Over 65 years after Independence, nearly half of the 800 million
people living in rural India are yet to get access to electricity. A
major reason for this is gaps in planning. For one, single power feeder
is being used for both household and agricultural connections. In order
to understand if separate feeder connections for domestic and
agricultural use would help, the Union Ministry of Power asked the World
Bank to carry out a study. The World Bank studied eight states and has
released the report titled “Lighting Rural India: Study on Rural Load
Segregation Schemes”. Ashish Khanna, lead energy specialist with World
Bank who headed the study, spoke to Ankur Paliwal about the importance of feeder segregation for improving rural electrification. Excerpts
Ashish KhannaWhat is rural feeder segregation and how is it important for rural electrification?
Rural feeder segregation is the separation of technical
infrastructure of agriculture consumers from non-agriculture consumers.
In a water-constrained scenario where oversupply of power to
agricultural farmers may aggravate the already grave groundwater
situation and also aggravate financial distress of power utilities
(already at 1.5 per cent of GDP), power supply to agriculture sector
needs to be controlled. In any case, agriculture power needs could be
fulfilled through a daily six to eight hour reliable supply, depending
on the season.
If all rural consumers are connected on the same feeder (wires that
emerge from sub-stations and carry electricity to transformers for
distribution to consumers), power supply to non-agriculture consumers,
including households, schools and dispensaries also get switched off
when agriculture supply is not needed. It is because switching off is
done from the sub-station from where the feeder is supplied. Some
utilities have, therefore, segregated agriculture and non-agriculture
feeders and have thus attempted to provide 24x7 power supply to the
non-agriculture consumers. This has generated increased ability to
generate livelihoods, and resulted in significant socio-economic
benefits in rural areas.
What are the key findings of the study?
There are eight states which are at various stages of implementing
feeder segregation schemes. These are Rajasthan, Gujarat, Andhra
Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh.
Results show that prior to feeder segregation more than 80 per cent
consumers in both Gujarat and Rajasthan complained of low voltage
problems which came down to just 6 per cent post segregation. More than
80 per cent domestic and over 50 per cent agriculture consumers
complained of frequent power outages which reduced by half in both these
states.
Other key findings are: a) One-size-fits-all approach will not work.
Though feeder segregation has produced good results in terms of
improving power supply for both agriculture and non-agriculture
consumers, it may not be the appropriate solution for all states; b)
where feeder segregation is determined as the right approach, the system
should be IT-enabled to allow the measurement of electricity flowing
into the system and being consumed by the agriculture consumer. Having
clear data on agricultural power consumption, subsidies can also be
better targeted; c) a national level framework should be laid out by the
Union Ministry of Power to guide the utilities in their approach to
rural power supply improvement.
What are the major challenges in implementing feeder segregation?
The first challenge is that there is no agreed framework for
computing cost benefit analysis of feeder segregation programme for any
state. While cost estimates are largely known, benefits to utilities in
terms of revenue augmentation and cost reduction of peak power purchase
have not been undertaken in most states. Another is missing investments
in software part of metering and data processing while we invest in
lines and transformers.
A major challenge is to keep feeders segregated in the medium and
long run. An energy audit system is needed because it has been seen that
consumers can change the connected loads (tube wells) without the
utility knowing it. Also, unauthorized loads in peak agriculture season
cannot be detected. Most importantly, sometimes rural habitations are
near the agriculture feeder and then they ask for electricity connection
from the same feeder. A utility cannot deny this. But this leads to the
duplication of feeder.
What is the cost estimation if a state is to take up feeder segregation? Explain with an example.
The cost will vary from state to state depending on various factors
including the present condition of rural infrastructure and the type of
network architecture planned. For example, it would cost around Rs 2.29
lakh per km of 11 kv line if feeder segregation is planned in Gujarat.
Given the poor financial health of the most state utilities,
would it be right for them to take up additional cost of implementing
feeder segregation?
Each state will have to identify its priorities depending upon its
rural development model. As an illustration, for a state with low level
of metered sales, feeder segregation would in fact allow greater revenue
potential for discoms as it will remove theft and technical losses
which are frequent in unmetered agricultural consumptions.
Similarly, feeder segregation, if implemented well, could reduce the
peak power purchase cost by better distribution of agricultural load,
leading to crucial cost savings for the utility. If the benefits of
feeder segregation in the state are largely socio-economic rather than
to the utility, then seeking equity or budgetary support for the
programme may be more prudent than borrowing through loans from
financial institutions.
Why will a standard approach to feeder segregation not work for all states?
States are different from one another in various aspects including
their geographical spread, status of power infrastructure, level of
aggregate technical and commercial (AT&C) losses and financial
condition. Each state, therefore, needs to develop its own customised
model for rural power supply rather than go in for a feeder segregation
approach.
It is not the only solution. Haryana and Punjab have agricultural
consumption greater than 30 per cent of total units sold in the state,
for which feeder segregation was needed to arrive at more credible
estimates of otherwise unmetered agricultural consumption which is
separate from AT&C losses. Gujarat, on the other hand, implemented
feeder segregation because it strove to provide 24X7 power supply to
rural households once it had surplus power. Uttar Pradesh has targets
for providing 24X7 power to tehsil towns initially before embarking on
24X7 rural supply. In that case, feeder segregation is not an immediate
requirement for them.
