Month: November 2019

An obvious question with so much projected on Distribution Franchisee (DF) model is:

What real gains both the utility and end-consumers could expect coming out of the Distribution Franchisee model?

While Bhiwandi implementation of Distribution Franchisee has shown increased consumer satisfaction for improved service levels, but it is yet to be proved conclusively that the model has brought any significant monetary gains to the utility. The slow emergence of a potential impactful model (distribution franchisee) amidst opposition – from utility employees and end-consumers, could be attributed to missing INFORMATION and transparency. Opposition from utility employees is obvious as DF with its flavor of privatization is based upon driving cost efficiency by increasing productivity and hence reducing on numbers of utility employees. But opposition and fear from end-consumers is little less understood, when it doesn’t matter that same power at same tariff (decided by State regulators & common to the state) comes from utility or DF. May be this fear from end-consumers has some roots in weaken regulation/enforcement or mis-information or perceived apprehensions.

In any case, going forward there are many questions, that needs clarification to smoothen resistance, but more importantly to engage all stakeholders well to co-create sustainable solutions. A few of importance are:

1. With reduced AT&C losses from 50+% to order of 15% and reduced administrative & operations costs, could it be expected to see decreasing power tariffs (or atleast no changes for 5-10 years inspite of rise in power procurement costs) as realised by end-consumers? If and how does DF monetary gains could be shared with its end-consumers?
   • Since there is only one state level tariff plan prepared, consolidating audit reports from each circles/zones, the good and bad performances of different circles (including that of Franchisee’s) get mixed to create one tariff plan. So in such case unless more decentralization penetrates in distribution, that DF circle end-consumers cannot expect their tariff plan alone to be improved. If however DF model scales all through out the state, then combined benefits could still bring common savings to all state end-consumers.
   • Above would also mean that even if one circle’s management did a poor job of cutting its AT&C losses, there is no way of penalizing them independently. The entire state end-consumers get penalized equally. This is one serious missing incentive structure that has plagued utility’s performance.
2. How does exactly DF implementation improves profitability of the utility?
   • What are financial calculations that local utility has to consider to make a strong case for bringing in Distribution Franchisee over business-as-usual case? What profits (if any) can utility expect by leasing out its assets for 15 years to Distribution Franchisee?
   • How does the effective cost of distribution to local utility is accounted in setting benchmark input rates and its locking for next 15 years? We only hear the price realization terms like ABR (Average Billing Rate) and tariff setting term ARR (Aggregate Revenue Requirements) in RFP, but no comparison of these with actual cost of distribution.
   • Has post DF termination and appropriate depreciation of assets already being accounted in investment decision making?
   • Is utility prepared to take charge again post DF tenure or will it re-lease another DF term or there will be full privatization?

Post by: Rahul Bagdia @ pManifold

The Forum of Regulators Report on Standardization of the Distribution Franchisee model (September 2010) mentions that the objectives of appointing a distribution franchisee, inter alia,

are:

i. To minimise Aggregate Distribution and Commercial losses

ii. To bring improvement in Metering, Billing and Revenue Collection

iii. To minimise Current Assets on account of arrears

iv. To enhance customer satisfaction level by improving quality of service

Placing focus on the fourth point, we find that while much information is shared in the Distribution Franchisee RFPs, they hardly provide any information on the current customer satisfaction levels nor the customer’s perspective of the network infrastructure, current quality of services etc. This is a stark thing to miss considering all CERC, CEA, State ERCs and State Discom’s mandate Improving Customer Satisfaction as one of the 4 objectives of a Power Distribution Franchisee. The reason probably for the miss is that the areas being offered for franchisee are any way loss making and hence customer dissatisfaction is well understood.

However, while all utilities, licensees and potential or current distribution franchisee operators try to improve quality of service; could efforts to understand the customer’s perception and expectations from the utility help the utility make more quality decisions to improve the services and have a happy, paying customer?

The answer probably is a big “Yes”. Measuring customer satisfaction – using a structured methodology that relates the customer responses with consumer demographics and key factors/attributes affecting business performance – is probably the only way of independently & periodically benchmarking effectiveness of utilities operating in same or different zones. No doubt a number of such mechanisms have evolved and established themselves in the western countries where multiple state / private companies operate in the same locality.

But how really could measuring customer satisfaction or proactively identifying customer preferences help? We believe, they could in the following key ways,

Understanding and activating the power utility customer

The electricity consumer in India has for long been at the receiving end. Although, there are arrangements for public forums and grievance redressal systems in place, hardly any are attended frequently or in quorum by customers of electricity utilities. For long, being a regulated and government controlled sector, price is given and delightful customer service is unheard of. The customer themselves do not care much as long as the light turns on at the press of the button. However, customers are important stakeholders who, very basically, pay for the services and with the advent of private companies to manage distribution systems, their expectations are on the rise.

It becomes more and more important to understand the customer’s needs (requirements and expectations) and factors that affect his/her satisfaction as they directly or indirectly affect the customer’s behavior towards the use & misuse of the utilities services and infrastructure.

A satisfied customer is more inclined to understand the harmful effects that power stealing, etc will have on the quality of service AND the price at which they are delivered to him or her. High satisfaction and awareness of quality of services delivered to him/her enhances the support and cooperation that the end consumer can extend to the distribution utility for monitoring non-normal activity on the network infrastructure and also bring to notice untoward incidents that affect the secure working of the system.

Consider the case of NDPL, which probably – in the Indian context – is known to be the best case of turn around to become a consumer-centric utility, which by leveraging customer satisfaction & preference studies was able to lower Average waiting time for bill payment by four times and increase Customer confidence in paying bills by checks to 50 percent.

Making investment decisions for quick wins

Customer Satisfaction results are probably the most reliable way of identifying key issues that the local customer wants the utility to attend. Immediately attending to the customer’s key areas of dissatisfaction would result in quick wins for the utility and allow for building up a positive perception within the minds of all stakeholders (including customer, opinion leaders, employees etc) and make them ready for bigger changes (e.g. smart meters and other innovations that would help improve the quality of service and metering efficiency). When looked into together with other factual information (utility’s assets, performance figures, collection efficiency, billing, customer complaints etc) customer satisfaction and preference data can provide solid insight into the investments that, if done, would help improve business productivity and growth.

For example, high customer dissatisfaction with the current modes of payments available could result in a long meter-to-cash cycle. It would be wise on the utility’s side to consider investing in making available preferred and convenient modes-of-payments, identified in the customer survey, for the customer to be able to pay his bills in time and sometimes even earlier. Measuring customer satisfaction on this attribute could be considered as an indicator (leading / lagging depending on the way dissatisfaction is measured and analyzed) of reasons why the utility is performing low in terms of collection efficiency.

The key here is to measure customer’s satisfaction on well-chosen factors and corresponding attributes that appropriately represent key areas like power quality, reliability, metering, billing, payments, information systems, customer services etc.

Measuring the effectiveness of utility performance

While utilities perform they should know whether the performance is effective enough to meet the needs of the current and potential customers. Especially in the case of distribution franchisees where a complete new management will be handed over the operations of the local distribution system, it is imperative to measure the existing effectiveness of performance from all different perspectives – of which the customer perspective is a significant one.

The key question is, if we don’t measure customer satisfaction, how will we manage it? Not only this is true for the distribution franchisees and operating utilities but also for the licensees who need to ensure that the objectives of distribution franchisee contract are met over the next so-many years.

This is a comparative view of top level findings developed using the location specific reports of Gwalior, Datia and Bhind available here along with 6 other districts in Madhya Pradesh (MP).

Regional traits like urban/ rural development differentiation are strikingly clear; Customer satisfaction lowest in Bhind

In the overall scheme of things,

• • Bhind district scored a dismal 26.96
  • Gwalior district scored 52.41 &
  • Datia district scored 58.22

Specifically in Datia, the increased score can be attributed to the respondents in the Commercial category who indicated satisfaction on most major factors under consideration especially their comfort with the current Pricing available to them and also their satisfaction with the Power Quality and Reliability.

While, long hours of load shedding (6-10 hours), frequent unplanned outages, poor infrastructure and maintenance and poor customer services in Bhind specifically constitute its low score.

Satisfaction of customers is also relative and consistent to the level of customer’s expectations in different regions.

When asked if they agree that “A lot needs to be done to improve the current systems and make me fully satisfied” comparatively least respondents agreed in Datia (55%) than Gwalior (58%) followed by Bhind (91%) where most respondents agreed they are expecting a lot to be done before they get satisfied with the utility services.

Regions where customer’s believed more needs to be done to make them satisfied scored low on customer satisfaction.

Mixed reactions towards privatization of power distribution through franchisee model in Gwalior, Datia and Bhind
When asked if ““Service levels will improve if a private company manages electricity distribution”
In Gwalior 51% respondents agreed
In Datia 36% respondents agreed
In Bhind 83% respondents agreed

Over 70% of respondents from Commercial Category in both Datia & Gwalior disagreed that privatization would help improve service levels.

Over 80% of respondents in Bhind, both in Residential and Commercial categories, agreed that Privatization will help improve the current situation.

For individual reports on each region, please get in touch with Rahul Bagdia, +91 956 109 4490, rahul.bagdia@pManifold.com.

Chhattisgarh also has entered into the race of Power Distribution Franchising with its announcement of one of Raipur O&M Division named Baloda Bazar. The size of the project is smaller than all the recent 9 districts Distribution Franchisee in Madhya Pradesh (See our earlier blog ‘Upcoming Projects of Power Distribution Franchisee in Madhya Pradesh‘). The project is announced under RGGVY program.

CSPDCL, Raipur announced the tender on 30-07-2011 and has 25-08-2011 as bid close date. Comparing to earlier Power Distribution Franchisee tenders, this seems to be the shortest time duration tender, given amongst the first experiments for CSPDCL.

Some key characteristics of the tender:

1. 1. Tenure for Input based Franchisee tender is 5 years
   2. No input minimum benchmarking rates provided
   3. High distribution losses of the order of 63.41% (Annual Input energy of the order of 250 MUs with Revenue billed approx. Rs. 18 crores)
   4. Scattered area 4794 sq.kms
   5. Low Peak demand of 43 MW
   6. High Collection efficiency (almost 100%). (This reflects that unmetered sales is primary cause for high losses)
   7. BPL consumers are highest in numbers (almost 54% of total consumers, but contributing only 12% to total connected load and 0% to revenue collected as totally subsidised)
   8. 18 number of 33 KV substations (total capacity 76.45 MVA, mostly of 3.15MVA power transformer)
   9. Approx. 25784 LT poles and 1273 Distribution Transformers (DTRs)

The qualifications for the bid is easier for new entrants.

What is to be looked is innovation in Rural Distribution Franchisee to make it emerge as viable model and sustain RGGVY efforts.

Reference:

• • Baloda Bazar (O&M Circle) Distribution Franchisee RFP
  • Baloda Bazar (O&M Circle) Distribution Franchisee DFA

Madhya Pradesh (MP) Energy Dept. has taken a bold step with decision to private franchise 9 MP district’s Power Distribution simultaneously. This is unique as there is less than 9 total operational Input based Power Distribution Franchisees (DF) pan India at the district level scale while the model is still emerging. The associated officials and transaction advisory have incorporated good learning in current RFPs for the 9 districts from previous awarded Distribution Franchisee RFPs (across India) and emerging Distribution Franchisee implementation scale-up issues. There is appreciable effort from Energy Dept GoMP to engage various stakeholders to raise a strong and standardized Distribution Franchisee model.

A second revision in RFPs was made post first pre-bid conference after consulting with participating prospective bidders (See first pre-bid conference minutes). A second pre-bid conference was organized in Bhopal on 25th August jointly for all 9 districts. The meeting was chaired by Hon. Energy Secretary GoMP, Mr. Mohd. Suleman and was attended by overwhelming 20+ prospective bidding companies. pManifold participated in this pre-bid conference based upon their relevant work in the Distribution Franchisee space and having collected valuable customer satisfaction data on local electric utilities performance in the 9 MP districts.

Some key points of discussion raised by Licensee (the utility) for opinion from participating prospective bidders were:

1. 1. If and how utility not only avoid financial losses as established in baseline, but also make profits in a truely win-win Distribution Franchisee model in long term?
   2. How could utility protect its and its end-consumer’s interests better while in Distribution Franchisee long term contractual arrangement? In specific what could be better contract and company structuring – whether utility should sign contract with SPV (Special Purpose Vehicle) or the Parent company?
   3. If and how ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ Power Distribution Franchisees could be clubbed together? In specific with current all 9 MP districts having high rural characteristics, how bidders look upon viability of a combined Distribution Franchisee model at entire district level?

It was encouraging to see the utility’s Top Management and participating prospective bidders recognizing ‘Customer Satisfaction’ as the most important performance objective for Distribution Franchisee. In light of this, there was discussion to add some mandated customer services in the RFP and DFA in addition to current 100% Electronic Metering, Billing and Payment as part of Capex roll-out plan.

The pre-bid conference engaged the prospective bidders very well, seeking their active suggestions in further improving the model and if required follow up with another revision in RFP terms and agreements. Some interesting questions that were raised by the prospective bidders:

1. 1. Power supply guarantee: What guarantees utility could give on supply quantity and quality at the input point to the Distribution Franchisee? Without any such guarantees, how could Distribution Franchisee hold on its objectives of Power Quality & Reliability and Customer Satisfaction and avoid any defined failure under ‘Major Incidents’? Who will pay for additional power purchased, in case if required to meet customer’s expectations?
   2. Minimum Benchmarking Input rates: Under existing RFP, bidders have to meet minimum ‘Reserve Price’ for all 15 years. There was suggestion if this minimum could instead be set only on ‘Levelised Reserve Price’ instead of all independent 15 years reserve price. One another request was if utility could share their assumption sheet to design minimum ‘reserve price’ to allow bidders to better understand utility’s perspective and numbers.
   3. Relaxation on performance in first 1-2 years: First challenge for any new Distribution Franchisee is to keep up with existing system performance and get stable on ground resources and management transitions before taking up any major loss level reduction interventions. In light of this coping with change management in first 1-2 years, there was request to not have mandated loss level reduction targets for first 1-2 years.
   4. Data authenticity in RFP: There were many questions on base-line data authenticity shared in RFP in absence of any strong data logging processes followed at utility.
   5. Subsidy share: There were discussion that Rural Input based Distribution Franchisee gets further into the red zone of viability if subsidy is not shared with the Distribution Franchisee and hence need to treat and evolve different arrangements. It was suggested that a more involved ‘Risk-Return framework’ needs to be developed for all stakeholders involved in Distribution franchisee business – Utility, Distribution Franchisee and End-customers.

There were few other discussion points raised by participating prospective bidders requesting – still some changes in technical and financial qualification criterion; changes in Tariff-Index-Ratio (TIR) based current offsetting of input price, no-charging of surcharge on arrears, longer (atleast 6 months) utility employees transitory support etc.

One significant message this pre-bid conference was successful in delivering was the importance of measuring ‘customer satisfaction’ to monitor performance of electric utility. pManifold’s research in objectively quantifying customer satisfaction in the 9 MP districts was introduced to the bidders. Mr. Faiz Wahid and Mr. Rahul Bagdia (Co-founders and Directors at pManifold) shared sample research study with participants post the completion of the pre-bid conference.

Independent all 9 districts reports on ‘Electric Utility Customer Satisfaction Reports 2011‘ is available for purchase with pManifold. Sample report could be viewed online. For more details contact Rahul Bagdia @ 95610-94490.

Post by: Rahul Bagdia @ pManifold

A recent publication from Prayas on ‘Rajiv Gandhi Rural Electrification Program – Urgent need for mid-course correction‘ gave a very good overview of RGGVY program, its features and progress. Some key observations made:

1. 1. Total 1.1 lakhs Rural Franchisees in India (detailed distribution given below)
2. 1. • This covers only 19% of total villages in the country including both the RGGVY and non-RGGVY villages
      • Only 38% RGGVY villages are covered under Franchisees, when all are supposed to have mandatory Rural Franchisees
      • 95% of total Rural Franchisees are Revenue Collection based Franchisees
      • Bihar, Gujarat (91%), Haryana (91%), Karnataka (73%), Nagaland, UP and West Bengal have above national average (i.e. 19%) Rural Franchisees in RGGVY villages

2. Rs. 26000 cr. already spent in last 6 years since 2005 and estimated another same amount to be spent (totaling to Rs. 52000 cr.) for coverage of RGGVY original targets of  100% village  electrification and 2.34 cr. rural BPL household connections.

2. 1. • Since 2005, 96562 villages have been electrified raising the level of ‘village electrification ’ from 74% to 91%. (Total villages in India is ~6 lacs, out of which 1.25 lacs did not have access to electricity in 2005)
      • Since 2005, 1.75 crores rural households are given new connections raising the level of ‘rural household electrification’ from 43% to 56%. (Total # of rural households in India is ~14.5 crores, out of which 7.8 crores did not have access to electricity in 2005)
3. 2. 3. By estimate of investment, of order Rs. 52000 cr., RGGVY scheme is comparable to R-APDRP scheme of GoI.

Rural ‘Power’ Inclusion:
As Prayas’s paper identified there has been significant progress in grid extension and household connections through RGGVY, there remain broader questions to build answers for broader rural ‘power’ inclusion:

• • Quality of work and power supply
  • Sustainability of the infrastructure
  • Contribution to local (i.e. rural) development

‘Rural Franchisees’ is definitely one key to unlock rural power inclusion in India. There is strong need to innovate & integrate ‘Distribution/Delivery’ of power with:

• • Local ‘Distributed Generation’ of power
  • Strong policy initiatives to allow better grid interaction/sharing and localised tariff setting
  • Strong governance and independent monitoring of customer satisfaction

Market Opportunity comparison:

A simple comparison of the ‘existing’ market size (both in terms of numbers and contract values) of Distribution Franchisee opportunities between Rural and Urban, seems to point Rural as a winner. However challenges remains with some key gaps identified below in delivering rural electricity.

Question is what could be learnt from solving these ‘rural’ specific challenge with so much investment already gone into it and still more to come? What will be the applicability of those learning to broader Power Distribution markets? Could that lead to ‘disruptive innovation’ for improving financial health of utilities in India and improve Distribution efficiencies? Who amongst private players will bring that ‘market inflection’? Will the teachings of late Prof. C.K. Prahalad on ‘Fortune at the bottom of pyramid’ be applicable to this sector and who will set the first path?

One possible Strategy for entry into Distribution Franchisee:

There are already great efforts from many new players to enter into upcoming Distribution Franchisee bids (at district level like as in Madhya Pradesh) and they face tough competition against tough terms and conditions (like high ‘reserve rates’, strong qualification criterion, high EMD & security deposits etc.). It is possible that these new entrants or even established private companies also consider building first hand experience from participating in lower capital risk Rural Franchisees and bring their private corporate management best practices to establish reforms and innovations. With 1.1 lakhs rural franchisees and that covering only 19% of total villages and already invested Rs. 26000 crores, this could provide an easy and fastest entry to build most direct experience in the sector and participate in bigger bids more strongly, with more experience and hopefully at lowest rates with best workable technology.

Not to say that the Rural Franchisee experience would be easier than any urban franchisee or to be treated with less care. Infacts as highlighed above, the odds are higher in rural region and demands innovation. But the one who can cracks this rural challenge of power distribution will definitely emerge as a leader in this space with direct mapping of his skills set to urban challenge, but not the vice-versa for its otherwise competitors. Recent upsurge of ‘mobile’ market and ‘financial inclusion’ in rural are clear examples, that even in POWER sector, its time to offer more ‘choices’ to the end-customers and specially ‘Rural consumers’ be looked upon as profitable and respected segment (See earlier blog – Why Customer’s Satisfaction & Preferences are important for Electricity Utilities?).

A shift from Rural-to-Urban-to-Rural will soon begin – See earlier blog Power Distribution Franchisee – Evolution from Rural to Urban and back to Rural.

At pManifold, we intend to undertake more detailed gap analysis with operating Rural Franchisees and help them Organize-Manage-ScaleUp. Interested stakeholders with willingness to support this cause and study, please contact Rahul Bagdia @ rahul.bagdia@pmanifold.com (+91 95610 94490)

Post by: Rahul Bagdia @ pManifold

pManifold as Knowledge Partner to IIES 2011 organized a workshop on ‘Solar PV System – Technology, Risks, Manufacturing, EPC, O&M, Investment’. The workshop brought best Industry experts and participants through out the country.

pManifold Indis_Solar PV_IIES_Workshop_report

https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/7293704

View more presentations from pManifold

Topics and brief content covered in the workshop

1. Grid connected (MW Size) Solar PV plants
   • What it is & current players
   • Key challenges (Land / Technology / Competition)
   • Innovation – as a key strategic advantage
   • Role of components: Modules, Inverters, Racking, Trackers, Processes. How each of them play a crucial role in Levelised Cost of Energy (LCOE)
   • India specific challenges & Trends
   • PPAs & what are they good for
2. Solar Module Manufacturing
   • Different  type of Solar Cells
   • How mono/multi crystalline modules is manufactured
   • Composition of modules
   • Machines required for manufacturing
   • Process of manufacturing
   • Testing of Solar Modules / Standards & Certifications
   • Important aspects in Module manufacturing
   • Investment and rough estimation on cost of project
   • Rough estimate on cost of manufacturing
   • Central & State Govt. Incentives – How to choose the right location
3. Financing Solar/RE – Bankers Perspective
   • What is the mindset of a Banker (from a risk point of view)
   • How should a Project Promoter think towards De-Risking a Project Proposal
   • Is there an ideal Equity/Debt mix that is better and more attractive from a Bankers perspective (will increase the financing chances)
   • What are the key decision makers / departments in SBI that will handle Renewable Project Finance
   • What is the typical timeline associated with a Project Finance Proposal (avg. time between receiving a proposal and release the first tranche of funds)
4. Off-Grid / Rooftop Solar Solutions for Buildings
   • Sourcing of components: please outline what are the best sources / companies for buying other (non-PV) components (Racking / Inverters / Cables / Junction Boxes / Monitoring)
   • Price trends for 2010-2011 — any geographical trends within India (North India vs. South, East, West)
   • Rupees per Watt – how does that change for a 1 KW system vs. 10 kw system vs. 100 KW system
   • Should one go for the lowest cost PV panel available in the market
   • Prevalent payment terms in the Industry (upfront / on delivery / on installation)
5. Consumer products –  applications and potential
   • Examples of product
   • Current cost per unit installed
   • Approximate Breakdown of the cost
   • In what circumstances are they economical
   • Subsidies, if any
   • How easy is the installation process
   • Lifetime, Reliability and Servicing issues
   • Field Experiences – What Customers say

Speakers of the workshop

Akash – CEO, Indis Energy
K.E. Raghunathan – MD, Solkar Solar Industries Ltd.
Abhijit Chakravarti – AGM, State Bank of India
Rahul Bagdia – Director, pManifold Business Solutions
Adithya – R&D Head, Intelizon Energy Pvt. Ltd.

The workshop was organized under pManifold’s Stakeholder Engagement services. Focussed emerging models with potential to solve Indian power sector challenges were selected in categories of Distribution, Conservation and Generation. Relevant stakeholders including service providers, businesses, investors, bankers and professionals including students were brought together to participate in discussions led by domain experts to come with action items to scale respective business models. More details on each workshops on our Insights page.

Post by: Rahul Bagdia @ pManifold

The guidelines for second batch under Phase I of Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission (JNNSM) were announced recently by Ministry of New and Renewable Eneergy (MNRE) . The excerpts of the guidelines are captured in our previous blog.

To give strong impetus in promoting domestic manufacturing, the developers are expected to procure their project components from domestic manufacturers. For Solar Photo-voltaic (PV) projects using Crystalline technology, to be selected in second batch during FY 2011-12, it is mandatory for all the projects to use cells and modules manufactured in India. However, Thin film and Concentrated PV (CPV) has no such domestic limitations.

In view of the above, the list of major Indian players in Solar Cell and Module manufacturing along with Technologies are mentioned below:-

Sr. No.	Company Name	Solar Cells	Solar Modules	Crystalline Silicon	Thin Film
1	Moser Baer PV Pvt. Ltd.	Yes	Yes	Polysilicon	Amorphous-Silicon
2	Titan Energy Systems Ltd.	–	Yes	Monosilicon & Polysilicon	Amorphous-Silicon & Copper Indium Gallium Selenide
3	Maharishi Solar Technology Pvt. Ltd.	Yes	Yes	Polysilicon	–
4	Tata BP Solar	Yes	Yes	Monosilicon & Polysilicon	–
5	Solar Semiconductors	Yes	Yes	Monosilicon & Polysilicon	–
6	Central Electronics Ltd.	Yes	Yes	Monosilicon	–
7	BHEL	Yes	Yes	Monosilicon	–
8	Lanco Solar Pvt. Ltd.	Yes	Yes	Monosilicon & Polysilicon	–
9	Signet Solar	–	Yes	–	Amorphous-Silicon
10	Webel Solar	Yes	Yes	Monosilicon	–
11	Indosolar	Yes	–	Monosilicon & Polysilicon	–
12	PLG Power Ltd.	Yes	Yes	Polysilicon	–

The above list may not be a complete and comprehensive list, but it gives an overall and fair representation of players involved in manufacturing of solar cells and modules.

• What is to be seen if the domestic content constraint on Crystalline technology and its relative higher costs compared to Thin film will force new projects to go with Thin film technology
• Also there will be competition amongst Crystalline panel manufacturing players to get share of batch-2 projects and this could drive new market dynamics

pManifold as part of its Solar practice offer services to properly reveal and pen down the technology, cost and performance trade-offs. (See pManifold services in Solar for more details)

MNRE has recently released the list of all grid operating solar PV projects in India (latest updated as on July 2011. See the detailed list here and also below).

The Project Developers for these cumulative 45.5MW capacity plants were:

1. Sri Power Generation (India) Pvt. Ltd.
2. Reliance Industries Ltd.
3. North Delhi Power Ltd.
4. Lanco Infratech Limited
5. Sun Edison
6. Azure Power Private Ltd.
7. C & S Electric Limited
8. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited
9. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited
10. Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd.
11. Tata Power Company
12. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.
13. Raajratna Energy Holdings Private Limited
14. Azure Power Private Limited
15. Reliance Industries Limited, Solar Group
16. ACME Tele Power Ltd.
17. Sapphire Industrial Infrastructures Private Limited
18. B & G Solar Private Limited
19. R L Clean power Pvt. Ltd.
20. West Bengal Green Energy Development Corporation Limited

With increasing Solar EPC and manufacturing experience building in Indian players, MNRE has also published a performance report on 6 grid connected power plants in India. The report parameterize some performance parameters like:

• Technology
• Actual Generation (in kWhs) – total, month wise
• % Capacity Utilization Factor- CUF (Average over period of operation, Maximum, Minimum)

Some key observations made:

• Avg CUF or Plant Load Factor (PLF) across the year is in range of 15-19%
• Peak CUF occurs in March to May and range from 20.21% to 23.63%
• Grid synchronization takes 2-4 months initial settling period with CUF going down to less than 10%

The report is first good step in monitoring performance and stakeholder engagement. However a big leap in monitoring solar plants performance and integrating the analytics to design appropriate solutions has to still happen.

Post by Rahul Bagdia @ pManifold

A comparative view of top level findings is shown here, developed using the location specific reports of Shajapur, Ujjain & Dewas available here along with 6 other districts in Madhya Pradesh (MP).

See our earlier blog:

• Comparative findings in Gwalior, Datia & Bhind
• Comparative findings in Sagar, Satna & Narsinghpur

The analysis shows that in the above 3 districts, a substantial percentage of dissatisfaction in

Customers is coming due to 2 factors, namely ‘Communication’ & ‘Price’.

The overall Satisfaction score on being computed(on scale of 0-100 with 100 being all respondents ‘very satisfied’):

	Communication	Price
Shajapur	33.68	30.76
Ujjain	27.09	32.77
Dewas	24.50	20.90

The main reasons for higher dissatisfaction across the 3 districts as indicated by the customers are due to following:

• Less ‘Awareness’ from Utility regarding the attributes ‘Energy Efficiency’ & ‘Consumer Rights’
• Less communication for ‘Advance notice about disruption’
• ‘Power Tariff & its variations’ is High

‘Shajapur’ district has higher percentage of customers agreeing towards ‘Privatization’ of Power Distribution compared to ‘Ujjain’ & ‘Dewas’

On being asked if “Service levels will improve

if a private company manages electricity

distribution”, the responses of different

districts were as follows:

• Shajapur – 44%
• Ujjain – 39%
• Dewas – 31%

Across different categories of consumers, over 50% respondents from ‘Commercial’ customers in ‘Dewas’ and ‘Shajapur’ districts agree that ‘service levels will improve if a private company manages

power distribution’.

Approximately 20% respondents from all the 3 districts ‘Neither Agree nor Disagree’ with ‘Privatization of Power Distribution. Also, ‘Agri’ customers have considerably lower expectations (<40%) in ‘Dewas’ & ‘Ujjain’ districts with ‘Privatization’.