Today’s Wall Street Journal has an article on an Indian politician and how the US embassy cables characterize her as ‘corrupt’ and a ‘virtual paranoid dictator’. These leaked cables come to us courtesy WikiLeaks.
This did not come as a surprise to anyone. That she focused on the ‘messenger’ rather than the message also was not a surprise. A person who spends millions on erecting her own statues has some audacity in calling Mr. Julian Assange a candidate for a mental institution. This is a classic symptom of projecting one’s own problem onto others.
While there are many reasons for corruption and why it is rampant in a country such as India, I marvel at the absolute lack of common sense displayed by this corrupt politician. The article described how she once sent her private jet to Mumbai to retrieve a preferred brand of shoes.
Why would she not forgo getting a new pair of shoes, especially when she already has hundreds in her closet? Why would she have the state incur these extravagant expenses for a mere pair of shoes? I think the answer is not corruption. It is the absence of a thought process that aligns you in a world along with the rest of the people. It is also to not have known contentment, peace and above all a value system. This act speaks to her moral vacuity, leadership deficit and shameful disregard for her position of a public servant.
That we have such politicians and that they have even an ounce of power is what is most offensive. That they are in a position to harm others because of the corrupt manner in which they govern is such a tragedy.
Since this sorry excuse for a politician hurled accusations at Mr. Assange, he has responded in the very same tone. He has vouched for the authenticity of the cables and even offered to bring a range of the finest British footwear were she to send her private jet for him in England. [Complete article can be found here.]
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Electricity Tariff Hike - A Symptom of a Sector in Disarray
Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) announced a 22% hike in electricity tariffs effective September 2011. Was DERC trying to one up South Africa’s 25% hike or were they trying to look better in contrast to Maharashtra’s 100% tariff hike not too long ago?
After all is said and done about the reasons for this tariff hike, here is the bottom line. The revenue requirement for the FY 2011-12 at Rs. 3899.11 Cr. Vs. the revenue gap at existing tariff is Rs 800.21 Cr. DERC has considered removing the cross- subsidization in tariff structure and has also considered the actual cost of service.
As part of the Electricity Act of 2003, an expert Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (ATE) was formed to hear appeals against State and Central Electricity Regulatory Commission orders. This is potentially a great mechanism to provide a grievance redressal but also hopefully, to encourage investor and public activism.
There was a hearing held last month on tariff determination and a few grievances were brought up, including fast meters and distribution companies’ poor response system.
I hope the consumer bodies will be able to influence the hearings and direct the Commissions’ and ATE’s attention to these very pertinent issues.
• Electricity theft and revenue loss
• Effect of tariff hike on overall economic growth
• Distribution companies’ lack of ability to purchase power from private companies, creating a bankruptcy situation inspite of the demand (Case in Point: Monnet Ispat has been forced to sell power for as low as 1c/KwH as demand has plummeted. This has happened despite Indian customers facing power blackouts even after paying more than 10c/KwH for power)
• Overall analysis of financials of distribution companies
• Analysis of distribution companies’ operational efficiency levels
For India’s benefit, this is another reason for the use of renewables and for doing so quickly. Meanwhile, I hope the consumers will be provided some sort of subsidy relief if not an outright reversal of these hikes.
After all is said and done about the reasons for this tariff hike, here is the bottom line. The revenue requirement for the FY 2011-12 at Rs. 3899.11 Cr. Vs. the revenue gap at existing tariff is Rs 800.21 Cr. DERC has considered removing the cross- subsidization in tariff structure and has also considered the actual cost of service.
As part of the Electricity Act of 2003, an expert Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (ATE) was formed to hear appeals against State and Central Electricity Regulatory Commission orders. This is potentially a great mechanism to provide a grievance redressal but also hopefully, to encourage investor and public activism.
There was a hearing held last month on tariff determination and a few grievances were brought up, including fast meters and distribution companies’ poor response system.
I hope the consumer bodies will be able to influence the hearings and direct the Commissions’ and ATE’s attention to these very pertinent issues.
• Electricity theft and revenue loss
• Effect of tariff hike on overall economic growth
• Distribution companies’ lack of ability to purchase power from private companies, creating a bankruptcy situation inspite of the demand (Case in Point: Monnet Ispat has been forced to sell power for as low as 1c/KwH as demand has plummeted. This has happened despite Indian customers facing power blackouts even after paying more than 10c/KwH for power)
• Overall analysis of financials of distribution companies
• Analysis of distribution companies’ operational efficiency levels
For India’s benefit, this is another reason for the use of renewables and for doing so quickly. Meanwhile, I hope the consumers will be provided some sort of subsidy relief if not an outright reversal of these hikes.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
