been a considerable decrease in

average day loss per motor failure after the


Table 4.17: Details on Average no. of Days Loss per Maintenance/ Failure

Parameter DISCOM



Average no. of Days Loss per Maintenance/ Failure

BEFORE AFTER

0-5 6-10 > 10 0-5 6-10 > 10

PGVCL 2865 56% 33% 11% 99.90% 0.10% 0%

1601 958 306 2862 3 0


Figure 4.18: Average no. of Days Loss per Maintenance/ Failure


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0-5 6-10 > 10

Re

spo

nse

(in

%)

Avg. No. of Days Loss per Maintenance/

Failure

Before After


CONFIDENTIAL


32


48% of the customers had to incur

expense in the bracket of INR 2100-4000

due to each motor failure while other 20%

had to incur expense in the bracket of INR

4100-6000 due to each motor failure. After

the implementation of KHUSHY more than

99% of the surveyed customers incurred


due to each motor failure. The results

hence show that there has been a

considerable decrease in expense

incurred on motor failures after the


Table 4.18: Details on Average Expense per Failure due to Maintenance (INR)

Parameter DISCOM

No. of Beneficiari

es Surveyed

Motor Maintenance / Failure (Times In a Year)

Average Expense

per Failure due to

Maintenance (INR)

BEFORE AFTER

0-2000 2100-4000

4100-6000

6100-8000

> 8000 0-2000 2100-4000

4100-6000

6100-8000

> 8000

PGVCL 2865 26% 48% 20% 5% 0% 99.% 0.35% 0.03% 0% 0%

756 1376 586 147 0 2854 10 1 0 0


Figure 4.19: Average Expense per Failure (INR)


0102030405060708090

100

Response (

in %

)

Avg. Expense / Failure due to Maintenance

Before After


CONFIDENTIAL


33

4.2.3.3 Motor Starter Failure

The perception regarding Motor starter failure &

Average no. of days per failure can be depicted

from the table The survey results show that before

the implementation of KHUSHY, more than 50% of

the customers experienced motor starter failures

around 2- 3 times/year while other few experienced

it more than 3 times. After the implementation of

KHUSHY more than 99% of the surveyed

customers experienced motor starter failure in the

bracket of 0-1 times. The results hence show that

there has been a considerable decrease in motor

starter failure after the implementation of KHUSHY.

Table 4.19: Details on Motor Starter Failure (No/Yr)

Parameter DISCOM

No. of Beneficiari

es Surveyed

Motor starter Failure (Times In a Year)

Average Expense

per Failure due to

Maintenance (INR)

BEFORE AFTER

0-1 2-3 4-5 >5 0-1 2-3 4-5 >5 0-1 2-3

PGVCL 2865 45% 50% 4% 1% 99.9% 0.1% 0% 0% 45% 50%

1294 1422 117 32 2862 3 0 0 1294 1422

Figure 4.20: Average Number of Days Loss Per

Failure due to Motor Starter

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0-1 2-3 4-5 >5

Response (

in %

)

Motor Starter Failure (No. of times /year)

Before After


CONFIDENTIAL


34

The survey results show that more than 68% of the

customers experienced 2-3 days loss due to each

motor starter failure while other few experienced more

than 3 days loss due to each motor starter failure. After

the implementation of KHUSHY more 100% of the

surveyed customers experienced 0-1 day loss due to

each motor starter failure. The results hence show that

there has been a considerable decrease in average

day loss per motor starter failure after the


Table 4.20: Details on Average Number of Days Loss per Failure due to Motor Starter

Parameter DISCOM

Total No. of Beneficiaries

Surveyed Days Loss Per Failure (Times In a Year)

Average Number of Days Loss Per Failure due to Motor Starter

BEFORE AFTER

0-1 2-3 4-5 >5 0-1 2-3 4-5 >5

PGVCL 2865 68% 18% 11% 3% 100% 0% 0% 0%

1943 508 324 90 2865 0 0 0



0102030405060708090

100

0-1 2-3 4-5 >5

Response (

in %

)

Motor Starter Failure (No. of Days /year)

Before After


CONFIDENTIAL


35


of the customers had to incur expense in

the bracket of INR 501-1000 due to each

motor failure while other 29% had to incur



implementation of KHUSHY, 99.5% of the

surveyed customers incurred expense in

the bracket of INR 0-500 after each motor

failure. The results hence show that there

has been a considerable decrease in

expense incurred on motor starter failures


Table 4.21: Details on Average Expense per Failure due to Motor Starter Failure (INR)

Parameter DISCOM



BEFORE AFTER

Average Expense per Failure due to Motor Starter Failure

0-500 501-1000

1001-1500

>1500 0-500 501-1000

1001-1500

>1500

PGVCL 2865 27% 25% 29% 19% 99.55% 0.07% 0.03% 0.35%

778 730 821 536 2852 2 1 10


4.2.4 Single Phase Connection and Bore well Details

The figure below depicts that 98% of the total 3265 surveyed beneficiaries do not have additional single

phase connection whereas all are having Bore Well facility.

Figure 4.21: Average Expense per Failure due to Motor Starter

Failure (INR)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0-500 501-1000 1001-1500 >1500

Response (

in %

)


Before After


CONFIDENTIAL


36

Figure 4.22: Additional Single Phase Connection Figure 4.23: Bore Well Facility


Table 4.22: Additional single phase connection and Bore Well Details

DISCOM Additional Single Phase Connection Bore Well Facility

Yes No Yes No

PGVCL 55 2810 2865 0


4.2.5 View on continuation of the scheme

Out of the 2865 beneficiaries

surveyed, 98% of them were

happy & satisfied with the

implementation of the KHUSHY

Scheme and had expressed their

interest and willingness in

support and continuation of the

scheme in other parts of the state

aggressively.

Table 4.23: Views on continuation of the Scheme in other areas of Gujarat

DISCOM Yes No

PGVCL 2820 45


2%

98%

Yes No

100%

-

Yes No

Figure 4.24: View on Continuation of the Scheme in other areas of Gujarat


98%

2%

Yes

No


CONFIDENTIAL


37

The implementation of KHUSHY had been carried out across all the electricity distribution companies in

Gujarat viz. PGVCL, UGVCL, DGVCL and MGVCL. The implementation of the scheme started in the year

2008-09 and since then numerous feeders have been completely converted into HVDS under the scheme.

In other few feeders implementation has been done in certain pockets of the feeders. Under the scheme

more than 44286 agricultural consumers have benefitted till date. The DISCOMs in turn have accrued

benefits at their level including reduction in Transmission and Distribution (T&D) losses, system

interruptions, greenhouse emissions and increase in revenue. While most of the benefits accrued by the

DISCOMs are tangible, the benefits accrued by the agricultural consumers are mainly intangible. The

consultants had devised a methodology to conduct the cost-benefit analysis which included segregating

the various benefits under the tangible and intangible categories and drawing analysis on the information

provided by individual distribution companies. The various benefits accrued by the distribution companies

and the agricultural consumers are as shown in the figure.

Figure 5.1: Tangible and Intangible Benefits of KHUSHY


5 Cost-Benefit Analysis of Kisan Hit Urja Shakti Yojana (KHUSHY) – PGVCL

Kisan Hit Urja Shakti Yojana (KHUSHY)

Tangible Benefits Intangible Benefits

� Reduction in T&D Losses

� Reduction in Transformer Failure � Reduction in O&M Costs

� Reduction in Motor Failure

� Reduction in Starter Failure

� Reduction in Capacitor Failure

� Increase in availability of free time

� Increase in household and farm assets

Benefits to Agricultural Consumers


CONFIDENTIAL


38

5.1 Implementation Details of KHUSHY

The implementation of KHUSHY was done in all distribution companies. The detailed lists of feeders and

villages which have benefitted under the scheme and corresponding details have been attached as

Appendix A.

Table 5.1: PGVCL - KHUSHY Implementation Details


5.2 Benefits Accrued Under KHUSHY

The distribution companies have accrued varied tangible and intangible benefits under KHUSHY. The

assessments of the tangible benefits have been done on the basis of the year on year information provided

by the individual DISCOMs. The broad tangible benefits accrued by the distribution companies under the

scheme are as under:

� Reduction in Transmission &Distribution (T&D) Losses

� Reduction in transformer failure

� Decrease in O&M Costs

5.2.1 Transmission and Distribution Losses (PGVCL)

Energy losses occur in the process of supplying electricity to consumers due to technical and commercial

losses. The technical losses are due to energy dissipated in the conductors and equipment used for

transmission, transformation, sub- transmission and distribution of power. The losses can be further sub

grouped depending upon the stage of power transformation & transmission system as Transmission

Losses (400kV/220kV/132kV/66kV), as Sub transmission losses (33kV /11kV) and Distribution losses

(11kV/0.4kv). The commercial losses are caused by pilferage (Hooking), defective meters, and errors in

meter reading and in estimating unmetered supply of energy.

Under KHUSHY major investment in infrastructure has been done with the intention to reduce the

aforesaid losses. Under the scheme HT lines are stretched to individual farms and dedicated transformers

have been installed. This is expected to reduce the incidence of hooking to a large extent.

5.2.1.1 Units Sent Out and Units Billed

The figures on units sent out and units billed are a clear indication on the change in T&D losses. The

percentage of units loss was in excess of 59% in the year ending 2006-07 which has dipped to 43% in the

year ending 2012-13.

DISCOM Feeders No. of Customers

PGVCL 161 38175


CONFIDENTIAL


39

Figure 5.2: PGVCL - Year-Wise % Units Loss


Table 5.2: Year-Wise Units Sent Out and Units Billed

Year Units Sent Out (MUs) Units Billed (MUs) Loss (MUs) % Dist. Loss

2006-07 523.12 216.46 306.66 59%

2007-08 612.54 256.94 355.6 58%

2008-09 663.37 280.44 382.93 58%

2009-10 747.45 316.83 430.62 58%

2010-11 615.68 331.86 283.82 46%

2011-12 672.02 359.97 312.05 46%

2012-13 748.39 426.52 321.87 43%


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

Year-Wise % Units Loss



CONFIDENTIAL


40

5.2.2 Transformer Failures (PGVCL)


The percentage of Transformer Failure as around 67 % in the year ending 2006-07 which has dipped to 5

% in the year ending 2012-13

Table 5.3: Year-Wise Details on % Transformer Failure

DISCOM 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

PGVCL 67% 59% 45% 29% 13% 9% 5%


5.3 Payback Period (PGVCL)

The capital for the KHUSHY scheme has been sourced from Encon grant as well as share capital. Further

the implementation of the project started from the year 2008-09. The implementation of the scheme has

been done in phases spreading from the year 2008 to present year. The capital expenditure hence has

been spread over the years. The year-wise transmission and distribution losses vary largely from feeder to

feeder which is the basis of deriving the payback periods. The consultant have hence taken various

assumptions for the calculation of payback periods which are as under

Figure 5.3: PGVCL Year-Wise Transformer Failure


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

Transformer Failures


CONFIDENTIAL


41

5.3.1 Selection of Baseline Loss/Sent Unit

The Average yearly losses/Sent Units from 2006-07 to the year of conversion into HVDS have been taken

as the baseline loss for the calculation of payback period.

5.3.2 Selection of Cost Realization

To calculate the payback period it is necessary to convert the units saved after the implementation of

KHUSHY into monetary terms. The consultants have considered various options for the same which are

described as under

� To convert the units saved into monetary terms using Average Energy Charge Realization of HT

Industry Segment (as per GERC Filing)

� To convert the units saved into monetary terms using Total Average Energy Charge Realization

excluding Agriculture (as per GERC Filing)

� To convert the units saved into monetary terms using Average Energy Charge Realization of Agriculture

Segment ( as per GERC Filing)

For the current study the consultant are using the second option ie. Average Energy Charge Realization


5.3.3 Cost of Capital

The capital sources for the scheme are the Encon grant and the share capital of individual distribution

companies. The assumptions of the cost of capital of different capital sources are as under. The cost of

capital of Encon has been taken as 0% as it is a grant.

Capital Source Cost of Capital %

Energy Conservation Grant 0%

Share Capital 12%

5.3.4 Savings due to reduction in Transformer Failures

The consultants have also taken in to consideration the savings accrued in terms of operational and

maintenance costs due to reduction in transformer failures while calculation payback periods. In absence

of accurate data related to year-wise costs on maintenance of transformers from the distribution

companies, the consultants have taken into consideration estimated costs of repairs and maintenance of a

single transformer which have been provided by PGVCL.


CONFIDENTIAL


42

The consultants in addition to calculating total payback period for a particular discom, have also

calculated the payback period for a bunch of feeders completed during a particular year separately

since the inception of the scheme.

5.4 Pay Back Calculations

Table 5.4: PGVCL – Payback Calculations (2008-09)


No. of Feeders 8









No. of Feeders 8









No. of Feeders 58








CONFIDENTIAL


43



No. of Feeders 16









No. of Feeders 71







Table 5.9: PGVCL – Payback Calculations (Dedicated Feeders)


No. of Feeders 161








CONFIDENTIAL


44

Table 5.10: PGVCL – Payback Calculations (Scattered Feeders)


No. of Feeders -







Table 5.11: PGVCL – Payback Calculations (Overall)


No. of Feeders 161+Scattered








CONFIDENTIAL


45

Part B: Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited (DGVCL)


CONFIDENTIAL


46

6.1 Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited

DGVCL was incorporated as a Public

Limited Company on 15th September,

2003, primarily to carry out distribution of

electricity to retail and bulk consumers and

has become operational effective from 1st

April 2005. The Company is engaged in

distribution of electricity in 7 districts

namely Bharuch, Narmada, Surat (except

part of Surat City), Tapi, Dangs, Navsari

and Valsad in South Gujarat. There are in

total 23, 33,000 customers of DGVCL. The

areas covered by DGVCL are as depicted in the figure. The basic details of DGVCL are as illustrated in the

table:

Particulars Details

Total Area Covered By Company 23, 307 Sq. Kms.

Districts Covered 7

Talukas Covered 37

Villages Covered 3, 518

Total Consumers of Company 23, 33,000

Circles 4

Divisions 19

Sub Divisions 112

6 Profile of DGVCL


CONFIDENTIAL


47














The details of feeders in DGVCL which have been converted into HVDS and the number of transformers


7 Implementation of Kisan Hit Urja Shakti Yojana (KHUSHY) – DGVCL

CO

NF

IDE

NT

IAL

Fin

al R

eport

Co

st B

en

efit A

na

lysis

of K

isan

Hit U

rja S

ha

kti Y

oja

na

(KH

US

H

48

MC

B/IS

A/A

/0/0

10 A

pril 2

014

P:\A

hm

edabad\A

MC

\PR

OJE

CT

S\3

26672A

A01\D

ocum

ents

\Report\G

UV

NL - K

HU

SH

Y - F

inal R

eport-V

3.d

ocx

Table 7.1: DGVCL Feeder Details


Project Cost

(Lakhs) Year of

Completion

Surat Rural Circle

Vyara Valod 11Kv Siker Ag Dom

18 234 44 5 0 301 546 Ongoing

Valsad Navsari Amalsad Mendharbhat Ag fdr

18 9 3 4 3 37 28 2009-2010

VALSAD VALSAD RURAL KHRGAM RUMLA 42 54 46 2 0 144 84 2011-2012

VALSAD Vapi Industrial Sarigam Maroli Rural 72 48 8 8 3 139 135 2011-2012

BHARUCH BHARUCH RURAL

AMOD 11 KV DANDA AG

28 70 42 6 0 146 211 2013-2014


PALEJ 11 KV KARENA AG

19 24 42 3 0 88 66 2012-2013


PALEJ 11 KV PARIYEJ AG

87 36 39 4 0 166 99 2010-2011

Total 284 475 224 32 6 1021 1169


CONFIDENTIAL


49













8.1.1 Sample Design







The details of sample design for DGVCL is as under



DGVCL 3 4 4 5 149


The sample distribution for the consumer perception study in DGVCL is as given in the table below



DGVCL

Bharuch Bharuch Rural Amod Danda 32

Karena 21

Valsad Vapi Industrial Sarigam Maroli 15

Valsad Rural Khergam Rumla 31

Surat Rural Vyara Valod Siker 50

Total DGVCL 149


8 Consumer Perception of Kisan Hit Urja Shakti Yojana (KHUSHY) – DGVCL


CONFIDENTIAL


50


















with the report.

8.2 Key Results of Consumer Perception Study - DGVCL

The consultants have surveyed a total of 149 agricultural consumers across DGVCL. The key survey






of the same are given in subsequent sections.







to be upheld.


CONFIDENTIAL


51



with 65% of them having 4-7 dependent family members, 14% having 1-4 family members dependent,

14% having 7-10 family members dependent and 7% having >10 family members dependent on the

income & earnings of the head of the household.






4-7 96

7-10 21

>10 10

Total 149 Total 149





Out of 100 Beneficiaries surveyed, 100 % of them were having land of their own for cultivation of crops and

carry out their agricultural activities. It was also observed that 62% of them were having Metered

connections whereas 38% of them were un-metered connections.

14%

65%

14%

7%

1-3

4-7

7-10

>10

100%

0%

Agriculture

Others


CONFIDENTIAL


52







Total 149 Total 149








It was also found that almost 95.3% of the total 100 beneficiaries were having distribution transformers

having ratings in the range of 10- 25 KVA and 5% of them were using transformers with ratings in the

range of 25 – 65 KVA.

100%

0%

Owned

Leased

38%

62%

Metered

Un-Metered


CONFIDENTIAL


53





1-5 KVA 88 10 – 25 KVA 142

5-10 KVA 12 25 – 65 KVA 7

>10 KVA 49 >65 KVA 0

Total 149 Total 149











59%

8%

33%1-5

5-10

>10

95.3%

5% 0.0%

10 - 25 KVA

25 - 65 KVA

>65 KVA


CONFIDENTIAL


54

The overall outcome of the survey

states that 100% of the surveyed

consumers strongly agree with the

statement that the overall voltage

level/ quality and stability has

improved after the implementation of

the KHUSHY scheme.

Table8.6: Voltage Level/Quality and Stability

Statement DISCOM

Stro

ng

ly

Ag

ree

Ag

ree

No

Ch

an

ge

Dis

ag

ree

Stro

ng

ly

Dis

ag

ree

To

tal


DGVCL

100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%

149 0 0 0 0 149





scheme.



100.0%

Strongly Agree


CONFIDENTIAL


55




Statement DISCOM

Stro

ng

ly

Ag

ree

Ag

ree

No

C

ha

ng

e

Dis

ag

ree

Stro

ng

ly

Dis

ag

ree

To

tal


DGVCL 68% 31% 1% 0% 0% 100%

101 46 2 0 0 149







of failure.





68%

31%

1%



CONFIDENTIAL


56




Statement DISCOM

Stro

ng

ly

Ag

ree

Ag

ree

No

Ch

an

ge

Dis

ag

ree

Stro

ng

ly

Dis

ag

ree

To

tal


DGVCL

98% 1% 1% 0% 0% 100%

146 1 2 0 0 149










98.0%

1%1%

Strongly Agree

Agree

No Change


CONFIDENTIAL


57














Statement DISCOM

Stro

ng

ly

Ag

ree

Ag

ree

No

Ch

an

ge

Dis

ag

ree

Stro

ng

ly

Dis

ag

ree

To

tal


DGVCL

98% 0% 2% 0% 0% 100%

146 0 3 0 0 149




98%

2%

Strongly Agree

No Change


CONFIDENTIAL


58


As the primary objective of the project

was to provide consumers with Power

distribution related benefits, whereas

Crop output & yield are directly

dependent on the monsoon & weather

conditions for which the electricity has no

significant impact. The survey results

show that 1% of the customers agree

that the crop output and yield has

increased after the implementation of

KHUSHY. 99% of the customers are of

the opinion that there has been no

change in the crop output and yield after


Table8.10: Crop Output & Yield

Statement DISCOM

Stro

ng

ly

Ag

ree

Ag

ree

No

Ch

an

ge

Dis

ag

ree

Stro

ng

ly

Dis

ag

ree

To

tal


DGVCL

0% 1% 99% 0% 0% 100%

0 2 147 0 0 149


Figure 8.11: Crop Output & Yield has Increased


1.00%

99.00%

Agree No Change


CONFIDENTIAL


59





survey states that nearly 1% consumers

strongly agrees with the statement that

the Agricultural income has increased

after the implementation of the KHUSHY

scheme, whereas 99% states that there

has been no change in terms of their

income.

Table8.11: Agricultural Income

Statement DISCOM

Stro

ng

ly

Ag

ree

Ag

ree

No

Ch

an

ge

Dis

ag

ree

Stro

ng

ly

Dis

ag

ree

To

tal


DGVCL

0% 1% 99% 0% 0% 100%

0 2 147 0 0 149




1%

99%

Agree No Change


CONFIDENTIAL


60


The perception regarding availability of free time

(across DISCOMs) , the overall outcome of the

survey states that nearly 99% consumers

strongly agree with the statement that the

availability of free time after the implementation

of the KHUSHY scheme.













Table8.12: Availability of Free Time

Statement DISCOM

Stro

ng

ly

Ag

ree

Ag

ree

No

Ch

an

ge

Dis

ag

ree

Stro

ng

ly

Dis

ag

ree

To

tal


DGVCL 99% 0% 1% 0% 0% 100%

147 0 2 0 0 149




99%

1%

Strongly Agree No Change


CONFIDENTIAL


61



(across DISCOMs) can be depicted from the

table, however the overall outcome of the

survey states that nearly 99% beneficiaries

strongly agrees with the statement that they

are overall satisfied after the implementation



Statement DISCOM

Stro

ng

ly

Ag

ree

Ag

ree

No

Ch

an

ge

Dis

ag

ree

Stro

ng

ly

Dis

ag

ree

To

tal


DGVCL 99% 0 1% 0% 0% 100%

147 0 2 0 0 149




99%

1%



CONFIDENTIAL


62







failure (across DISCOMs) can be

depicted from the table. The survey

results show that more than 37% of

the customers experienced

transformer failures around 3-5 times

while other few experienced it more

than 5 times. After the implementation

of KHUSHY all the surveyed

customers experienced transformer

failure in the bracket of 0-2 times. The

results hence show that there has

been a considerable decrease in

transformer failure after the




Table8.14: Details on Transformer Failure Before and After KHUSHY

Parameter DISCOM



Before After

0-2 3-5 > 5 0-2 3-5 >5

DGVCL 149 63% 37% 0% 100% 0% 0%

94 55 0 149 0 0


0102030405060708090

100

0-2 3-5 > 5

Re

spo

nse

(in

%)


Before After


CONFIDENTIAL


63



implementation of KHUSHY all of the surveyed customers experienced 0-5 days loss due to each

transformer failure and also the rate of failure has decreased to 0-2 per year.


Parameter DISCOM


Average No. of Days

Loss Per Failure

BEFORE AFTER

0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 > 20 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 > 20

DGVCL 149 53% 40% 3% 0% 3% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

79 60 5 0 5 149 0 0 0 0


Figure 8.16: Average Number of Days Loss Per Failure – Overall (All Discoms)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 > 20

Re

spo

nse

(in

%)


Before

After


CONFIDENTIAL


64





depicted from the table The survey

results show that more than 48% of the

customers experienced motor failures of

around 3-5 times while other few

experienced it more than 5 times. After

the implementation of KHUSHY all of

the surveyed customers experienced

motor failures in the bracket of 0-2

times. The results hence show that

there has been a considerable decrease

in motor failure after the implementation

of KHUSHY.


Parameter DISCOM




BEFORE AFTER

0-2 3-5 6-8 >8 0-2 3-5 6-8 >8

DGVCL 149 52% 48% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%

78 71 0 0 149 0 0 0




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0-2 3-5 6-8 >8

Re

spo

nse

(in

%)


Before After


CONFIDENTIAL


65




10% experienced more than 10 days loss


implementation of KHUSHY all of the

surveyed customers experienced day

loss after each motor failure in the

bracket of 0-5 times. The results hence

show that there has been a considerable

decrease in average day loss per motor


KHUSHY.


Parameter DISCOM




BEFORE AFTER

0-5 6-10 > 10 0-5 6-10 > 10

DGVCL 149 86% 4% 10% 100% 0% 0%

128 6 15 149 0 0




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0-5 6-10 > 10

Re

spo

nse

(in

%)


Failure

Before After


CONFIDENTIAL


66


6% of the customers had to incur expense

in the bracket of INR 2100-4000 due to

each motor failure while other 44% had to

incur expense in the bracket of INR 4100-

6000 due to each motor failure. After the




motor failure. The results hence show that


expense incurred on motor failures after



Parameter DISCOM

No. of Beneficiari

es Surveyed


Average Expense

per Failure due to

Maintenance (INR)

BEFORE AFTER

0-2000 2100-4000

4100-6000

6100-8000

> 8000 0-2000 2100-4000

4100-6000

6100-8000

> 8000

DGVCL 149 38% 6% 44% 1% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

56 9 66 18 0 149 0 0 0 0




0102030405060708090

100

Response (

in %

)


Before After


CONFIDENTIAL


67



Average no. of days per failure (across DISCOMs)

can be depicted from the table The survey results

show that before the implementation of KHUSHY,

more than 85% of the customers experienced motor

starter failures around 2- 3 times/year while other

few experienced it more than 3 times. After the

implementation of KHUSHY all of the surveyed

customers experienced motor starter failure in the

bracket of 0-1 times. The results hence show that

there has been a considerable decrease in motor

starter failure after the implementation of KHUSHY.

Table 8.19: Details on Motor Starter Failure (No/Yr)

Parameter DISCOM

No. of Beneficiari

es Surveyed


Average Expense

per Failure due to

Maintenance (INR)

BEFORE AFTER

0-1 2-3 4-5 >5 0-1 2-3 4-5 >5

DGVCL 149 13% 85% 2% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%

19 127 3 0 149 0 0 0

The survey results show that more than 45% of the customers experienced 2-3 days loss due to each









Figure 8.20: Average Number of Days Loss Per Failure due to Motor Starter


0102030405060708090

100

0-1 2-3 4-5 >5

Response (

in %

)


Before After

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0-1 2-3 4-5 >5

Response (

in %

)


Before After


CONFIDENTIAL


68


Parameter DISCOM




BEFORE AFTER

0-1 2-3 4-5 >5 0-1 2-3 4-5 >5

DGVCL 149 42% 45% 3% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%

62 67 20 0 149 0 0 0


The survey results show that around 9% of

the customers had to incur expense in the

bracket of INR 501-1000 due to each motor

failure while other 49% had to incur











Parameter DISCOM



BEFORE AFTER


0-500 501-1000

1001-1500

>1500 0-500 501-1000

1001-1500

>1500

DGVCL 149 10% 9% 49% 32% 100% 0% 0% 0%

15 14 73 47 149 0 0 0



Failure (INR)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Response (

in %

)


Before After


CONFIDENTIAL


69








Yes No Yes No

DGVCL 38 111 149 0


26%

74%

Yes No

100%

-

Yes No


CONFIDENTIAL


70


All of the 149 beneficiaries

surveyed were happy & satisfied

with the implementation of the

KHUSHY Scheme and had

expressed their interest and

willingness in support and

continuation of the scheme in

other parts of the state

aggressively.


DISCOM Yes No

DGVCL 149 0





CONFIDENTIAL


71














9 Cost-Benefit Analysis of Kisan Hit Urja Shakti Yojana (KHUSHY) – DGVCL


Tangibe Benefits Intangible Benefits


� Reduction in Transformer Failure

� Reduction in O&M Costs








CONFIDENTIAL


72


The implementation of KHUSHY was done in all distribution companies. The detailed lists of feeders,

villages and which have benefitted under the scheme and corresponding details have been attached as

Appendix A.

Table 9.1: KHUSHY Implementation Details






scheme are as under


� Reduction in System Interruptions


9.2.1 Transmission and Distribution Losses (DGVCL)











DISCOM Feeders Villages No. of Customers

DGVCL 7 50 2406


CONFIDENTIAL


73



percentage of unit loss was in excess of 50% in the year ending 2006-07 which has dipped to 24% in the


Figure 9.2: DGVCL - Year-Wise % Units Loss


Table 9.2: Discom-Wise and Year-Wise Units Sent Out and Units Billed


2006-07 14.23 6.8 7.43 52%

2007-08 5.42 3.58 1.84 34%

2008-09 11.48 6.28 5.2 45%

2009-10 14.33 7.39 6.94 48%

2010-11 19.4 10.81 8.59 44%

2011-12 24.68 15.53 9.15 37%

2012-13 21.54 16.46 5.07 24%


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13




CONFIDENTIAL


74

9.2.1.2 Theoretical Loss

The percentage of Theoretical Loss was around 88% in the year ending 2007-08 which has dipped to 61%

in the year ending 2012-13.

The details of the % theoretical losses are as given in the below table. It can be seen that there has been a

steady decline in the theoretical losses since the inception of the scheme in the year 2008-09.

Table 9.3: Year Wise % Theoretical Loss

Discom 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

DGVCL


14 88 74 70 63 61 61

Theoretical Loss (MUs)

5.53 16.14 11.41 11.67 12.11 12.49 16.50

Figure 9.3: Year-Wise Theoretical Loss

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

% Theoretical Loss


CONFIDENTIAL


75

9.2.2 Transformer Failures (DGVCL)


The percentage of Transformer Failure as around 39 % in the year ending 2006-07 which has dipped to 6

% in the year ending 2012-13


DISCOM 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

DGVCL 39% 12% 31% 20% 20% 17% 6%


9.3 Payback Period (DGVCL)







Figure 9.4: DGVCL Year-Wise Transformer Failure


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13



CONFIDENTIAL


76







described as under















Share Capital 12%








CONFIDENTIAL


77





Table 9.5: DGVCL – Payback Calculations (Dedicated Feeders)

Particulars Units

No. of Feeders 6







Table 9.6: DGVCL – Payback Calculations (Scattered Feeders)

Particulars Units

No. of Feeders -







Table 9.7: DGVCL – Payback Calculations (Overall)

Particulars Units

No. of Feeders -








CONFIDENTIAL


78

Part C: Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited (UGVCL)


CONFIDENTIAL


79

10.1 Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited

UGVCL was incorporated on September, 2003 and

the commercial operation of company started in April

2005. UGVCL is feeding electricity in 6 districts

namely Banaskantha, Patan, Mehsana,

Sabarkantha, Ahmedabad and Gandhinagar and

partly in other 3 districts including Kheda,

Surendranagar and Bhavnagar of Gujarat covering

total 65 Talukas. UGVCL caters to almost 30,52,773

customers across all its circles out of which nearly

2,46,389 are agricultural customers. The areas

covered by UGVCL are as depicted in the figure.

The basic details of PGVCL are as illustrated in the

table below

Particulars Details


Districts Covered 6+3 (Partly)

Talukas Covered 56+9 (Partly)

Villages Covered 4628

Total Consumers of Company 30,52,773

Circles 4

Divisions 21

10 Profile of UGVCL


CONFIDENTIAL


80














The details of feeders in UGVCL which have been converted into HVDS and the number of transformers


11 Implementation of Kisan Hit Urja Shakti Yojana (KHUSHY)

CO

NF

IDE

NT

IAL

Fin

al R

eport

Co

st B

en

efit A

na

lysis

of K

isan

Hit U

rja S

ha

kti Y

oja

na

(KH

US

H

81

MC

B/IS

A/A

/0/0

10 A

pril 2

014

P:\A

hm

edabad\A

MC

\PR

OJE

CT

S\3

26672A

A01\D

ocum

ents

\Report\G

UV

NL - K

HU

SH

Y - F

inal R

eport-V

3.d

ocx

Table 11.1: UGVCL Feeder Details


Project Cost

(lakhs) Year of

Completion

HIMATNAGAR HIMATNAGAR PRANTIJ KATPUR 39 44 47 19 0 149 105 2011-2012

HIMATNAGAR HIMATNAGAR SALAL ARSODA 61 19 14 4 0 98 66 2012-2013

MEHSANA PATAN JANGRAL S/DN

KOITA AG FEEDER

0 1 47 24 1 73 41 2009-2010

Mehsana Visnagar Kheralu Mahiyal 37 24 2 1 0 64 88 2008-2009

PALANPUR PALANPUR-II VADGAM 11 KV RAMPURA AG

12 17 11 0 0 40 33 2010-2011

PALANPUR PALANPUR-II VADGAM 11 KV SEJALPURA AG

2 38 8 0 3 51 35 2010-2011

Mehsana Patan Jangral Delvada 0 30 42 38 6 116 57 2009-2010

Total 151 173 171 86 10 591 425


CONFIDENTIAL


82













12.1.1 Sample Design







The details of sample design for UGVCL is as under



UGVCL 2 4 5 6 151


12 Consumer Perception of Kisan Hit Urja Shakti Yojana (KHUSHY)


CONFIDENTIAL


83

The sample distribution for the consumer perception study in UGVCL is as given in the table below



UGVCL

Himmatnagar Himmatnagar Salal Arsoda 36

Prantij Katpur 15

Mehsana Patan Jangral Delvada 28

Jangral Koita 22

Palanpur Palanpur-2 Vadgam KV Rampura 13

Palanpur Vagada KV Sejalpura 37

Total UGVCL 151



















with the report.

12.2 Key Results of Consumer Perception Study - UGVCL

The consultants have surveyed a total of 151 agricultural consumers across UGVCL. The key survey



CONFIDENTIAL


84





of the same is given in subsequent sections.







to be upheld.



with 53% of them having 4-7 dependent family members, 8% having 1-4 family members dependent, 17%

having 7-10 family members dependent and 22% having >10 family members dependent on the income &

earnings of the head of the household.



8%

53%17%

22%1-3

4-7

7-10

>10

100%

0%

Agriculture

Others


CONFIDENTIAL


85




4-7 80

7-10 25

>10 34

Total 151 Total 151














Total 151 Total 151


100%

0%

Owned

Leased

19%

81%

Metered

Un-Metered


CONFIDENTIAL


86








having ratings in the range of 10- 25 KVA, 27% of them were using transformers with ratings in the range

of 25 – 65 KVA and only 0.7% were having transformers with ratings in the range of > 65 KVA.





1-5 KVA 4 10 – 25 KVA 109

5-10 KVA 50 25 – 65 KVA 41

>10 KVA 97 >65 KVA 1

Total 151 Total 151


3%

33%

64%

1-5

5-10

>10 72.2%

27%

0.7%

10 - 25 KVA

25 - 65 KVA

>65 KVA


CONFIDENTIAL


87
















the KHUSHY scheme.


Statement DISCOM

Stro

ng

ly

Ag

ree

Ag

ree

No

Ch

an

ge

Dis

ag

ree

Stro

ng

ly

Dis

ag

ree

To

tal


UGVCL

100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%

151 0 0 0 0 151




100.0%

Strongly Agree


CONFIDENTIAL


88




scheme.




Statement DISCOM

Stro

ng

ly

Ag

ree

Ag

ree

No

C

ha

ng

e

Dis

ag

ree

Stro

ng

ly

Dis

ag

ree

To

tal


UGVCL 99% 1% 0% 0% 0% 100%

149 2 0 0 0 151







of failure.





99% 1%

Strongly Agree Agree


CONFIDENTIAL


89




Statement DISCOM

Stro

ng

ly

Ag

ree

Ag

ree

No

Ch

an

ge

Dis

ag

ree

Stro

ng

ly

Dis

ag

ree

To

tal


UGVCL

99% 1% 0% 0% 0% 100%

150 1 0 0 0 151










99.0%

1%

Strongly Agree

Agree


CONFIDENTIAL


90














Statement DISCOM

Stro

ng

ly

Ag

ree

Ag

ree

No

Ch

an

ge

Dis

ag

ree

Stro

ng

ly

Dis

ag

ree

To

tal


UGVCL

100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%

151 0 0 0 0 151










show that 1% of the customers strongly

agree that the crop output and yield has


KHUSHY. 99% of the customers agree

that the crop output and yield has


KHUSHY.





100%

0%

Strongly Agree

No Change

99.00%

1.00%

Agree Strongly Agree


CONFIDENTIAL


91


Statement DISCOM

Stro

ng

ly

Ag

ree

Ag

ree

No

Ch

an

ge

Dis

ag

ree

Stro

ng

ly

Dis

ag

ree

To

tal


UGVCL

1% 99% 0% 0% 0% 100%

1 150 0 0 0 151






survey states that nearly none of the

consumers surveyed agree with the


has increased after the implementation

of the KHUSHY scheme


Statement DISCOM

Stro

ng

ly

Ag

ree

Ag

ree

No

Ch

an

ge

Dis

ag

ree

Stro

ng

ly

Dis

ag

ree

To

tal


UGVCL

0 0 100% 0% 0% 100%

0 0 151 0 0 151




0%

100%

Agree No Change


CONFIDENTIAL


92




100% of the surveyed consumers strongly agree

with the statement that the availability of free

time after the implementation of the KHUSHY

scheme.














Statement DISCOM

Stro

ng

ly

Ag

ree

Ag

ree

No

Ch

an

ge

Dis

ag

ree

Stro

ng

ly

Dis

ag

ree

To

tal


UGVCL 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%

151 0 0 0 0 151




100%

0%



CONFIDENTIAL


93



(across DISCOMs) can be depicted from the

table, however the overall outcome of the

survey states that nearly 99% beneficiaries

strongly agrees with the statement that they

are overall satisfied after the implementation



Statement DISCOM

Stro

ng

ly

Ag

ree

Ag

ree

No

C

ha

ng

e

Dis

ag

ree

Stro

ng

ly

Dis

ag

ree

To

tal


UGVCL 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%

151 0 0 0 0 151




100%

0%



CONFIDENTIAL


94























implementation of KHUSHY all of the surveyed customers experienced 0-5 days loss due to each

transformer failure and also the rate of failure has decreased to 0-2 per year.




Parameter DISCOM



Before After

0-2 3-5 > 5 0-2 3-5 >5

UGVCL 151 60% 24% 17% 100% 0% 0%

90 36 25 151 0 .0


0102030405060708090

100

0-2 3-5 > 5

Re

spo

nse

(in

%)


Before After


CONFIDENTIAL


95


Parameter DISCOM


Average No. of Days

Loss Per Failure

BEFORE AFTER

0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 > 20 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 > 20

UGVCL 151 69% 29% 1% 1% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

104 44 1 2 0 151 0 0 0 0




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 > 20

Re

spo

nse

(in

%)


Before

After


CONFIDENTIAL


96










KHUSHY all of the surveyed customers

experienced motor failures in the


show that there has been a

considerable decrease in motor failure



Parameter DISCOM




BEFORE AFTER

0-2 3-5 6-8 >8 0-2 3-5 6-8 >8

UGVCL 151 32% 60% 5% 3% 100% 0% 0% 0%

48 91 8 4 151 0 0 0




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0-2 3-5 6-8 >8

Re

spo

nse

(in

%)


Before After


CONFIDENTIAL


97




2% experienced 6-10 days loss after

each motor failure. After the


surveyed customers experienced day

loss after each motor failure in the


show that there has been a considerable

decrease in average day loss per motor


KHUSHY.


Parameter DISCOM




BEFORE AFTER

0-5 6-10 > 10 0-5 6-10 > 10

UGVCL 151 98% 2% 0% 100% 0% 0%

148 3 0 151 0 0




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0-5 6-10 > 10

Re

spo

nse

(in

%)


Failure

Before After


CONFIDENTIAL


98



expense in the bracket of INR 0-2000 due

to each motor failure while other 41% had

to incur expense in the bracket of INR


the implementation of KHUSHY all of the








Parameter DISCOM

No. of Beneficiari

es Surveyed


Average Expense

per Failure due to

Maintenance (INR)

BEFORE AFTER

0-2000 2100-4000

4100-6000

6100-8000

> 8000 0-2000 2100-4000

4100-6000

6100-8000

> 8000

UGVCL 151 45% 2% 12% 41% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

68 3 18 62 0 151 0 0 0 0








around 2- 3 times/year while other few experienced

it more than 3 times. After the implementation of


experienced motor starter failure in the bracket of 0-

1 times. The results hence show that there has

been a considerable decrease in motor starter




0102030405060708090

100

Response (

in %

)


Before After

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0-1 2-3 4-5 >5

Response (

in %

)


Before After


CONFIDENTIAL


99

Table 12.19: Details on Motor Starter Failure (No/Year)

Parameter DISCOM

No. of Beneficiari

es Surveyed


Average Expense

per Failure due to

Maintenance (INR)

BEFORE AFTER

0-1 2-3 4-5 >5 0-1 2-3 4-5 >5

UGVCL 151 21% 69% 9% 1% 100% 0% 0% 0%

31 104 14 2 151 0 0 0












Parameter DISCOM




BEFORE AFTER

0-1 2-3 4-5 >5 0-1 2-3 4-5 >5

UGVCL 151 69% 28% 3% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%

104 42 5 0 151 0 0 0





0102030405060708090

100

0-1 2-3 4-5 >5

Response (

in %

)


Before After


CONFIDENTIAL


100

The survey results show that around 9% of

the customers had to incur expense in the

bracket of INR 501-1000 due to each motor


expense in the bracket of INR >500 after










Parameter DISCOM



BEFORE AFTER


0-500 501-1000

1001-1500

>1500 0-500 501-1000

1001-1500

>1500

UGVCL 151 9% 1% 26% 64% 100% 0% 0% 0%

13 2 40 96 151 0 0 0



Failure (INR)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Response (

in %

)


Before After


CONFIDENTIAL


101








Yes No Yes No

UGVCL 57 94 151 0



All of the 151 beneficiaries surveyed

were happy & satisfied with the

implementation of the KHUSHY Scheme

and had expressed their interest and

willingness in support and continuation

of the scheme in other parts of the state

aggressively.

38%

62%

Yes No

100%

-

Yes No

Figure 12.24: View on Continuation of the Scheme in other areas of

Gujarat



CONFIDENTIAL


102


DISCOM Yes No

UGVCL 151 0



CONFIDENTIAL


103














13 Cost-Benefit Analysis of Kisan Hit Urja Shakti Yojana (KHUSHY) – UGVCL













CONFIDENTIAL


104




Appendix A.







scheme are as under:




13.2.1 Transmission and Distribution Losses (UGVCL)













percentage of units loss was in excess of 21% in the year ending 2007-08 which has decreased to 17% in

the year ending 2012-13.


UGVCL 6 26 780


CONFIDENTIAL


105

Figure 13.2: UGVCL - Year-Wise % Units Loss




2006-07 14.32 12.94 1.38 10%

2007-08 17.88 14.20 3.68 21%

2008-09 18.42 16.28 2.14 12%

2009-10 23.51 19.43 4.08 17%

2010-11 20.75 20.05 0.70 3%

2011-12 21.67 19.66 2.01 9%

2012-13 24.98 20.71 4.27 17%


-5

5

15

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

95

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13




CONFIDENTIAL


106




The details of the % theoretical losses are as given in the below table.


Discom 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

UGVCL


55% 54% 24% 31% 53% 35% 31%

Theoretical Loss (MUs)

20.08 18.96 8.44 12.13 17.82 12.81 12.73

Figure 13.3: Year-Wise Theoretical Loss (%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13


CONFIDENTIAL


107

13.2.2 Transformer Failures (UGVCL)


The percentage of Transformer Failure as around 8 % in the year ending 2006-07 which dipped to 5 % in

the year ending 2011-12 and subsequently increased back to 8 % in 2012-13.


DISCOM 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

UGVCL 14% 16% 9% 5% 5% 7% 4%


13.3 Payback Period (UGVCL)







Figure 13.4: UGVCL Year-Wise Transformer Failure


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13



CONFIDENTIAL


108







described as under















Share Capital 12%








CONFIDENTIAL


109





Table 13.5: UGVCL – Payback Calculations (Dedicated Feeders)

Particulars Units

No. of Feeders 7







Table 13.6: UGVCL – Payback Calculations (Scattered Feeders)

Particulars Units

No. of Feeders -







Table 13.7: UGVCL – Payback Calculations (Overall)

Particulars Units

No. of Feeders -








CONFIDENTIAL


110

Part D: Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Limited (MGVCL)


CONFIDENTIAL


111

14.1 Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Limited

MGVCL was incorporated in September,

2003, primarily to carry out distribution of

electricity to retail and bulk consumers and

has become operational effective from 1st

April 2005. The Company is engaged in

distribution of electricity in 5 districts namely

Panchmahal, Kheda, Dahod, Anand and

Vadodara. There are in total 27, 06,903

customers of MGVCL out of which around

82,289 are agricultural customers. The

areas covered by MGVCL are as depicted in

the below figure. The basic details of

DGVCL are as illustrated in the table below

Particulars Details


Districts Covered 5

Talukas Covered 48

Villages Covered 4,404

Total Consumers of Company 27,06,903

Circles 4

Divisions 21

14 Profile of MGVCL


CONFIDENTIAL


112














The details of feeders in MGVCL which have been fully converted into HVDS and the number of

transformers installed are as given in the table:

15 Implementation of Kisan Hit Urja Shakti Yojana (KHUSHY) – MGVCL

CO

NF

IDE

NT

IAL

Fin

al R

eport

Co

st B

en

efit A

na

lysis

of K

isan

Hit U

rja S

ha

kti Y

oja

na

(KH

US

H

113

MC

B/IS

A/A

/0/0

10 A

pril 2

014

P:\A

hm

edabad\A

MC

\PR

OJE

CT

S\3

26672A

A01\D

ocum

ents

\Report\G

UV

NL - K

HU

SH

Y - F

inal R

eport-V

3.d

ocx

Table 15.1: MGVCL Feeder Details


Project Cost

(Lakhs) Year of

Completion

NADIAD MAHEMDAVAD KATHLAL GANGA DAS NA MUVADA

0 0 27 99 105 231 25 Ongoing

Anand Anand Umreth Pansora 29 30 54 3 0 116 35.28 2011-2012

Anand Anand Umreth Dagjipura 18 68 56 6 0 148 57.95 2011-2012

Anand Anand Umreth Kasor 50 56 31 4 0 141 105.82 2012-2013

Nadiad Nadiad Rural Mahudha Kaprupur - - - - - - - 2011-2012

Total 97 154 168 112 105 636 224


CONFIDENTIAL


114













16.1.1 Sample Design







The details of sample design for MGVCL is are as under



MGVCL 1 1 1 2 100


The sample distribution for the consumer perception study in MGVCL is as given in the table below



MGVCL Anand Anand Bhalej

Dagjipura 74

Kasor 26

Total MGVCL 100

TOTAL 3265

16 Consumer Perception of Kisan Hit Urja Shakti Yojana (KHUSHY) – MGVCL


CONFIDENTIAL


115





fetched broadly included the following:













with the report.

16.2 Key Results of Consumer Perception Study - MGVCL

The consultants have surveyed a total of 100 agricultural consumers across MGVCL. The key survey






of the same is given in subsequent sections.







CONFIDENTIAL


116


to be upheld.



with 55% of them having 4-7 dependent family members, 6% having 1-4 family members dependent, 25%

having 7-10 family members dependent and 14% having >10 family members dependent on the income &

earnings of the head of the household.






4-7 51

7-10 23

>10 13

Total 100 Total 100





6%

55%

25%

14%1-3

4-7

7-10

>10

100%

0%

Agriculture

Others


CONFIDENTIAL


117










Total 100 Total 100









having ratings in the range of 10- 25 KVA, 8% of them were using transformers with ratings in the range of

25 – 65 KVA and only 1% were having transformers with ratings in the range of > 65 KVA.

100%

0%

Owned

Leased


CONFIDENTIAL


118





1-5 KVA 0 10 – 25 KVA 91

5-10 KVA 51 25 – 65 KVA 8

>10 KVA 49 >65 KVA 1

Total 100 Total 100











0%

51%49% 1-5

5-10

>10

91.0%

8% 1.0%

10 - 25 KVA

25 - 65 KVA

>65 KVA


CONFIDENTIAL


119







the KHUSHY scheme.


Statement DISCOM

Stro

ng

ly

Ag

ree

Ag

ree

No

Ch

an

ge

Dis

ag

ree

Stro

ng

ly

Dis

ag

ree

To

tal


MGVCL

100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%

100 0 0 0 0 100





scheme.



100.0%

Strongly Agree


CONFIDENTIAL


120




Statement DISCOM

Stro

ng

ly

Ag

ree

Ag

ree

No

C

ha

ng

e

Dis

ag

ree

Stro

ng

ly

Dis

ag

ree

To

tal


MGVCL 74% 26% 0% 0% 0% 100%

74 26 0 .0 0 100







of failure.





74.0%

26%

Strongly Agree

Agree


CONFIDENTIAL


121

The overall outcome of the survey states that nearly 100% of the surveyed consumers strongly agree with

the statement that the transformer failure has reduced after the implementation of the KHUSHY scheme.


Statement DISCOM

Stro

ng

ly

Ag

ree

Ag

ree

No

Ch

an

ge

Dis

ag

ree

Stro

ng

ly

Dis

ag

ree

To

tal


MGVCL

100% 0 0 0 0 100%

100 0 0 0 0 100










100.0%

0%

Strongly Agree

Agree


CONFIDENTIAL


122














Statement DISCOM

Stro

ng

ly

Ag

ree

Ag

ree

No

Ch

an

ge

Dis

ag

ree

Stro

ng

ly

Dis

ag

ree

To

tal


MGVCL

100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%

100 0 0 0 0 100










show that all the surveyed consumers

believe that there has been no change in

crop output and yield after the






100%

0%

Strongly Agree

No Change

100.00%

0.00%

No Change Agree


CONFIDENTIAL


123


Statement DISCOM

Stro

ng

ly

Ag

ree

Ag

ree

No

Ch

an

ge

Dis

ag

ree

Stro

ng

ly

Dis

ag

ree

To

tal


MGVCL

0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100%

0 0 100 0 0 100






survey states that none of the

consumers surveyed agree with the


has increased after the implementation

of the KHUSHY scheme


Statement DISCOM

Stro

ng

ly

Ag

ree

Ag

ree

No

Ch

an

ge

Dis

ag

ree

Stro

ng

ly

Dis

ag

ree

To

tal


MGVCL

0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100%

0 0 100 0 0 100




0%

100%

Agree No Change


CONFIDENTIAL


124




100% of the surveyed consumers strongly agree

with the statement that the availability of free

time after the implementation of the KHUSHY

scheme.














Statement DISCOM

Stro

ng

ly

Ag

ree

Ag

ree

No

Ch

an

ge

Dis

ag

ree

Stro

ng

ly

Dis

ag

ree

To

tal


MGVCL 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%

100 0 0 0 0 100




100%

0%



CONFIDENTIAL


125



can be depicted from the table, however the

overall outcome of the survey states that

100% of the surveyed beneficiaries strongly

agree with the statement that they are overall

satisfied after the implementation of the

KHUSHY scheme.


Statement DISCOM

Stro

ng

ly

Ag

ree

Ag

ree

No

C

ha

ng

e

Dis

ag

ree

Stro

ng

ly

Dis

ag

ree

To

tal


MGVCL 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%

100 0 0 0 0 100







100%

0%



CONFIDENTIAL


126





















Parameter DISCOM



Before After

0-2 3-5 > 5 0-2 3-5 >5

MGVCL 100 63% 35% 2% 100% 0% 0%

63 35 2 100 0 0


0102030405060708090

100

0-2 3-5 > 5

Re

spo

nse

(in

%)


Before After


CONFIDENTIAL


127


transformer failure. After the implementation of KHUSHY all of the surveyed customers experienced 0-5

days loss due to each transformer failure and also the rate of failure has decreased to 0-2 per year.


Parameter DISCOM


Average No. of Days

Loss Per Failure

BEFORE AFTER

0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 > 20 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 > 20

MGVCL 100 99% 1% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

99 1 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 > 20

Re

spo

nse

(in

%)


Before

After


CONFIDENTIAL


128











experienced motor failures in the


show that there has been a

considerable decrease in motor failure



Parameter DISCOM




BEFORE AFTER

0-2 3-5 6-8 >8 0-2 3-5 6-8 >8

MGVCL 100 76% 24% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%

76 24 0 0 100 0 0 0




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0-2 3-5 6-8 >8

Re

spo

nse

(in

%)


Before After


CONFIDENTIAL


129

The survey results show that 100% of the

surveyed customers experienced 0-5

days loss after each motor failure. After


surveyed customers experienced day loss

after each motor failure in the bracket of

0-5 times. The results hence show that

there has been a considerable decrease

in average day loss per motor failure after



Parameter DISCOM




BEFORE AFTER

0-5 6-10 > 10 0-5 6-10 > 10

MGVCL 100 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%

100 0 0 100 0 0




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0-5 6-10 > 10

Re

spo

nse

(in

%)


Failure

Before After


CONFIDENTIAL


130



expense in the bracket of INR 0-2000 due

to each motor failure while other 30% had

to incur expense in the bracket of INR










Parameter DISCOM



Average Expense

per Failure due to

Maintenance (INR)

BEFORE AFTER

0-2000

2100-4000

4100-6000

6100-8000

> 8000 0-2000 2100-4000

4100-6000

6100-8000

> 8000

MGVCL 100 28% 1% 0% 30% 41% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

28 1 0 30 41 100 0 0 0 0








around 2- 3 times/year. After the implementation of


experienced motor starter failure in the bracket of

0-1 times. The results hence show that there has

been a considerable decrease in motor starter




0102030405060708090

100

Response (

in %

)


Before After

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0-1 2-3 4-5 >5

Response (

in %

)


Before After


CONFIDENTIAL


131

Table 16.19: Details on Motor Starter Failure (No/Year)

Parameter DISCOM

No. of Beneficiari

es Surveyed


Average Expense

per Failure due to

Maintenance (INR)

BEFORE AFTER

0-1 2-3 4-5 >5 0-1 2-3 4-5 >5

MGVCL 100 51% 49% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%

51 49 0 0 100 0 0 0












Parameter DISCOM




BEFORE AFTER

0-1 2-3 4-5 >5 0-1 2-3 4-5 >5

MGVCL 100 51% 49% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%

51 49 0 0 100 0 0 0





0102030405060708090

100

0-1 2-3 4-5 >5

Response (

in %

)


Before After


CONFIDENTIAL


132


of the customers had to incur expense in

the bracket of INR 0-500 due to each motor


expense in the bracket of INR >1500 after










Parameter DISCOM



BEFORE AFTER


0-500 501-1000

1001-1500

>1500 0-500 501-1000

1001-1500

>1500

MGVCL 100 31% 0% 0% 69% 100% 0% 0% 0%

31 0 0 69 100 0 0 0



Failure (INR)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Response (

in %

)


Before After


CONFIDENTIAL


133








Yes No Yes No

MGVCL 38 62 100 0



All of the 100 beneficiaries

surveyed were happy & satisfied

with the implementation of the

KHUSHY Scheme and had

expressed their interest and

willingness in support and

continuation of the scheme in

other parts of the state

aggressively.

38%

62%

Yes No

100%

-

Yes No




CONFIDENTIAL


134


DISCOM Yes No

MGVCL 100 0



CONFIDENTIAL


135








DISCOMs are tangible, the benefits accrued by the agricultural consumers are mainly intangible.

The consultants had devised a methodology to conduct the cost-benefit analysis which included

segregating the various benefits under the tangible and intangible categories and drawing analysis on the

information provided by individual distribution companies. The various benefits accrued by the distribution

companies and the agricultural consumers are as shown in the figure.


17 Cost-Benefit Analysis of Kisan Hit Urja Shakti Yojana (KHUSHY) – MGVCL













CONFIDENTIAL


136




Appendix A.







scheme are as under




17.2.1 Transmission and Distribution Losses (MGVCL)













percentage of units loss was in excess of 21% in the year ending 2006-07 which has dipped to 16% in the



MGVCL 3 25 400


CONFIDENTIAL


137

Figure 17.2: MGVCL - Year-Wise % Units Loss




2006-07 11.4 9.0 2.4 21%

2007-08 12.9 9.7 3.3 25%

2008-09 13.6 10.8 2.8 21%

2009-10 14.0 11.7 2.3 16%

2010-11 10.9 9.3 1.6 15%

2011-12 13.1 11.4 1.7 13%

2012-13 14.3 11.9 2.3 16%


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13




CONFIDENTIAL


138




The details of the % theoretical losses are as given in the below table


Discom 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

MGVCL


- 84% 41% 55% 79% 69% 66%

Figure 17.3: Year-Wise Theoretical Loss

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

% Theoretical Loss


CONFIDENTIAL


139

17.2.2 Transformer Failures (MGVCL)


The percentage of Transformer Failure as around 4% in the year ending 2007-08 which has dipped to 2 %



DISCOM 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

MGVCL - 4% 3% 4% 4% 4% 2%

17.3 Payback Period (MGVCL)







Figure 17.4: PGVCL Year-Wise Transformer Failure


0

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13



CONFIDENTIAL


140







described as under















Share Capital 12%








CONFIDENTIAL


141


Table 17.5: MGVCL – Payback Calculations (Dedicated Feeders)

Particulars Units

No. of Feeders 3







Table 17.6: MGVCL – Payback Calculations (Scattered Feeders)

Particulars Units

No. of Feeders -







Table 17.7: MGVCL – Payback Calculations (Overall)

Particulars Units

No. of Feeders -








CONFIDENTIAL


142

18.1 Consumer Perception of KHUSHY

18.1.1 Overall Voltage Level/Quality

There has been a major improvement in the voltage level/quality after the implementation of KHUSHY. The

continuity of power supply would not be effective in absence of low or constantly fluctuating voltage. The

effectiveness of the implementation of the scheme on this parameter is crucial and has led to improve

satisfaction levels of the customers.

18.1.2 Line break/Unscheduled Breakdowns

The incidences of line breaks and unscheduled shutdowns have also drastically decreased after


18.1.3 Incidence of Hooking

Theft and pilferage account for a substantial part of the high transmission and distribution losses. One of

the objectives of the scheme was to minimize these losses. The various steps and technical interventions

during the scheme have made it cumbersome for the customers indulge in such activities.

18.1.4 Crop Output & Yield

The primary objective of the project was to provide consumers with uninterrupted and quality Power related

benefits. The Crop output & yield are directly dependent on the monsoon & weather conditions. The

electricity has little impact on the crop yield especially in cases where there is levels of underground water

are low.

18.1.5 Transformer Failure

The transformer failures have decreased drastically after the implementation of KHUSHY. Majority of the

surveyed customers strongly agree or agree to the statement that the transformer failures have reduced

after the implementation of the scheme.

The survey results show that majority of the customers experienced transformer failures around 3-5 times


customers experienced transformer failure in the bracket of 0-2 times. The results hence show that there

has been a considerable decrease in transformer failure after the implementation of KHUSHY.

The results also show that there has been a considerable decrease in average days loss per transformer


18 Observations & Recommendations


CONFIDENTIAL


143

18.1.6 Motor Failure

The survey results show that a major portion of the customers experienced motor failures around 3-5 times


customers experienced motor failures in the bracket of 0-2 times. The results hence show that there has

been a considerable decrease in motor failure after the implementation of KHUSHY.

The results also show that there has been a considerable decrease in average days loss per motor failure


The results hence show that there has been a considerable decrease in expense incurred on motor


18.1.7 Motor Starter Failure

The survey results show that a major portion of the customers experienced motor starter failures around 2-

3 times/year while other few experienced it more than 3 times. After the implementation of KHUSHY all the

surveyed customers experienced motor starter failure in the bracket of 0-1 times. The results hence show

that there has been a considerable decrease in motor starter failure after the implementation of KHUSHY.

The results also show that there has been a considerable decrease in average days loss per motor starter


The results also show that there has been a considerable decrease in expense incurred on motor starter


18.1.8 Bore Well

The operating hours of the bore well basically depends upon three variables including the monsoon, the

levels of ground water and availability of electricity. The electricity issue have been solved to a large extent

after the implementation of the scheme. The other two variables remaining unpredictable and largely

varying from location to location there, no major increase in the operating hours of the bore wells has been

observed.


Out of the 2865 beneficiaries surveyed, 99% of them are happy & satisfied with the implementation of the

KHUSHY Scheme and have expressed their interest and willingness in support and continuation of the

scheme in other parts of the state.


CONFIDENTIAL


144

18.2 Estimated Monetary Benefit to Customers

The estimated yearly savings by the customers (across all discoms) on the cost incurred on motor failures

and motor starter failures are as under

Table 18.1: Monetary Benefits

Particulars INR Average no. of

Failures/Year Average expense

incurred/customer/year Number of Customers

Total Estimated Savings/Year

Average Savings in Motor Failure Expenses after KHUSHY

3233 2 6466 44286 28,63,53276

Average Savings in Motor Starter Failure Expenses after KHUSHY

1126 1.6 1801 44286 7,97,85657

Total INR 36,61,38934

It can be seen from the above table that there is a saving in excess of INR 360 Million to farmers only by

way of reduction in motor and motor starter failure expenses. In addition to this there is man days savings

which now is used by farmers in other productive work like different livelihood and more time spend with

their family.

18.3 Cost Benefit Analysis for DISCOMs

The implementation of the scheme had resulted into significant benefit for two discoms (UGVCL &

PGVCL). The payback of investment after considering the cost of capital associated with share capital is

reasonable as per industry standards and practise for schemes which have far reaching social

significance. The details of discom-wise investment, savings (MUs), estimated payback period is provided

in the table below:

Table 18.2: Summary of Analysis

DISCOM

Total Expenditure as on 31st March 2012-

13 (INR Crore)

Base Year (1st Year)

Payback Period from Base Year

( IN YEARS) Payback Year

Estimated Savings ( in

MUS)

DGVCL (Dedicated) 6.22 2013-14 15.48 2028-29 0.84

DGVCL (Scattered) 4.38 2013-14 53.11 2065-66 0.19

DGVCL (TOTAL) 10.59 2013-14 22.16 2034-35 1.03

MGVCL (Dedicated) 1.99 2013-14 3.49 2016-17 0.73

MGVCL (Scattered) 27.24 2013-14 9.50 2022-23 5.81

MGVCL (TOTAL) 29.23 2013-14 8.83 2021-22 6.54

PGVCL (Dedicated) 308.24 2013-14 3.20 2016-17 174.94

PGVCL(Scattered) 160.27 2013-14 12.91 2024-25 49.11

PGVCL (TOTAL) 468.51 2013-14 5.04 2018-19 224.05


CONFIDENTIAL


145

DISCOM

Total Expenditure as on 31st March 2012-

13 (INR Crore)

Base Year (1st Year)

Payback Period from Base Year

( IN YEARS) Payback Year

Estimated Savings ( in

MUS)

UGVCL (Dedicated) 4.26 2013-14 14.93 2027-28 0.67

UGVCL (Scattered) 31.52 2013-14 18.76 2031-32 3.80

UGVCL (TOTAL) 35.78 2013-14 18.30 2031-32 4.47

TOTAL 544.11 - - - 236.09

Since the implementation of scheme has accrued monetary benefits for some of the discoms, the scheme

should be implemented in line with rationale of converting high-loss Ag LVDS feeders into HVDS feeders.

The focus and priority should be given to conversion of dedicated feeders over scattered pockets.


CONFIDENTIAL


146

Appendices

Appendix A. List of Feeders Covered Under KHUSHY _______________________________________________ 147 Appendix B. Feeder Wise Change in Units Billed ___________________________________________________ 154 Appendix C. Feeder-Wise Details on Transformer Failure & Customer Complaints _________________________ 162 Appendix D. Questionnaire ____________________________________________________________________ 169


CONFIDENTIAL


147

The list of feeders covered under KHUSY and the corresponding details including Discom details, Circle,

Division, Sub-Division, villages covered, number of consumers benefitted, number of transformers installed

etc. are as given in the table:

Appendix A. List of Feeders Covered Under KHUSHY

CO

NF

IDE

NT

IAL

Fin

al R

eport

Co

st B

en

efit A

na

lysis

of K

isan

Hit U

rja S

ha

kti Y

oja

na

(KH

US

H

148

MC

B/IS

A/A

/0/0

10 A

pril 2

014

P:\A

hm

edabad\A

MC

\PR

OJE

CT

S\3

26672A

A01\D

ocum

ents

\Report\G

UV

NL - K

HU

SH

Y - F

inal R

eport-V

3.d

ocx

Discom Circle Division Sub-Division Feeder Year of Completion No. of Installed Transformers

PGVCL Amreli Una Una-2 Amodra 231 2012-13

PGVCL Amreli Una Kodinar-2 Anandpur Amr 346 2012-13

PGVCL Amreli Una Kodinar-1 Balnath 234 2011-12

PGVCL Amreli Una Kodinar-2 Batheshvar # 2010-11

PGVCL Amreli Una Kodinar-2 Bhavani 414 2010-11

PGVCL Amreli Amreli-2 Vadia Dhundhiya Pipaliya 181 2009-10

PGVCL Amreli Una Kodinar-2 Fafani 242 2010-11

PGVCL Amreli SKD Jafrabad Fichadi 347 2012-13

PGVCL Amreli Una Kodinar-2 Gaytri 284 2010-11

PGVCL Amreli Una Kodinar Gir Devali 378 2009-10

PGVCL Amreli Amreli-1 Amreli Rural Giriya 106 2012-13

PGVCL Amreli SKD Rajula Hindorana 176 2010-11

PGVCL Amreli Una Kodinar-2 Khodiyar # 2011-12

PGVCL Amreli Amreli-2 Dhari-2 Marvadi 116 2012-13

PGVCL Amreli Amreli-2 Chalala Morzar 143 2012-13

PGVCL Amreli Una Kodinar-2 Pichhava Ag 117 2009-10

PGVCL Amreli Una Kodinar-2 Satyanarayan # 2010-11

PGVCL Amreli Amreli-1 Babra Valaradi 162 2012-13

PGVCL Amreli Amreli-2 Kunkavav Vavdi Road 323 2010-11

PGVCL Bhavnagar Bhavnagar Rural Vartej Bcw 195 2012-13

PGVCL Bhavnagar Mahuva Jesar Bhandariya 132 2010-11

PGVCL Bhavnagar Palitana Talaja Borda Ag 141 2009-10

PGVCL Bhavnagar Mahuva Mahuva R-2 Datha 159 2012-13

PGVCL Bhavnagar Bhavnagar City-2 Ghogha Hathab 189 2012-13

PGVCL Bhavnagar Mahuva Jesar Hipavadli 78 2012-13

PGVCL Bhavnagar Bhavnagar City-2 Mamsa Jaspara 322 2010-11

PGVCL Bhavnagar Bhavnagar Rural Vartej Khodiyar 153 2008-09

PGVCL Bhavnagar Bhavnagar Rural Vartej Khokhara 367 2009-10

PGVCL Bhavnagar Mahuva Mahuva R-2 Kotda 147 2010-11

PGVCL Bhavnagar Palitana Golidhal Navagam 39 2012-13

PGVCL Bhavnagar Palitana Talaja Padri 203 2012-13

CO

NF

IDE

NT

IAL

Fin

al R

eport

Co

st B

en

efit A

na

lysis

of K

isan

Hit U

rja S

ha

kti Y

oja

na

(KH

US

H

149

MC

B/IS

A/A

/0/0

10 A

pril 2

014

P:\A

hm

edabad\A

MC

\PR

OJE

CT

S\3

26672A

A01\D

ocum

ents

\Report\G

UV

NL - K

HU

SH

Y - F

inal R

eport-V

3.d

ocx


PGVCL Bhavnagar Bhavnagar Rural Sanosara Pipardi Ag 142 2012-13

PGVCL Bhavnagar Mahuva Jesar Vadal 111 2011-12

PGVCL Bhavnagar Bhavnagar Rural Sanosara Vavadi 208 2010-11

PGVCL Bhuj Naliya Kothara Arjanpar Ag 60 2012-13

PGVCL Bhuj Anjar Anjar Rural-1 Bhalot Ag 61 2011-12

PGVCL Bhuj Anjar Anjar Rural Bhavanipar 103 2010-11

PGVCL Bhuj Anjar Anjar T Dabda 41 2012-13

PGVCL Bhuj Naliya Nakhtrana Devisar 98 2010-11

PGVCL Bhuj Mandvi Mundra Gelda 90 2011-12

PGVCL Bhuj Anjar Bhimasar Hamirpar 255 2012-13

PGVCL Bhuj Anjar Bhachau Kharoi 80 2010-11

PGVCL Bhuj Bhachau Rapar Khengarpar 97 2012-13

PGVCL Bhuj Bhuj Deshalpar Khirsara Ag 44 2012-13

PGVCL Bhuj Naliya Nakhtrana Mathal Ag 21 2012-13

PGVCL Bhuj Mandvi Dahisara Meghpar 73 2012-13

PGVCL Bhuj Mandvi Mundra Navinal 123 2010-11

PGVCL Bhuj Bhuj Madhapara Vavdi 14 2012-13

PGVCL Botad Botad Paliyad Babarkot 149 2009-10

PGVCL Botad Botad Botad (T-2) Dhakaniya 114 2011-12

PGVCL Botad Botad Barvala Mithapur Ag 151 2008-09

PGVCL Botad Gadhada Dhasa Patana 336 2008-09

PGVCL Botad Gadhada Gadhda-R Pipal 122 2012-13

PGVCL Botad Botad Botad (R) Ratanvav 21 2012-13

PGVCL Botad Gadhada DHASA Sitapar 95 2012-13

PGVCL Botad Botad Botad Zamrala Ag 31 2012-13

PGVCL Jamnagar Jamnagar City-1 Hapa Aliyabada (New) 266 2008-09

PGVCL Jamnagar Jamnagar Rural Kalavad West Bamangam 276 2010-11

PGVCL Jamnagar Jamnagar City-2 Rural Dhandha Ag 196 2012-13

PGVCL Jamnagar Jamjhodpur Bhanavad Gunda 170 2010-11

PGVCL Jamnagar Khamabhalia Khamabhalia-R Hapa Lakhasar 124 2010-11

PGVCL Jamnagar Jamjhodpur Lalpur Haripar 153 2012-13

CO

NF

IDE

NT

IAL

Fin

al R

eport

Co

st B

en

efit A

na

lysis

of K

isan

Hit U

rja S

ha

kti Y

oja

na

(KH

US

H

150

MC

B/IS

A/A

/0/0

10 A

pril 2

014

P:\A

hm

edabad\A

MC

\PR

OJE

CT

S\3

26672A

A01\D

ocum

ents

\Report\G

UV

NL - K

HU

SH

Y - F

inal R

eport-V

3.d

ocx


PGVCL Jamnagar Khamabhalia Vadatra SD Juvangadh 276 2012-13

PGVCL Jamnagar Jamjhodpur Jamjhodpur West Mota Vadiya 101 2010-11

PGVCL Jamnagar Jamnagar City-2 Sikka Padana 160 2012-13

PGVCL Jamnagar Jamnagar Rural Dhrol SD Rampar 433 2012-13

PGVCL Jamnagar Jamnagar Rural Kalavad East Sanala 291 2010-11

PGVCL Jamnagar Jamjhodpur Jamjhodpur East Sidsar 183 2010-11

PGVCL Jamnagar Jamnagar City-2 Hapa Theba Ag. 174 2012-13

PGVCL Junagadh Veraval Akolvadi Amblash 157 2010-11

PGVCL Junagadh Junagadh-2 Vanthali Balot (Naredi) 223 2011-12

PGVCL Junagadh Veraval Talala Bhalchel 145 2012-13

PGVCL Junagadh Junagadh-1 Bhesan Bhatgam 165 2012-13

PGVCL Junagadh Veraval P. Patan Dari Navapara 255 2010-11

PGVCL Junagadh Veraval Pranchi Gorakhmadhi 260 2010-11

PGVCL Junagadh Veraval P. Patan Govindpara (Old Talala) 185 2010-11

PGVCL Junagadh Veraval P. Patan Harnasha 267 2012-13

PGVCL Junagadh Veraval P. Patan Khodiyar Jnd 153 2010-11

PGVCL Junagadh Veraval Akolvadi Kodidra 223 2010-11

PGVCL Junagadh Junagadh-1 VSR-2 Leriya Ag 218 2012-13

PGVCL Junagadh Veraval Pranchi Moradia 227 2010-11

PGVCL Junagadh Veraval Talala Pipalava 401 2010-11

PGVCL Junagadh Veraval Akolvadi Raydi (Rampara) 141 2010-11

PGVCL Junagadh Junagadh City GIDC Junagadh Sonrakh 11 2012-13

PGVCL Junagadh Veraval Pranchi Sunderpara 300 2010-11

PGVCL Junagadh Junagadh-1 Bilkha Swami 257 2012-13

PGVCL Morbi Halvad Sara Ambardi 60 2012-13

PGVCL Morbi Morbi Tankara Ambavadi 110 2012-13

PGVCL Morbi Morbi Morbi Rural Balwam 74 2012-13

PGVCL Morbi Halvad Charadva Chupani 146 2010-11

PGVCL Morbi Halvad Halvad Town Dhavana 31 2012-13

PGVCL Morbi Morbi Tankara Hadmatia Ag 179 2012-13

PGVCL Morbi Wankaner Wankaner Rural-1 Holmadh 150 2012-13

CO

NF

IDE

NT

IAL

Fin

al R

eport

Co

st B

en

efit A

na

lysis

of K

isan

Hit U

rja S

ha

kti Y

oja

na

(KH

US

H

151

MC

B/IS

A/A

/0/0

10 A

pril 2

014

P:\A

hm

edabad\A

MC

\PR

OJE

CT

S\3

26672A

A01\D

ocum

ents

\Report\G

UV

NL - K

HU

SH

Y - F

inal R

eport-V

3.d

ocx


PGVCL Morbi Halvad Sara Jay Bhavani 66 2010-11

PGVCL Morbi Halvad Sara Jay Bhole 86 2012-13

PGVCL Morbi Halvad Halvad Town Kansari 41 2012-13

PGVCL Morbi Halvad Halvad Town Merupar 17 2012-13

PGVCL Morbi Halvad Charadva Om 35 2012-13

PGVCL Morbi Halvad Sara Pavan 90 2010-11

PGVCL Morbi Halvad Sara Ranipat 61 2012-13

PGVCL Morbi Wankaner Wankaner Rural-2 Ratadia 49 2012-13

PGVCL Morbi Wankaner Wankaner Rural-2 Samtherava 155 2010-11

PGVCL Morbi Halvad Halvad Town Shivlaheri 40 2012-13

PGVCL Morbi Halvad Sara Sundari 101 2012-13

PGVCL Morbi Halvad Charadva Sundergadh 127 2010-11

PGVCL Porbandar Keshod-2 Keshod-O&M-1 Amarnath 302 2010-11

PGVCL Porbandar Porbandar Rural Ranavav Boradi 185 2012-13

PGVCL Porbandar Keshod-2 Mangrol(R) Chakivav 331 2010-11

PGVCL Porbandar Porbandar Rural Bagvadar Chamunda 149 2012-13

PGVCL Porbandar Keshod-O&M-2 Chorwad Devgam 207 2010-11

PGVCL Porbandar Mangrol Madhavpur Diwasa 73 2011-12

PGVCL Porbandar Kutiyana RURAL Khodiyar Pbr 143 2012-13

PGVCL Porbandar Porbandar Rural Bagvadar Mariya 116 2012-13

PGVCL Porbandar Keshod-1 Rural-1 Nonjalvav 207 2012-13

PGVCL Porbandar Keshod-2 Keshod-O&M-1 Nunarda 162 2010-11

PGVCL Porbandar Keshod-2 Mangrol(R) Satmarg 175 2010-11

PGVCL Porbandar Keshod-2 Mangrol(R) Shepa 453 2010-11

PGVCL Porbandar Keshod-1 Keshod-O&M-1 Shergadh 322 2011-12

PGVCL Porbandar Keshod-O&M-2 Mangrol(T) Water Works 240 2010-11

PGVCL Rajkot City Rajkot City-3 Rajkot Rural Sub-Div Nakarawadi 218 2012-13

PGVCL Rajkot City Rajkot City-3 Madhapar Sub-Div Rangpar 220 2012-13

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Dhoraji Dhoraji (R) Bateshwar 287 2012-13

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Gondal Kotda Bhadva 195 2010-11

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Dhoraji Jetpur (R) Dedarva 154 2012-13

CO

NF

IDE

NT

IAL

Fin

al R

eport

Co

st B

en

efit A

na

lysis

of K

isan

Hit U

rja S

ha

kti Y

oja

na

(KH

US

H

152

MC

B/IS

A/A

/0/0

10 A

pril 2

014

P:\A

hm

edabad\A

MC

\PR

OJE

CT

S\3

26672A

A01\D

ocum

ents

\Report\G

UV

NL - K

HU

SH

Y - F

inal R

eport-V

3.d

ocx


PGVCL Rajkot Rural Gondal Lodhika Devda 427 2010-11

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Gondal Vasavad Devgam Rrc 213 2010-11

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Jasdan Sardhar Gadhka 264 2010-11

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Jasdan Jasdan Godladhar 128 2012-13

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Dhoraji Jetpur (R) Haripar Rrc 63 2010-11

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Dhoraji Jamkandorana Kobeshwar 181 2010-11

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Jasdan Jasdan Lilapur 128 2010-11

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Dhoraji Navagadh Lunagara 328 2011-12

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Rajkot Rural Div LODHIKA Makhavad 172 2012-13

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Gondal Rural-2 Mevasha 172 2012-13

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Rajkot Rural Div Paddhari Mota Rampar 279 2012-13

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Rajkot City-3 Mpsd Rajdan 272 2011-12

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Rajkot City-3 RSD Ranpur 151 2012-13

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Jasdan Vinchhiya Sanali 252 2010-11

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Rajkot City-3 RSD Sanosara 168 2010-11

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Rajkot Rural Div Paddhari Thoriyali 349 2010-11

PGVCL Surendranagar Dhangadhra Dhangadhra Rural Akalvad 48 2012-13

PGVCL Surendranagar Surendranagar-2 Than Anandpur 164 2010-11

PGVCL Surendranagar Surendranagar-2 Muli Bali 62 2010-11

PGVCL Surendranagar Surendranagar-1 Chuda Borana 202 2008-09

PGVCL Surendranagar Surendranagar-2 Than Dada # 2011-12

PGVCL Surendranagar Surendranagar-2 Sayla Devgadh # 2011-12

PGVCL Surendranagar Surendranagar-2 Sayla Fulgram 307 2008-09

PGVCL Surendranagar Surendranagar-2 Than Gebinath 64 2012-13

PGVCL Surendranagar Dhangadhra Bavli Jayshakti 53 2009-10

PGVCL Surendranagar Surendranagar-1 Chuda Keriya 72 2012-13

PGVCL Surendranagar Surendranagar-2 Than Khakharathal 106 2011-12

PGVCL Surendranagar Surendranagar-2 Muli Khatdi 155 2010-11

PGVCL Surendranagar Dhangadhra Rajsitapur Meghdev 25 2011-12

PGVCL Surendranagar Surendranagar-2 Sayla Nagadka 81 2012-13

PGVCL Surendranagar Dhangadhra Bavli Narichana 54 2012-13

CO

NF

IDE

NT

IAL

Fin

al R

eport

Co

st B

en

efit A

na

lysis

of K

isan

Hit U

rja S

ha

kti Y

oja

na

(KH

US

H

153

MC

B/IS

A/A

/0/0

10 A

pril 2

014

P:\A

hm

edabad\A

MC

\PR

OJE

CT

S\3

26672A

A01\D

ocum

ents

\Report\G

UV

NL - K

HU

SH

Y - F

inal R

eport-V

3.d

ocx


PGVCL Surendranagar Surendranagar-1 LSDR Navi Morvad # 2008-09

PGVCL Surendranagar Surendranagar-2 Sayla Noli 202 2010-11

PGVCL Surendranagar Surendranagar-2 SRSD Pandavra 121 2011-12

PGVCL Surendranagar Surendranagar-2 Muli Ramperda 36 2010-11

PGVCL Surendranagar Surendranagar-1 LSDR Sardar # 2008-09

PGVCL Surendranagar Dhangadhra Bavli Siddhanath 58 2009-10


CONFIDENTIAL


154

The Feeder-wise change in units billed after implementation of KHUSHY is as given in the table:

Appendix B. Feeder Wise Change in Units Billed

CO

NF

IDE

NT

IAL

Fin

al R

eport

Co

st B

en

efit A

na

lysis

of K

isan

Hit U

rja S

ha

kti Y

oja

na

(KH

US

H

155

MC

B/IS

A/A

/0/0

10 A

pril 2

014

P:\A

hm

edabad\A

MC

\PR

OJE

CT

S\3

26672A

A01\D

ocum

ents

\Report\G

UV

NL - K

HU

SH

Y - F

inal R

eport-V

3.d

ocx

Units Send (MuS) Units Billed (MuS)

Discom Circle Feeder 2006-

07 2007-

08 2008-

09 2009-

10 2010-

11 2011-

12 2012-

13 2006-

07 2007-

08 2008-

09 2009-

10 2010-

11 2011-

12 2012-

13

PGVCL Amreli Amodra 2.82 3.57 4.67 5.23 4.53 5.87 5.79 2.15 2.89 2.91 2.92 2.98 3.27 4.35

PGVCL Amreli Anandpur Amr 6.59 7.05 8.36 6.07 6.07 7.60 11.06 3.59 3.45 3.55 3.55 4.35 4.35 5.44

PGVCL Amreli Balnath 5.52 7.23 7.56 8.52 8.77 8.83 9.10 1.83 3.28 3.39 3.75 4.40 4.77 5.76

PGVCL Amreli Batheshvar #

PGVCL Amreli Bhavani 5.59 6.49 7.01 8.51 5.58 3.43 4.11 1.23 2.36 2.54 2.59 3.03 1.21 1.45

PGVCL Amreli Dhundhiya

Pipaliya 4.20 5.72 5.87 6.80 4.45 5.52 6.38 2.07 2.89 3.22 3.29 4.16 4.66 4.91

PGVCL Amreli Fafani 3.24 3.88 4.09 4.66 3.39 3.15 3.34 0.51 1.02 1.22 1.31 2.11 2.35 2.58

PGVCL Amreli Fichadi 1.65 2.15 1.80 2.06 1.82 4.01 2.42 1.50 1.83 2.00 2.24 1.87 2.28 2.42

PGVCL Amreli Gaytri 5.07 5.26 5.39 6.71 5.55 6.04 4.55 0.87 1.71 1.80 1.84 1.96 3.38 2.56

PGVCL Amreli Gir Devali 5.46 6.22 6.60 8.38 5.18 4.53 4.51 1.40 2.35 2.61 2.68 3.86 2.58 2.69

PGVCL Amreli Giriya 0.00 0.00 4.03 5.98 4.35 3.72 4.13 0.00 0.00 1.43 2.03 1.81 1.97 2.87

PGVCL Amreli Hindorana 1.42 2.42 2.33 1.77 1.50 1.76 2.43 0.81 1.10 1.16 1.52 1.63 1.91 2.28

PGVCL Amreli Khodiyar #

PGVCL Amreli Marvadi 4.06 5.26 5.48 7.70 3.58 5.05 6.02 1.55 3.17 2.98 3.08 1.59 1.73 2.59

PGVCL Amreli Morzar 4.85 5.85 6.61 7.04 4.86 5.96 8.06 1.92 2.86 3.10 2.59 2.01 2.16 3.78

PGVCL Amreli Pichhava Ag 1.06 3.09 2.53 2.75 1.86 2.13 2.29 2.47 2.47 0.58 1.07 1.08 1.12 1.23

PGVCL Amreli Satyanarayan #

PGVCL Amreli Valaradi 1.42 2.92 3.14 4.04 4.34 4.48 3.59 1.36 1.66 1.89 1.82 2.18 2.37 2.67

PGVCL Amreli Vavdi Road 2.32 5.80 3.31 5.85 5.19 6.38 3.77 1.79 2.48 1.81 2.81 3.33 4.68 3.78

PGVCL Bhavnagar Bcw 2.38 3.01 3.54 6.36 5.45 5.55 7.43 1.40 3.10 3.21 3.40 3.59 3.71 4.06

PGVCL Bhavnagar Bhandariya 0.00 0.00 2.58 2.64 1.63 2.28 3.39 0.00 0.00 0.80 1.29 1.36 1.47 2.02

PGVCL Bhavnagar Borda Ag 2.72 2.70 2.45 1.35 1.47 1.84 1.23 1.17 1.09 1.10 0.63 1.01 1.11 1.06

PGVCL Bhavnagar Datha 3.98 4.14 3.93 2.64 2.23 2.86 3.80 1.74 1.26 1.31 0.25 0.54 0.56 1.58

PGVCL Bhavnagar Hathab 2.48 3.02 3.68 4.47 3.81 4.03 4.79 0.29 0.18 0.91 1.27 1.50 1.88 2.43

PGVCL Bhavnagar Hipavadli 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.10 2.71 4.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.62 1.04

PGVCL Bhavnagar Jaspara 3.54 3.62 3.69 4.00 3.15 2.64 2.55 0.52 0.58 0.81 2.13 2.50 2.59 2.65

CO

NF

IDE

NT

IAL

Fin

al R

eport

Co

st B

en

efit A

na

lysis

of K

isan

Hit U

rja S

ha

kti Y

oja

na

(KH

US

H

156

MC

B/IS

A/A

/0/0

10 A

pril 2

014

P:\A

hm

edabad\A

MC

\PR

OJE

CT

S\3

26672A

A01\D

ocum

ents

\Report\G

UV

NL - K

HU

SH

Y - F

inal R

eport-V

3.d

ocx



07 2007-

08 2008-

09 2009-

10 2010-

11 2011-

12 2012-

13 2006-

07 2007-

08 2008-

09 2009-

10 2010-

11 2011-

12 2012-

13

PGVCL Bhavnagar Khodiyar 5.54 5.11 3.73 5.04 4.29 4.83 6.06 3.09 3.47 4.70 4.72 3.68 3.72 4.02

PGVCL Bhavnagar Khokhara 4.40 4.20 4.50 4.09 3.84 4.92 5.43 1.41 2.24 2.66 3.38 4.01 4.53 4.44

PGVCL Bhavnagar Kotda 4.97 4.54 4.21 2.66 2.06 2.85 3.66 2.46 2.11 2.01 1.53 1.89 1.99 2.25

PGVCL Bhavnagar Navagam 3.36 3.90 4.93 2.68 0.81 0.92 1.11 2.72 2.96 2.96 2.07 0.32 0.34 0.46

PGVCL Bhavnagar Padri 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.11 2.61 3.38 2.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 1.17 1.05 1.20

PGVCL Bhavnagar Pipardi Ag 2.46 2.58 2.57 3.65 3.63 4.49 1.41 0.93 0.88 0.83 0.43 0.43 1.24 0.64

PGVCL Bhavnagar Vadal 6.25 5.78 6.45 6.59 4.43 5.28 6.48 1.07 0.82 0.95 0.83 0.64 1.44 3.15

PGVCL Bhavnagar Vavadi 2.63 2.90 3.37 5.12 3.94 4.49 4.77 0.81 0.79 0.82 2.66 2.98 3.32 3.29

PGVCL Bhuj Arjanpar Ag 6.06 7.13 8.43 9.09 8.78 9.66 9.62 0.00 0.28 2.72 3.60 3.86 4.57 6.27

PGVCL Bhuj Bhalot Ag 6.08 5.87 3.87 4.14 3.74 4.21 4.61 1.30 2.04 1.40 1.37 1.28 1.51 2.46

PGVCL Bhuj Bhavanipar 0.00 1.34 6.91 7.99 6.31 5.30 6.86 0.00 0.28 1.71 1.81 2.38 1.98 3.48

PGVCL Bhuj Dabda 4.24 4.42 4.72 5.45 4.86 5.42 5.96 3.21 3.72 3.95 4.54 4.29 3.79 3.91

PGVCL Bhuj Devisar 4.32 5.44 6.18 6.79 5.49 6.04 8.91 1.54 1.70 2.24 2.62 3.12 3.31 5.47

PGVCL Bhuj Gelda 7.31 7.76 7.74 8.71 7.57 8.15 9.96 3.80 3.68 3.65 3.80 4.01 4.33 6.95

PGVCL Bhuj Hamirpar 5.74 7.99 7.50 7.59 6.09 6.53 8.05 3.06 2.82 2.53 2.62 2.50 2.56 3.27

PGVCL Bhuj Kharoi 6.75 7.81 7.98 9.82 4.63 3.80 5.12 2.21 2.67 3.38 4.22 4.61 4.50 2.24

PGVCL Bhuj Khengarpar 5.26 5.87 4.75 5.29 6.04 7.09 9.08 0.75 0.72 0.76 0.73 0.38 0.53 0.78

PGVCL Bhuj Khirsara Ag 3.31 4.93 5.18 5.56 4.67 5.29 5.76 1.28 1.28 1.62 1.66 1.68 1.79 2.77

PGVCL Bhuj Mathal Ag 5.79 0.00 6.02 5.64 5.02 4.84 6.76 5.73 4.99 2.17 2.24 2.27 3.36 5.70

PGVCL Bhuj Meghpar 5.89 6.21 6.52 6.93 6.17 6.43 7.69 3.41 3.46 3.54 3.71 3.97 4.30 4.82

PGVCL Bhuj Navinal 8.95 9.70 10.04 10.48 9.44 5.07 6.84 4.19 4.31 4.36 4.76 5.05 3.66 4.21

PGVCL Bhuj Vavdi 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.78 4.48 6.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.96 2.12 2.31

PGVCL Botad Babarkot 0.00 2.05 2.70 3.03 1.95 2.32 1.77 0.00 0.29 0.87 1.92 1.88 1.94 1.90

PGVCL Botad Dhakaniya 0.00 1.35 1.79 2.79 2.76 3.04 2.58 0.00 5.09 3.35 2.00 2.32 2.56 2.85

PGVCL Botad Mithapur Ag 2.38 3.09 2.71 4.00 2.39 2.27 2.41 0.91 1.20 1.40 2.07 1.97 1.86 1.96

PGVCL Botad Patana 4.70 4.57 4.67 2.03 0.69 0.85 1.19 2.86 3.03 2.81 2.72 0.93 1.09 1.19

PGVCL Botad Pipal 0.00 2.27 1.99 2.85 1.99 2.20 2.74 0.00 1.89 1.59 1.54 1.60 0.97 3.22

CO

NF

IDE

NT

IAL

Fin

al R

eport

Co

st B

en

efit A

na

lysis

of K

isan

Hit U

rja S

ha

kti Y

oja

na

(KH

US

H

157

MC

B/IS

A/A

/0/0

10 A

pril 2

014

P:\A

hm

edabad\A

MC

\PR

OJE

CT

S\3

26672A

A01\D

ocum

ents

\Report\G

UV

NL - K

HU

SH

Y - F

inal R

eport-V

3.d

ocx



07 2007-

08 2008-

09 2009-

10 2010-

11 2011-

12 2012-

13 2006-

07 2007-

08 2008-

09 2009-

10 2010-

11 2011-

12 2012-

13

PGVCL Botad Ratanvav 2.08 1.84 1.72 2.87 1.58 1.48 1.18 1.08 1.24 1.38 1.67 1.12 1.12 1.28

PGVCL Botad Sitapar 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.04 2.39 2.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.92 1.20 1.69

PGVCL Botad Zamrala Ag 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.08 1.37 1.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.92 1.43

PGVCL Jamnagar Aliyabada (New) 3.26 3.10 4.13 5.14 4.30 4.68 1.16 2.28 3.13 3.20 3.90 4.02 4.90 2.29

PGVCL Jamnagar Bamangam 4.53 4.41 5.18 6.10 4.50 5.19 4.89 0.70 0.76 1.91 2.67 3.71 4.17 4.29

PGVCL Jamnagar Dhandha Ag 0.00 1.08 3.38 4.79 3.92 4.86 5.38 0.00 0.42 0.90 0.95 0.99 1.19 1.19

PGVCL Jamnagar Gunda 3.53 3.51 4.66 4.08 2.72 4.36 2.73 0.42 1.32 1.44 3.34 3.34 3.83 2.71

PGVCL Jamnagar Hapa Lakhasar 4.11 7.64 8.15 6.37 4.30 4.73 5.48 0.32 0.69 1.08 1.93 1.88 2.18 2.25

PGVCL Jamnagar Haripar 0.68 0.68 2.00 2.33 1.18 1.61 2.03 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.96 0.96 1.19 1.21

PGVCL Jamnagar Juvangadh 4.79 3.03 3.43 3.97 2.79 4.34 5.87 1.70 1.21 1.59 1.07 0.29 0.42 0.31

PGVCL Jamnagar Mota Vadiya 1.17 2.03 2.23 2.58 2.44 2.54 2.93 0.63 0.65 0.73 0.82 0.71 0.91 1.18

PGVCL Jamnagar Padana 2.03 1.92 2.50 2.88 2.57 3.19 3.42 1.66 0.98 0.89 0.84 0.79 0.92 1.04

PGVCL Jamnagar Rampar 0.85 4.86 4.70 5.54 4.54 5.07 5.24 0.15 1.29 1.69 1.70 1.82 2.03 2.18

PGVCL Jamnagar Sanala 4.15 4.45 6.06 4.21 1.15 1.44 3.21 0.76 1.01 2.98 2.75 2.08 2.11 2.03

PGVCL Jamnagar Sidsar 3.68 3.79 4.62 5.69 4.15 2.79 2.72 1.78 1.88 2.07 2.32 2.25 2.66 3.30

PGVCL Jamnagar Theba Ag. 0.00 0.00 0.99 2.92 2.52 2.93 3.29 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.33 0.18 0.21 1.62

PGVCL Junagadh Amblash 4.64 5.28 4.81 5.90 4.22 4.49 4.43 3.45 2.58 2.56 2.88 2.93 3.13 3.90

PGVCL Junagadh Balot (Naredi) 3.96 2.68 3.00 3.93 2.38 3.18 3.68 1.91 0.52 0.53 1.85 1.50 1.71 2.16

PGVCL Junagadh Bhalchel 1.83 1.85 1.99 2.90 2.17 1.94 2.28 0.82 0.75 0.78 0.79 0.83 0.94 1.17

PGVCL Junagadh Bhatgam 4.14 4.16 4.40 7.08 3.10 3.53 4.15 1.87 2.36 2.80 3.36 1.65 1.28 1.48

PGVCL Junagadh Dari Navapara 5.93 6.95 8.51 4.02 5.67 6.14 7.05 3.88 3.35 3.35 1.94 2.92 2.94 3.49

PGVCL Junagadh Gorakhmadhi 6.06 7.21 7.58 8.93 7.16 8.63 8.30 2.57 2.57 2.75 3.53 3.76 4.19 4.92

PGVCL Junagadh Govindpara (Old

Talala) 4.36 6.35 7.68 7.70 6.42 4.00 3.81 2.10 2.94 2.99 3.11 3.20 2.62 2.66

PGVCL Junagadh Harnasha 4.03 3.13 4.00 6.04 5.32 5.89 8.40 2.20 1.77 1.79 1.83 1.96 1.92 2.36

PGVCL Junagadh Khodiyar Jnd 6.11 6.72 6.46 7.73 6.72 7.71 7.68 2.01 2.76 2.68 2.75 2.73 3.07 3.64

PGVCL Junagadh Kodidra 4.01 5.10 5.82 5.23 4.51 3.10 3.33 2.90 3.03 3.02 3.22 3.30 2.00 2.42

CO

NF

IDE

NT

IAL

Fin

al R

eport

Co

st B

en

efit A

na

lysis

of K

isan

Hit U

rja S

ha

kti Y

oja

na

(KH

US

H

158

MC

B/IS

A/A

/0/0

10 A

pril 2

014

P:\A

hm

edabad\A

MC

\PR

OJE

CT

S\3

26672A

A01\D

ocum

ents

\Report\G

UV

NL - K

HU

SH

Y - F

inal R

eport-V

3.d

ocx



07 2007-

08 2008-

09 2009-

10 2010-

11 2011-

12 2012-

13 2006-

07 2007-

08 2008-

09 2009-

10 2010-

11 2011-

12 2012-

13

PGVCL Junagadh Leriya Ag 5.33 5.05 4.80 5.77 3.30 5.18 5.31 2.43 2.25 2.08 2.21 2.09 2.55 2.55

PGVCL Junagadh Moradia 6.87 6.45 6.89 8.02 6.06 6.42 4.65 1.85 1.93 1.98 2.39 2.44 2.83 3.13

PGVCL Junagadh Pipalava 9.77 8.72 7.04 8.34 6.23 7.23 7.57 3.07 3.56 3.72 3.40 3.72 3.93 4.60

PGVCL Junagadh Raydi (Rampara) 8.33 9.08 8.53 8.47 6.63 6.56 5.25 3.33 2.97 3.20 3.23 3.12 3.56 3.86

PGVCL Junagadh Sonrakh 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.10 0.12

PGVCL Junagadh Sunderpara 4.96 6.96 6.25 7.18 5.93 8.17 7.81 1.93 1.38 1.44 1.77 1.85 2.09 2.72

PGVCL Junagadh Swami 0.00 0.00 1.80 4.04 2.63 3.32 4.59 0.00 0.00 0.97 1.56 1.34 1.29 1.81

PGVCL Morbi Ambardi 7.01 5.45 4.55 10.39 9.01 9.30 10.85 2.82 2.89 3.07 3.36 3.56 3.90 5.03

PGVCL Morbi Ambavadi 0.06 2.32 3.16 3.99 3.59 3.94 5.80 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.05 1.16 1.94 4.05

PGVCL Morbi Balwam 1.71 4.37 4.35 5.32 4.03 4.28 6.87 1.02 1.30 1.31 1.30 2.34 3.05 4.11

PGVCL Morbi Chupani 12.82 13.29 12.89 14.45 13.78 17.36 21.81 6.18 6.15 6.67 6.93 7.93 9.09 12.22

PGVCL Morbi Dhavana 0.00 7.94 7.90 9.23 10.36 5.06 6.83 0.00 3.61 4.00 3.95 4.30 4.60 2.46

PGVCL Morbi Hadmatia Ag 2.78 3.28 3.68 3.19 2.31 2.38 3.43 0.72 0.74 0.70 0.76 0.69 0.76 1.77

PGVCL Morbi Holmadh 3.00 2.98 3.35 2.94 1.84 2.14 3.14 0.14 0.13 3.16 2.95 1.06 1.10 2.90

PGVCL Morbi Jay Bhavani 8.19 8.03 7.20 5.34 4.85 4.46 5.64 2.88 2.94 3.05 3.29 2.48 2.12 3.01

PGVCL Morbi Jay Bhole 0.00 0.20 2.84 6.68 5.58 7.38 10.79 0.00 0.08 0.50 0.46 2.02 3.22 4.08

PGVCL Morbi Kansari 5.41 5.39 5.12 6.61 4.62 4.56 6.20 1.00 1.53 1.60 1.69 1.87 1.90 3.47

PGVCL Morbi Merupar 0.00 7.16 7.17 8.69 8.15 8.19 9.89 0.00 2.91 2.97 3.09 3.25 4.01 5.57

PGVCL Morbi Om 3.13 2.98 2.64 3.17 2.89 4.77 5.87 0.43 0.50 0.85 1.38 1.50 1.60 2.34

PGVCL Morbi Pavan 7.38 8.37 9.29 10.05 8.65 5.45 4.68 3.17 3.23 3.62 3.76 4.06 4.28 3.34

PGVCL Morbi Ranipat 0.00 5.48 6.00 7.43 6.67 5.95 6.20 0.00 1.18 1.33 1.53 1.84 2.07 1.67

PGVCL Morbi Ratadia 5.46 5.63 5.55 7.33 2.32 2.92 3.89 0.26 0.37 0.88 1.70 0.67 0.84 2.43

PGVCL Morbi Samtherava 3.69 6.36 6.66 7.72 6.20 7.55 8.93 1.98 2.24 2.30 2.84 2.76 3.32 5.36

PGVCL Morbi Shivlaheri 5.88 8.16 8.65 10.89 8.32 6.46 7.33 2.16 2.23 2.43 2.57 2.97 2.97 4.42

PGVCL Morbi Sundari 6.77 8.11 7.94 9.46 8.05 8.53 7.37 1.45 1.59 1.72 1.95 2.14 2.27 2.42

PGVCL Morbi Sundergadh 7.74 8.13 7.34 6.51 6.41 6.99 9.07 4.58 4.40 4.59 3.23 4.94 5.11 6.03

PGVCL Porbandar Amarnath 0.00 2.56 2.88 3.29 2.62 1.98 2.32 0.00 0.82 0.71 2.18 2.17 1.86 1.92

CO

NF

IDE

NT

IAL

Fin

al R

eport

Co

st B

en

efit A

na

lysis

of K

isan

Hit U

rja S

ha

kti Y

oja

na

(KH

US

H

159

MC

B/IS

A/A

/0/0

10 A

pril 2

014

P:\A

hm

edabad\A

MC

\PR

OJE

CT

S\3

26672A

A01\D

ocum

ents

\Report\G

UV

NL - K

HU

SH

Y - F

inal R

eport-V

3.d

ocx



07 2007-

08 2008-

09 2009-

10 2010-

11 2011-

12 2012-

13 2006-

07 2007-

08 2008-

09 2009-

10 2010-

11 2011-

12 2012-

13

PGVCL Porbandar Boradi 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.28 2.62 6.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.79 2.65

PGVCL Porbandar Chakivav 2.35 3.49 3.94 4.73 3.77 4.39 4.40 0.82 1.60 1.68 2.35 2.38 2.46 2.53

PGVCL Porbandar Chamunda 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.86 1.52 2.14 2.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 1.09 1.12 1.10

PGVCL Porbandar Devgam 3.42 4.02 3.60 4.28 3.78 3.73 3.01 2.61 1.90 2.00 1.91 1.88 2.24 2.33

PGVCL Porbandar Diwasa 1.28 1.00 1.22 1.38 1.30 1.49 1.48 0.55 0.62 0.65 0.66 0.65 0.67 0.70

PGVCL Porbandar Khodiyar Pbr 0.00 1.35 2.76 3.11 2.64 2.92 3.52 0.00 0.07 0.87 0.95 0.91 1.29 2.09

PGVCL Porbandar Mariya 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.96 1.10 1.99 2.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.57 1.06 1.14 1.14

PGVCL Porbandar Nonjalvav 4.86 3.22 3.48 4.80 2.95 4.18 6.24 1.98 1.90 2.04 2.47 2.37 2.80 2.94

PGVCL Porbandar Nunarda 0.00 1.25 0.75 1.66 1.35 1.61 1.64 0.00 0.97 0.18 0.55 0.53 0.46 1.12

PGVCL Porbandar Satmarg 2.11 2.67 2.93 3.33 2.23 2.46 2.68 0.88 1.61 1.31 1.06 1.03 1.12 1.15

PGVCL Porbandar Shepa 3.42 3.93 5.94 6.62 5.12 5.24 5.13 2.75 3.39 3.85 4.36 4.23 3.95 4.05

PGVCL Porbandar Shergadh 1.87 2.90 3.10 3.72 2.83 2.97 3.05 1.29 1.67 1.72 2.03 2.56 3.08 3.66

PGVCL Porbandar Water Works 2.91 3.69 3.76 4.01 3.40 3.86 4.01 2.08 2.23 2.25 2.34 2.29 2.46 2.39

PGVCL Rajkot City Nakarawadi 2.90 4.32 4.56 4.33 2.71 3.47 0.00 0.00 1.49 2.67 2.32 2.04 2.60 0.00

PGVCL Rajkot City Rangpar 3.59 3.05 3.24 4.39 2.77 3.48 0.00 0.72 1.72 1.82 2.24 2.07 1.99 0.00

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Bateshwar 0.00 1.10 2.80 5.12 2.08 1.97 2.35 0.00 1.15 1.49 1.58 1.55 1.73 1.97

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Bhadva 4.51 4.44 3.78 3.48 2.57 3.16 3.25 2.72 2.34 2.51 2.17 2.17 2.48 2.74

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Dedarva 2.02 3.32 3.40 5.22 3.95 5.67 5.94 1.19 1.79 1.97 2.37 2.39 3.06 2.92

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Devda 5.84 2.46 5.14 4.02 2.93 1.49 1.25 0.01 0.24 0.50 1.50 1.93 1.16 1.06

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Devgam Rrc 4.67 5.52 6.28 6.01 3.58 3.75 4.39 0.98 1.11 0.95 1.07 1.21 1.66 2.15

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Gadhka 0.60 2.85 3.42 3.71 2.43 2.67 2.51 0.17 1.27 1.30 2.24 2.11 2.25 2.74

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Godladhar 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.85 1.64 1.82 1.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.89

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Haripar Rrc 0.00 0.68 2.00 2.33 1.18 1.61 2.03 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.95 0.96 1.19 1.21

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Kobeshwar 0.00 0.00 1.75 3.10 2.20 3.22 2.96 0.00 0.00 0.61 2.47 2.33 2.32 2.93

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Lilapur 5.85 5.93 5.82 2.68 2.10 2.54 2.88 2.39 2.09 2.36 1.01 1.13 1.17 1.51

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Lunagara 0.00 0.00 1.61 2.12 2.16 3.03 2.02 0.00 0.00 1.26 2.26 2.30 2.72 2.38

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Makhavad 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.87 1.59 1.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.11 1.14

CO

NF

IDE

NT

IAL

Fin

al R

eport

Co

st B

en

efit A

na

lysis

of K

isan

Hit U

rja S

ha

kti Y

oja

na

(KH

US

H

160

MC

B/IS

A/A

/0/0

10 A

pril 2

014

P:\A

hm

edabad\A

MC

\PR

OJE

CT

S\3

26672A

A01\D

ocum

ents

\Report\G

UV

NL - K

HU

SH

Y - F

inal R

eport-V

3.d

ocx



07 2007-

08 2008-

09 2009-

10 2010-

11 2011-

12 2012-

13 2006-

07 2007-

08 2008-

09 2009-

10 2010-

11 2011-

12 2012-

13

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Mevasha 2.70 4.20 1.23 2.44 3.62 4.16 3.72 3.66 3.07 0.47 0.06 0.65 1.11 1.02

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Mota Rampar 2.27 3.12 3.34 3.24 3.42 3.86 4.09 2.14 2.13 2.38 2.60 2.39 2.59 3.09

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Rajdan 8.00 4.62 4.63 5.26 3.49 4.69 3.60 1.17 1.70 1.91 2.63 2.43 2.70 2.42

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Ranpur 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.60 3.25 3.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 1.29 1.42 0.00

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Sanali 3.01 3.24 3.70 3.56 3.28 1.67 0.93 0.30 0.26 0.81 1.72 1.81 2.07 0.98

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Sanosara 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.87 1.95 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.83 1.82 2.15

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Thoriyali 3.97 4.21 4.43 5.07 4.08 4.58 6.04 1.56 1.68 1.93 2.22 2.73 3.43 5.03

PGVCL Surendranagar Akalvad 0.00 0.38 4.21 4.91 4.11 5.16 6.92 0.00 0.11 1.28 1.78 2.02 2.34 3.11

PGVCL Surendranagar Anandpur 6.59 7.05 8.36 6.07 6.07 7.60 11.06 3.59 3.45 3.55 4.35 4.35 4.35 5.44

PGVCL Surendranagar Bali 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.27 5.31 7.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.04 1.37 1.69

PGVCL Surendranagar Borana 4.28 2.75 1.68 1.39 2.09 2.22 2.16 1.17 1.04 1.15 1.72 2.09 2.28 2.46

PGVCL Surendranagar Dada #

PGVCL Surendranagar Devgadh 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55

PGVCL Surendranagar Fulgram 4.31 4.78 4.06 3.52 2.96 1.12 0.80 2.98 2.87 3.04 3.44 3.66 2.02 1.49

PGVCL Surendranagar Gebinath 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.98 3.07 3.64 5.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.05 1.31 2.41

PGVCL Surendranagar Jayshakti 7.32 7.75 6.73 4.78 4.63 4.89 6.56 2.35 2.27 1.67 1.87 2.69 3.11 3.70

PGVCL Surendranagar Keriya 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 1.90 0.91 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.44 0.47 0.71

PGVCL Surendranagar Khakharathal 8.93 9.65 10.80 10.84 7.47 5.89 8.41 3.87 4.00 4.07 4.35 4.61 4.20 4.20

PGVCL Surendranagar Khatdi 6.52 7.69 7.80 8.13 6.34 7.16 10.93 3.43 3.20 3.20 3.60 3.10 3.38 3.92

PGVCL Surendranagar Meghdev 0.00 3.28 3.68 4.12 3.75 4.34 5.85 0.00 0.62 1.21 1.40 1.60 1.90 2.89

PGVCL Surendranagar Nagadka 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.41 3.66 2.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.94 1.23 1.73

PGVCL Surendranagar Narichana 8.64 7.95 8.30 9.52 9.23 11.65 10.58 4.19 3.76 4.16 4.66 3.85 3.42 4.49

PGVCL Surendranagar Navi Morvad 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.02 1.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 1.52

PGVCL Surendranagar Noli 6.58 5.76 4.39 3.82 3.85 4.39 3.85 2.04 1.92 1.80 1.77 1.19 1.46 1.96

PGVCL Surendranagar Pandavra 5.52 5.52 6.18 7.15 5.80 6.50 7.85 2.57 2.55 2.61 2.75 2.76 3.03 3.82

PGVCL Surendranagar Ramperda 9.26 8.73 6.94 8.07 1.69 3.95 6.40 3.03 2.89 1.91 2.26 1.33 1.62 2.05

PGVCL Surendranagar Sardar 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 1.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.69 1.80

CO

NF

IDE

NT

IAL

Fin

al R

eport

Co

st B

en

efit A

na

lysis

of K

isan

Hit U

rja S

ha

kti Y

oja

na

(KH

US

H

161

MC

B/IS

A/A

/0/0

10 A

pril 2

014

P:\A

hm

edabad\A

MC

\PR

OJE

CT

S\3

26672A

A01\D

ocum

ents

\Report\G

UV

NL - K

HU

SH

Y - F

inal R

eport-V

3.d

ocx



07 2007-

08 2008-

09 2009-

10 2010-

11 2011-

12 2012-

13 2006-

07 2007-

08 2008-

09 2009-

10 2010-

11 2011-

12 2012-

13

PGVCL Surendranagar Siddhanath 10.03 10.25 7.03 6.02 5.23 5.48 7.39 3.14 3.02 2.70 1.93 2.83 3.09 3.40

DGVCL Valsad Mendharbhat 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.15 0.18 1.97 0.44 0.44 0.46 0.44 0.45 0.48

DGVCL Bharuch Pariyej - - 3.64 5.04 4.60 5.05 4.23 - - 3.10 3.58 3.73 3.83 3.89

DGVCL Valsad Rumla 8.09 2.57 1.92 2.18 2.78 2.91 2.63 3.54 2.40 1.57 1.73 1.58 1.67 1.69

DGVCL Bharuch Karena - - - - 5.26 5.15 5.20 - - - - 3.80 4.10 3.91

DGVCL Bharuch Danda - - - - - 4.71 4.94 - - - - - 4.22 4.30

DGVCL Surat Rural Siker Ag Dom - - 3.17 4.31 3.90 3.78 2.62 - - 0.52 1.03 0.72 0.76 1.90

DGVCL Valsad Maroli Rural 6.01 2.71 2.61 2.65 2.73 2.93 1.72 1.30 0.74 0.65 0.58 0.54 0.50 0.29

MGVCL Anand Pansora 3.59 3.51 4.29 4.07 2.37 2.69 3.10 2.55 2.26 2.93 3.24 2.05 2.28 2.53

MGVCL Anand Dagjipura 2.27 3.22 3.29 3.76 3.43 4.01 4.70 1.01 1.92 2.51 3.00 2.84 3.44 3.57

MGVCL Anand Kasor 3.10 2.95 3.24 3.84 3.47 4.66 4.13 2.95 2.24 2.55 3.17 2.74 3.92 3.51

MGVCL Nadiad Gangadas nu

Muvado - 3.66 3.85 5.60 4.75 4.85 4.87 - 2.52 2.68 2.71 2.79 3.11 2.77

UGCVL Mehsana Mahiyal 2.09 2.15 2.22 2.56 2.19 2.44 2.67 2.03 2.10 2.15 2.37 2.49 2.25 2.58

UGCVL Mehsana Koita 6.81 5.08 4.07 4.96 4.38 4.36 5.40 5.81 3.88 3.88 4.15 4.10 4.10 4.30

UGCVL Mehsana Delvada 0.78 3.37 4.78 5.97 5.29 5.99 7.31 0.70 2.48 3.94 4.74 5.12 5.35 5.60

UGCVL Palanpur Rampura - 1.22 1.05 1.23 1.05 1.15 1.39 - 1.14 1.23 1.06 1.09 1.14 1.19

UGCVL Palanpur Sejalpura - 1.15 1.05 1.17 0.98 1.12 1.25 - 1.18 1.18 1.11 1.13 1.19 1.20

UGCVL Hinatnagar Arsoda 2.58 2.53 1.99 2.12 1.90 2.12 2.19 2.43 1.50 1.57 1.76 1.77 1.83 1.97

UGCVL Hinatnagar Katpur 2.06 2.38 3.25 5.50 4.96 4.49 4.77 1.97 1.92 2.33 4.24 4.35 3.81 3.86


CONFIDENTIAL


162

The Feeder-wise details on transformer failure and customer interruptions are as given in the table:

Appendix C. Feeder-Wise Details on Transformer Failure & Customer Complaints

CO

NF

IDE

NT

IAL

Fin

al R

eport

Co

st B

en

efit A

na

lysis

of K

isan

Hit U

rja S

ha

kti Y

oja

na

(KH

US

H

163

MC

B/IS

A/A

/0/0

10 A

pril 2

014

P:\A

hm

edabad\A

MC

\PR

OJE

CT

S\3

26672A

A01\D

ocum

ents

\Report\G

UV

NL - K

HU

SH

Y - F

inal R

eport-V

3.d

ocx

Discom Circle Feeder

Year-Wise Transformer Failures

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

PGVCL Amreli Amodra 38 43 35 47 47 47 13

PGVCL Amreli Anandpur Amr 15 18 23 18 18 17 12

PGVCL Amreli Balnath 37 46 34 45 43 6 6

PGVCL Amreli Batheshvar #

PGVCL Amreli Bhavani 17 15 27 20 14 12 9

PGVCL Amreli Dhundhiya Pipaliya 25 28 27 8 7 15 15

PGVCL Amreli Fafani 21 23 38 21 13 11 11

PGVCL Amreli Fichadi 28 24 17 15 10 11 2

PGVCL Amreli Gaytri 19 21 33 25 13 16 22

PGVCL Amreli Gir Devali 17 18 19 12 13 13 9

PGVCL Amreli Giriya 0 0 49 45 57 34 7

PGVCL Amreli Hindorana 56 59 58 14 8 8 14

PGVCL Amreli Khodiyar #

PGVCL Amreli Marvadi 0 0 47 52 43 40 37

PGVCL Amreli Morzar 72 56 60 45 40 38 38

PGVCL Amreli Pichhava Ag 32 36 27 24 16 18 17

PGVCL Amreli Satyanarayan #

PGVCL Amreli Valaradi 0 0 26 24 26 23 7

PGVCL Amreli Vavdi Road 0 0 21 11 0 11 11

PGVCL Bhavnagar Bcw 0 0 0 0 8 5 2

PGVCL Bhavnagar Bhandariya 60 60 17 10 10

PGVCL Bhavnagar Borda Ag 0 42 126 21 7 6 9

PGVCL Bhavnagar Datha 0 0 0 0 24 9 1

PGVCL Bhavnagar Hathab 0 0 0 0 20 18 15

PGVCL Bhavnagar Hipavadli 2 2 2

PGVCL Bhavnagar Jaspara 0 58 81 67 10 4 4

PGVCL Bhavnagar Khodiyar 0 12 7 6 11 7 1

PGVCL Bhavnagar Khokhara 0 15 8 6 4 2 2

CO

NF

IDE

NT

IAL

Fin

al R

eport

Co

st B

en

efit A

na

lysis

of K

isan

Hit U

rja S

ha

kti Y

oja

na

(KH

US

H

164

MC

B/IS

A/A

/0/0

10 A

pril 2

014

P:\A

hm

edabad\A

MC

\PR

OJE

CT

S\3

26672A

A01\D

ocum

ents

\Report\G

UV

NL - K

HU

SH

Y - F

inal R

eport-V

3.d

ocx



2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

PGVCL Bhavnagar Kotda 0 22 64 14 1 4 3

PGVCL Bhavnagar Navagam 0 0 0 0 15 9 9

PGVCL Bhavnagar Padri 22 18 18

PGVCL Bhavnagar Pipardi Ag 0 0 0 0 12 8 8

PGVCL Bhavnagar Vadal 0 0 0 0 18 3 1

PGVCL Bhavnagar Vavadi 0 18 29 20 5 7 7

PGVCL Bhuj Arjanpar Ag 28 25 23 15 21 21 19

PGVCL Bhuj Bhalot Ag 0 0 3 3 15 10 11

PGVCL Bhuj Bhavanipar 0 0 2 8 21 21 3

PGVCL Bhuj Dabda 0 0 0 3 9 9 12

PGVCL Bhuj Devisar 24 16 20 14 14 10 10

PGVCL Bhuj Gelda 29 28 21 19 18 25 10

PGVCL Bhuj Hamirpar 14 13 14 12 12 13 11

PGVCL Bhuj Kharoi 13 12 10 9 11 8 8

PGVCL Bhuj Khengarpar 15 13 13 15 10 12 9

PGVCL Bhuj Khirsara Ag 13 13 12 13 16 11 8

PGVCL Bhuj Mathal Ag 20 16 16 15 11 7 12

PGVCL Bhuj Meghpar 30 21 28 35 27 27 30

PGVCL Bhuj Navinal 23 22 21 19 13 10 13

PGVCL Bhuj Vavdi 17 15 11

PGVCL Botad Babarkot 33 11 3 2 2

PGVCL Botad Dhakaniya 12 3 2

PGVCL Botad Mithapur Ag 38 20 3 5 9 3

PGVCL Botad Patana 12 4 5 16 13 6

PGVCL Botad Pipal 10 9 4

PGVCL Botad Ratanvav 17 5 11

PGVCL Botad Sitapar 6 7 7

PGVCL Botad Zamrala Ag 3 7

CO

NF

IDE

NT

IAL

Fin

al R

eport

Co

st B

en

efit A

na

lysis

of K

isan

Hit U

rja S

ha

kti Y

oja

na

(KH

US

H

165

MC

B/IS

A/A

/0/0

10 A

pril 2

014

P:\A

hm

edabad\A

MC

\PR

OJE

CT

S\3

26672A

A01\D

ocum

ents

\Report\G

UV

NL - K

HU

SH

Y - F

inal R

eport-V

3.d

ocx



2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

PGVCL Jamnagar Aliyabada (New) 39 59 4 12 5 5 8

PGVCL Jamnagar Bamangam 61 26 24 8 7 6 6

PGVCL Jamnagar Dhandha Ag 74 74 42 39 52 32 9

PGVCL Jamnagar Gunda 38 34 30 26 42 28 20

PGVCL Jamnagar Hapa Lakhasar 49 51 48 43 10 12 5

PGVCL Jamnagar Haripar 34 81 67 64 45 39 24

PGVCL Jamnagar Juvangadh 60 51 53 69 65 59 34

PGVCL Jamnagar Mota Vadiya 76 72 61 56 15 8 8

PGVCL Jamnagar Padana 90 62 41 27 32 37 9

PGVCL Jamnagar Rampar 35 38 26 39 37 11 2

PGVCL Jamnagar Sanala 57 51 24 27 34 25 10

PGVCL Jamnagar Sidsar 84 64 76 65 64 61 17

PGVCL Jamnagar Theba Ag. 23 23 23 33 17 17 6

PGVCL Junagadh Amblash 11 10 9 11 17 15 16

PGVCL Junagadh Balot (Naredi) 10 8 10 12 10 9 8

PGVCL Junagadh Bhalchel 6 3 2 2 3 3 5

PGVCL Junagadh Bhatgam 5 9 16 14 13 17 12

PGVCL Junagadh Dari Navapara 12 11 11 11 11 10 10

PGVCL Junagadh Gorakhmadhi 14 14 14 14 16 15 18

PGVCL Junagadh Govindpara (Old Talala) 10 9 10 9 9 8 12

PGVCL Junagadh Harnasha 10 8 8 7 9 8 9

PGVCL Junagadh Khodiyar Jnd 10 9 10 9 10 10 12

PGVCL Junagadh Kodidra 8 7 6 9 15 14 14

PGVCL Junagadh Leriya Ag 12 13 13 17 15 16 9

PGVCL Junagadh Moradia 12 10 9 13 18 16 15

PGVCL Junagadh Pipalava 12 13 12 14 23 21 22

PGVCL Junagadh Raydi (Rampara) 10 11 11 12 13 12 14

PGVCL Junagadh Sonrakh 0 0 0 0 0 2 1

CO

NF

IDE

NT

IAL

Fin

al R

eport

Co

st B

en

efit A

na

lysis

of K

isan

Hit U

rja S

ha

kti Y

oja

na

(KH

US

H

166

MC

B/IS

A/A

/0/0

10 A

pril 2

014

P:\A

hm

edabad\A

MC

\PR

OJE

CT

S\3

26672A

A01\D

ocum

ents

\Report\G

UV

NL - K

HU

SH

Y - F

inal R

eport-V

3.d

ocx



2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

PGVCL Junagadh Sunderpara 12 11 10 12 17 15 14

PGVCL Junagadh Swami 0 0 0 5 9 9 4

PGVCL Morbi Ambardi 10 10 9 9 9 7 3

PGVCL Morbi Ambavadi 9 9 8 7 6 5 2

PGVCL Morbi Balwam 13 13 10 10 6 4 2

PGVCL Morbi Chupani 21 21 19 21 4 7 3

PGVCL Morbi Dhavana 8 7 7 6 4 2 2

PGVCL Morbi Hadmatia Ag 6 6 6 5 4 6 5

PGVCL Morbi Holmadh 9 8 8 7 7 7 3

PGVCL Morbi Jay Bhavani 32 18 31 33 9 10 6

PGVCL Morbi Jay Bhole 11 12 11 10 10 3 3

PGVCL Morbi Kansari 10 10 8 8 8 9 6

PGVCL Morbi Merupar 11 10 10 8 7 3 7

PGVCL Morbi Om 11 8 7 7 6 7 4

PGVCL Morbi Pavan 44 29 40 38 6 4 8

PGVCL Morbi Ranipat 7 8 6 6 6 6 2

PGVCL Morbi Ratadia 10 9 9 9 9 4 4

PGVCL Morbi Samtherava 39 18 30 44 7 6 8

PGVCL Morbi Shivlaheri 8 8 8 7 7 5 5

PGVCL Morbi Sundari 9 9 9 8 8 6 1

PGVCL Morbi Sundergadh 17 11 17 16 9 10 6

PGVCL Porbandar Amarnath 55 47 37 16 18 10

PGVCL Porbandar Boradi 27 22 7

PGVCL Porbandar Chakivav 25 24 45 53 3 11 14

PGVCL Porbandar Chamunda 41 41 86 7

PGVCL Porbandar Devgam 27 23 52 31 11 18 10

PGVCL Porbandar Diwasa 50 33 40 27 36 4 38

PGVCL Porbandar Khodiyar Pbr 68 72 94 6

CO

NF

IDE

NT

IAL

Fin

al R

eport

Co

st B

en

efit A

na

lysis

of K

isan

Hit U

rja S

ha

kti Y

oja

na

(KH

US

H

167

MC

B/IS

A/A

/0/0

10 A

pril 2

014

P:\A

hm

edabad\A

MC

\PR

OJE

CT

S\3

26672A

A01\D

ocum

ents

\Report\G

UV

NL - K

HU

SH

Y - F

inal R

eport-V

3.d

ocx



2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

PGVCL Porbandar Mariya 17 27 36 36 22 24 9

PGVCL Porbandar Nonjalvav 29 29 30 11 12 10 14

PGVCL Porbandar Nunarda 10 12 19 11 6 9 1

PGVCL Porbandar Satmarg 21 19 20 8 3 3 7

PGVCL Porbandar Shepa 15 22 25 24 49 11 6

PGVCL Porbandar Shergadh 38 40 35 43 4 7 11

PGVCL Porbandar Water Works 27 23 52 31 11 18 10

PGVCL Rajkot City Nakarawadi 12 10 11 14 13 17

PGVCL Rajkot City Rangpar 14 16 10 8 9 13

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Bateshwar 9 9 9 12 9 16 7

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Bhadva 40 34 16 9 23 12 10

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Dedarva 14 13 11 10 10 10 5

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Devda 20 20 16 7 3 3 2

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Devgam Rrc 27 23 52 31 11 18 10

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Gadhka 52 33 38 33 9 2 2

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Godladhar 13 13 13 8 21 8 3

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Haripar Rrc 134 81 67 64 45 39 24

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Kobeshwar 79 79 79 90 22 13 10

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Lilapur 63 59 23 9 10 3 2

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Lunagara 9 9 9 9 12 9 8

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Makhavad 22 22 22 22 22 6 3

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Mevasha 38 30 33 40 16 30 8

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Mota Rampar 32 31 44 29 33 19 10

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Rajdan 46 35 35 30 3 5 10

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Ranpur 22 14 13 2

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Sanali 14 9 4 3 17 3 3

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Sanosara 14 9 4 3 17 3 3

PGVCL Rajkot Rural Thoriyali 20 35 34 15 6 7 15

CO

NF

IDE

NT

IAL

Fin

al R

eport

Co

st B

en

efit A

na

lysis

of K

isan

Hit U

rja S

ha

kti Y

oja

na

(KH

US

H

168

MC

B/IS

A/A

/0/0

10 A

pril 2

014

P:\A

hm

edabad\A

MC

\PR

OJE

CT

S\3

26672A

A01\D

ocum

ents

\Report\G

UV

NL - K

HU

SH

Y - F

inal R

eport-V

3.d

ocx



2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

PGVCL Surendranagar Akalvad 0 34 34 21 15 9 7

PGVCL Surendranagar Anandpur 15 0 23 18 18 17 12

PGVCL Surendranagar Bali 0 0 0 2 19 27 34

PGVCL Surendranagar Borana 38 55 4 2 5 1 2

PGVCL Surendranagar Dada #

PGVCL Surendranagar Devgadh 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

PGVCL Surendranagar Fulgram 37 40 3 4 3 27 11

PGVCL Surendranagar Gebinath 0 0 0 13 21 20 11

PGVCL Surendranagar Jayshakti 52 52 44 30 20 14 15

PGVCL Surendranagar Keriya 0 0 0 14 9 8 3

PGVCL Surendranagar Khakharathal 22 21 27 20 23 29 11

PGVCL Surendranagar Khatdi 34 16 10 45 20 47 34

PGVCL Surendranagar Meghdev 0 59 59 31 19 9 8

PGVCL Surendranagar Nagadka 0 0 0 0 10 8 5

PGVCL Surendranagar Narichana 38 38 17 24 19 15 16

PGVCL Surendranagar Navi Morvad 0 0 0 0 12 14 10

PGVCL Surendranagar Noli 15 10 18 23 13 12 10

PGVCL Surendranagar Pandavra 20 19 13 28 22 19 22

PGVCL Surendranagar Ramperda 40 25 17 38 43 31 31

PGVCL Surendranagar Sardar 0 0 0 0 15 13 9

PGVCL Surendranagar Siddhanath 47 47 54 40 15 10 14


CONFIDENTIAL


169

Appendix D. Questionnaire


CONFIDENTIAL


170

Cost Benefit Analysis of Kisan Hit Urja Shakti Yojana (KHUSHY)

Documents

Transcript of Cost Benefit Analysis of Kisan Hit Urja Shakti Yojana (KHUSHY)