Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences

India Keywords: fuel and energy complex, electric power industry, institutional structure

Availability of natural resources, especially energy resources, is one of the main factors of economic growth. Studies of the dependence of GDP growth on energy consumption revealed an unambiguous correlation between them1. This dependence is also true for the electric power industry, since it is the most important end product of the fuel and energy complex (FEC) as a whole.

In recent years, India has achieved a fairly high rate of economic development. This was also facilitated by the reform of the electric power industry. However, the country's energy supply constraints remain a significant constraint.

BY TRIAL AND ERROR

Under the Industrial Policy Resolution of 1948, the Government of India played a dominant role in the development and regulation of key sectors of the economy, which included, among other things, the electricity sector.

According to Article 7 of the Constitution of India, the electric power industry is subject to parallel regulation, which implies the right of both states and central authorities to make laws in the field of electric power. Shortly after independence, legislative powers were formalized in the Electricity Supply Act ^{of 1948.2}

The Act provided for the establishment of the Central Electric Power Administration and State Electricity Boards. State governments have become autonomous institutions responsible for the development and operation of the electricity generation, transmission and distribution sectors in the most economical and efficient way. At the same time, the federal administration was given an exclusively advisory role. The Industrial Policy Resolution of 1956 almost entirely transferred the generation and distribution functions to the states. Thus, the new legislation in the electricity sector established the dominance of State-owned enterprises.

For a long time, electrification services in India, as in most developing countries of the world, as well as in many developed countries of Europe, were provided by state-owned monopolies. In India, until 1991, this industry was managed by a single vertically integrated company in each state. The existence of state-owned integrated structures reflected the prevailing perception at that time (with the exception of the United States and Japan) that the electric power industry was a natural monopoly.³

However, in many cases, the lack of competition led to poor quality of services, insufficient efficient use of resources, and disregard for the interests of consumers.

The global experience of the last three decades has shown that the electric power industry does not have to be a natural monopoly*. First of all, this is due to new technologies that make it possible to create smaller power plants and increase competition between them4. A study by the British scientist D. Howe proved that the privatization of electricity generating capacities leads to an increase in efficiency.⁵

Following the successful restructuring of electricity industries in Latin American countries, the World Bank (WB) has begun to make electricity sector reforms a prerequisite for obtaining loans.⁶

A real breakthrough and India's entry into a new level of economic development was made as a result of the successful reform program implemented in the 1990s, including the electric power industry.

In the 1991/1992 financial year, India experienced the most acute monetary and financial crisis since independence, accompanied by a significant slowdown in economic growth. GDP growth rate in just one year upa-

* Natural monopoly - an officially recognized unavoidable monopoly on the production and sale of goods and services, in relation to which monopolism is conditioned either by the natural rights of the monopolist, or by considerations of economic benefit for the entire state and population, or by the interests of national security (editor's note).

li from 4.9% to 1%. The growth rate of industrial production dropped to a negative level of ⁷. Unfavorable weather conditions for three consecutive years have led to stagnation of agricultural production.

In this situation, the government, which was in power, the Indian National Congress party, was faced with the need to take emergency measures to get the country out of the financial crisis. While declaring its commitment to the socially oriented "Nehru model," it has consistently implemented the economic liberalization that began in the late 1980s under Rajiv Gandhi. The key point of the government's economic policy was an attempt to combine monetary and financial stabilization with the recovery and accelerated liberalization of the economy. However, this required a large infusion of external financial resources, which largely made the country's economic policy dependent on the recommendations of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the WB Group* as the main potential creditors.

Following the example of developing countries such as Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Bangladesh and Pakistan, the Indian Government has also begun to restructure the sector.⁸

The first phase of reforms began in 1991 with the introduction of the"Paradigm of Independence of Electricity producers". The main drivers of the reforms were the growing gap between electricity supply and demand, insufficient technical and financial efficiency of state governments, and the inability of the central and state governments to finance projects to expand generating capacity. The first phase was documented by the adoption of the "Resolution on the Policy of Private Capital Participation in the Electric Power Sector" ⁹ in October 1991.

The resolution facilitated access to domestic and foreign capital, provided guaranteed rates of investment return, and allowed investors to set up their own generating capacity or participate in the distribution sector under license. The document also provided the right to sell electricity produced by private enterprises to state-owned companies, but it was not intended to improve the financial condition of the state boards themselves, which would ensure the viability of long-term contracts. In addition, electricity distribution was not privatized.

At the WB's insistence, Orissa became the first state in India to implement a comprehensive reform of the electricity sector in 1996, which included the creation of an independent regulatory commission, the division of state boards into separate organizations for production, transmission and distribution, and their subsequent privatization (generating companies in particular).

The choice of Orissa was based on the fact that less than 10% of electricity was consumed by agriculture, which ensured that the reforms were relatively painless. In addition, by the time of the reforms (data 1993/1994), the state's electricity sector was in a poor state: peak deficits reached 37 %, the tariff covered 71% of costs, and revenue was $ 3.34 billion. The "Orissa Model" included the functional division and transformation of the state board into two generating, one transmitting and three distributing companies, with the generating and distributing companies being placed under the management of ^the private sector. Later, a similar model of reform was applied in 9 other states, but with the exception of Delhi and Orissa, the state continued to be responsible for distribution.

In 1995, the "Mega-Electric Power Policy" came into force, according to which all types of power plants with a capacity of more than 1 GW * * * received additional incentives in the form of 10-year tax holidays in

* The World Bank Group - five organizations created at different times and united to provide financial and technical assistance to developing countries (International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, International Development Association, International Finance Corporation, etc.) (editor's note).

* * Approximately $107 million, but at the current exchange rate (editor's note).

*** 1 GW (gigawatt) - 1 million kW (editor's note).

at any time during the first 15 years, they were exempt from import duties, as well as subject to a simplified licensing system. In addition, the Electricity Trading Corporation was established as part of the above-mentioned initiative, which served as an intermediary between private developers of megaprojects and state boards.

However, the International Energy Council estimates that the first stages of reform in India have not been successful.

At the national level, the reform process began with the introduction of the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act in 1998, which established the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission as an independent professional agency for setting tariffs. Its uniqueness lay in the fact that this commission for the first time began to regulate the transmission of electricity between states in order to reduce the imbalance between production and consumption.

The only attempt to somehow correct the situation in the distribution sector was the Accelerated Development Program of the Electric Power Industry in 2001, which was aimed at installing electric meters and improving the payment collection system. The program did not have a large scale: eight states with the highest power losses were allocated $ 17 billion. Rs.

Thus, the state's attempts to improve the state of the electric power industry were partial: the reforms were modeled differently in different states, the distribution of electricity was ignored, and the issue of tariff formation was not fully resolved.

Gradually training politicians and the public to change, the experiments paved the way for a comprehensive and integrated design of the industry's development path, which was translated into the publication in 2003 of the new "Electric Power Act" ¹¹. The document replaced all existing regulatory documents regulating the sector. The act embodies the idea of a "double path" for further energy development. The idea is that the backbone network with its connected capacities in the future will serve, first of all, to stimulate agriculture and combat poverty. Of course, this takes into account the need to improve its efficiency by mandatory separation of state boards and the privatization of companies formed in this way. However, the act assumes that in the near future it is impossible to achieve a fully competitive and, most importantly, break-even market capable of providing high-quality uninterrupted electricity in the required volumes. Therefore, industrial enterprises are provided with an alternative in the form of installing their own generating capacities, independent of the main line, but connected to it to sell excess energy.

The act clearly spelled out the division of powers of regulatory bodies, abolished unnecessary commissions. So, since 2003, in addition to the Central Regulatory Commission, there is a similar institution in each state in the country. At the same time, a special body was created - the Appeals Tribunal, which deals with complaints about the decisions of the commissions.

The "Electric Power Act" completely cancels licensing of thermal and local power generation, as well as distribution of electricity in rural areas. It is required to measure all electricity supplies and, as a result, install a huge number of meters in places where this practice has hitherto been ignored.

The main merit of the act is the introduction of open access to the backbone network without discrimination. This change automatically creates competition among manufacturers for network access. It also opens up access to the distribution network on a non-discriminatory basis, i.e. consumers are ultimately given the choice of supplier, which means moving away from the usual single-buyer model in India.

In accordance with the 2003 Act, the State has a significant role to play in setting benchmarks for the future development of the sector. The national electricity and tariff policy is drawn up by the central Government in consultation with the state Governments; it provides for the optimal use of energy sources in generation. Further, in cooperation with the Ministry of Electric Power, as well as taking into account the interests of all interested parties, a "National Electric Power Plan"is prepared every 5 years. The plan also contains instructions for electrification of rural areas and development of local generation, including alternative energy sources.

In addition, the 2003 Act laid the foundations for a competitive environment by removing barriers to entry to the industry. Electricity generation is recognized as an activity that does not require licensing. Restrictions in the form of technical and economic permits issued by the Department of Electric Power Industry have been lifted. Permits are required only for hydroelectric projects in order to ensure the safety and optimal use of the energy potential of rivers. Since 2003, any legal entity has the right to install generating stations only if they meet the standards for connecting to the network. The clause in the act prescribing open access to the grid on the basis of non-discrimination allows producers to sell electricity to any organization: a distribution company, a trading company, or directly to consumers.

Any restrictions on the production of electricity for their own needs have been lifted. A generator is considered local if 51% or more of the generated energy is consumed to meet its own needs. Excess electricity can also be sold. This is a very important prerequisite, because before

In 2003, local generators were used by industrial enterprises as an emergency option and were switched on only when there was a lack of electricity in the main network. Thus, the capacity utilization rate was low, which made it possible to significantly increase the total electricity generation after the adoption of the act immediately and without large capital investments.

The overall structure of the electricity transmission sector remained unchanged. Prior to 1998, the transmission networks were owned by Powergrid Corporation at the central level and state boards at the state level. A 2003 document made it mandatory for all owners to provide open access to their networks. Powergrid currently owns 45% (71,500 km) of power lines.

The experience of the first decade of reforms has shown that without an efficient and solvent distribution sector, a full-fledged solution to the problems of the electric power industry is impossible. Changes in this segment have the greatest impact on end users, so they are the most difficult to implement.

Prior to 2003, electricity tariffs for consumers were calculated on the basis of the "cost plus" method, and also took into account the required rate of return on capital and cross-subsidies, which will be discussed below. The Act of 2003 does not require a specific tariff definition, and its setting is the responsibility of the regulatory commissions. They are required to calculate a tariff that covers costs and leads to a reduction in subsidies.

THE RATE OF ELECTRICITY GENERATION IS HIGH, BUT...

India has achieved high growth rates in electricity generation, with an average annual growth rate of 6.9% since 1985, more than double the global average. ¹²

In 2011, India's electricity production was 1,006 TWh*. According to this indicator, the country ranks 5th in the world, behind China, the United States, Japan and Russia. In total, India accounts for 4.6% of global electricity consumption.

As of February 28, 2013, India's total electricity generation capacity was 214.63 GW. At the same time, 57.8% of generating capacities run on coal, 9.2% - on gas, 18.4% - on hydroelectric power. Renewable energy sources and the nuclear industry account for 12.3% and 2.3%, respectively ¹³.

However, it is rather difficult to quickly electrify such a large country in terms of area and population, since the construction of large - scale projects requires significant capital investments for a long time, and the installation of local generating capacities requires a developed infrastructure.

India's per capita electricity consumption is almost four times lower than the global average, at just 734 kWh per person per year14. The situation is complicated by the rapid development of the industrial and commercial sectors, which are increasingly in demand for electricity, as a result of which there has been a shortage ^of electricity in recent years15. India's electricity deficit hovered around 10% between 2007 and 2011, but it has gradually declined since 2009, when it hit a record 11.1%. In 2011, the deficit decreased to 8.5%, but during peak hours, the capacity shortage still reaches 9.8%¹⁶.

The Government of India is making extensive plans to expand its generating capacity in the country in order to ensure stable economic growth. The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that consumption will reach 1,650 TWh in 2020 and 3,106 TWh in 2035. In parallel, generating capacity will be expanded to 352 and 772 GW in 2020 and 2035, respectively. At the same time, the largest contribution to the development of the sector will be made at the expense of renewable sources and nuclear energy. The average annual (2008-2035) growth of solar energy generation will be 36.4%, wind - 10.2%, nuclear - 10%¹⁷.

Such large infrastructure projects as the construction of hydroelectric power plants or nuclear power plants are the absolute prerogative of the central government, since financing them from private capital is difficult to implement. It requires the accumulation of huge funds in the hands of a single body, while the payback period for such energy projects is decades, which is hardly acceptable for business. On the other hand, for a normal function-

* 1 TWh (terawatt) is equal to 1 billion US dollars. kW (editor's note).

The development of the fuel and energy sector requires a consolidation of the efforts of the public and private sectors. It is necessary to create regulatory and legal conditions for stimulating the self-development of the energy industry and ensuring access to private capital.

According to the Ministry of Energy of India, 70.8% of generating capacity is owned by the State, 58% of it is managed by the states, and 42% is owned by state-owned companies of the central Government. A much smaller share (29.2%) is made up of the contribution of private power generating companies. However, it is important to note that private generation has only recently received incentives for development, and the share of private capital in the sector did not exceed ¹⁵% until a few years ago18. The specifics of this process in India will be analyzed below.

ACCESS TO ELECTRICITY AND CAPACITY SHORTAGES ARE THE MAIN PROBLEMS OF THE INDUSTRY

Electricity tariffs in India are set by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission.

As noted above, at the State level, electrification is recognized as one of the key mechanisms for combating poverty, which is reflected in the national five-year plans. Domestic electricity prices are tightly regulated taking into account the social aspect, which leads to insufficient investment in the industry, limited participation of private, including foreign, companies. As a result, there is a shortage of generating capacity in the country, periodic rolling blackouts, and the level of electrification remains low.

Some groups of consumers, such as those working in agriculture, receive subsidies for electricity, which is provided to them free of charge or at a significant discount. In this regard, state-owned utilities increase the tariff for other groups of consumers (the principle of cross - subsidies), but most of them work at a loss. This situation persisted until the start of large-scale reforms, which will be discussed in the next part of the article.

Vertically integrated electric companies in the United States suffer from a lack of financial resources and are unable to invest in expanding/improving the quality of services provided. This leads to the fact that industrial consumers, burdened with a high tariff and low quality of the main power supply, increasingly prefer to install their own generators.

It can be assumed that local generation will soon be comparable in volume to the energy of the backbone network. A recent study ¹⁹ showed the following features of the development of local generation:

- local electricity production is higher in areas where agricultural production is more concentrated. This is obvious, since the quality of electricity in these areas is lower due to the lack of funds for development of electric companies, burdened with low prices for agriculture. The same is true for areas with high levels of power loss, which can be interpreted as a measure of corruption and theft;

- the electricity tariff for industrial enterprises does not qualitatively affect the level of local capacity, since industrial consumers value the quality of electricity more highly, i.e. its uninterrupted operation and sufficiency.

Another problem, particularly acute in India, is large-scale power losses, as distribution networks remain a weak link in the electricity supply chain. They consist of technical (for example, caused by overloading of transformers and conductors) and commercial (inefficient measurement and control system, extensive amounts of electricity theft) losses.

In India, transmission and distribution losses increased from 17.55% in 1971 to a record 32.86% in 2001, but then there was a gradual decline in electricity losses. In 2011, the figure was 18.04%²⁰, which is comparable to countries such as Pakistan or Kenya.

The practice of widespread installation of measuring devices that has begun should significantly reduce electricity losses in the near future.

India is currently experiencing significant difficulties in electrifying its districts, especially its villages. According to the IEA, only 75% of the population has access to electricity in India, and the levels of electrification in its cities and rural areas are significantly different. The IEA ²¹ predicts that by 2030, the level of electrification will reach 96%, but this will still mean that approximately 60 million people are deprived of electricity.

Attempts to solve the above problems in the early stages of reform were complicated by the fact that political circles approached the issue from the point of view of the production deficit.

A key area of activity in the early 1990s was the general increase in generation through the construction of large-scale projects, while the power distribution sector remained out of the state's view22.

Two key problems with the initial direction of the reforms soon became apparent.

First, new projects were built within the framework of the single buyer model, thus prescribing the sale of energy by generators only to the corresponding state company, and the possibility of redistributing electricity between states was excluded.

Secondly, the reform of the distribution sector was postponed, which meant the continuation of cross-subsidization of agriculture.

Much-needed distribution reform and elimination of subsidies-

Elections are still being delayed in India because it is difficult for them to find support in the face of intense internal political struggles. ²³ Agricultural workers are a large, highly organized group and have the greatest influence in the electorate of many states. In fact, no political party will be able to win a majority in an election if it announces its intention to increase the price of electricity for agriculture, because this scheme has been practiced since the colonial rule of Great Britain and is deeply ingrained in the views of the people.²⁴

The above-mentioned features and their consequence in the form of an increase in the share of local generation led to the creation of the so-called two-way economy, i.e. competition between public and private generation. Partial reforms bypassing the distribution sector made it possible to develop the market without threatening agricultural support.

COMPARED TO OTHER SOUTH ASIAN COUNTRIES

To determine the effectiveness of the electricity sector reforms implemented in India, a comparison can be made with similar experiences in other South Asian countries.

As noted above, from the late 80's to the early 90's of the 20th century, reformation became a regular condition for obtaining loans from international institutions.

Despite the considerable choice of opportunities for reforming individual sectors of the economy, ranging from minor structural changes to complete structural restructuring of the industry, the above-mentioned international institutions usually recommended the use of a model of functional division and privatization of the industry. However, differences in the economic and institutional structures of borrowing countries were often overlooked.²⁵ As a result, the reform process has shown insufficient effectiveness, despite the fact that the reform of the electric power industry has been initiated to some extent in most countries of the world.

The set of primary sources of energy in electricity generation varies from country to country26, but the institutional structure of their energy sector is largely the same, which leads to the similarity of the problems they experience.

In order to determine the effectiveness of the electricity sector reforms implemented in India, a comparison can be made with other countries in South Asia.

To begin with, we will highlight the characteristics of the electric power sector that are common to the region.

First, all countries are characterized by low per capita electricity consumption, according to international standards, and low levels of electrification, ranging from 15% to 50-60% in rural areas.

Second, government subsidies for electricity supply to certain groups of consumers create distortions in demand. In addition, state-owned electric companies were short of funds before the reforms, which hindered the sector's growth. And combining the functions of the regulator and the owner of companies in the hands of the state unreasonably overestimated its role.²⁷

Third, there is insufficient private sector involvement and poor quality of electricity.

In addition, there is almost no international electricity trade in all countries of the region. They are also related to the high rate of economic growth in recent years, and, as a result, an increase in demand for electricity.

It should also be noted that in all countries of the region, international electricity trade is practically non-existent. South Asian countries also share strong economic growth in recent years and, as a result, increased demand for electricity.

Like India, Bangladesh and Pakistan were forced to start reforming the electricity industry under external pressure, as they were in dire need of loans in the early 1990s. However, few of them have been effective, as problems that arise during the reform process (for example, temporary financial difficulties in achieving the planned amount of generating capacity) led to a significant increase in the number of loans received in these countries. state intervention that was contrary to the stated objectives ²⁸.

The reforms implemented in the countries were accordingly similar in nature and were aimed at attracting private (including foreign) capital, creating a competitive environment in the industry, reducing the role of the state (both loosening regulatory functions and removing subsidies), as well as expanding the network and connecting an increasing number of consumers. The social aspect was left out in South Asian countries, so there were still some reservations that would reduce the degree of" market-based " reforms.

India took the first steps to attract private investment in the industry before anyone else - in 1991. In Bangladesh, private generation was allowed a year later, and in Pakistan, in 1994. These measures were taken in response to the growing shortage of electricity observed in the 1970s and 1980s in all three countries.

Investors have shown considerable interest in the Pakistani electricity industry. Therefore, by 1998, when new generating capacities were put into operation, the country had a surplus of electricity. It should also be taken into account that in 1997 the world economy was in recession, and in 1998 international sanctions were imposed against Pakistan for its nuclear tests.

The next step was the creation of an independent professional regulatory body. Pakistan approached this issue earlier than anyone else - in 1995, India later joined it-in 1998, and Bangladesh, due to political instability in the country in the late 90s, only in 2003.

At the same time, it was only in India.

A national package of reforms was adopted, which provided for a comprehensive restructuring of the industry - the "Electric Power Act" of 2003. The reform process in Pakistan and Bangladesh did not go so far, and the single buyer model will continue in these countries in the near future29. The suspension of the reform process has led to a reduction in funding for Bangladesh from donor institutions, which in the future is likely to make it difficult to effectively address the problem of capacity deficits.³⁰

In India and Pakistan, this sector is divided by function. Production, transportation, and distribution belong to different companies. In all three countries, generating capacities are held in mixed ownership, with state participation dominating. As for the distribution area, it remains under the control of the State. The exceptions are the Indian states of Delhi and Orissa, as well as the metropolitan area in Pakistan.

Evaluating the above, we can conclude that the institutional structure of the electric power industry in India is more developed than in Pakistan and Bangladesh. There are also prospects for further development: There is no doubt that sooner or later other states will follow the example of Delhi and Orissa.

In terms of electrification, India (64.5%) is ahead of Pakistan (53%) and Bangladesh (30%)31. Electrification in India continues to be strong, and the IEA's above-mentioned forecast appears to be late in connecting all consumers in the country.

India still lags behind Pakistan (53.5%) and Bangladesh (45%) in terms of private capital participation in the electric power industry (29.2%). However, the spread of the Orissa Model may lead to full private control over the generation and distribution areas.

India is characterized by a high level of electricity losses. This is due to overcrowding, as well as the fact that electricity distribution channels are not fully equipped with measuring devices. The practice of widespread installation of the latter will allow improving the situation in the near future.

* * *

The process of liberalizing the electric power industry has generally shown mixed dynamics in South Asia. There is little doubt that the institutional conditions for further development of the sector are improving. Nevertheless, according to Indian and other foreign experts, the gradual transformation of the electric power industry in this region, which has been going on for more than 20 years, will eventually bear fruit.

^{Shafiee S., Topal E.} 1 An econometrics view of worldwide fossil fuel consumption and the role of US // Energy Policy. 2008. Vol. 36, p. 775 - 786; Smil V. Energy in Nature and Society: General Energetics of Complex Systems. MIT Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London. 2008, p. 33.5 - 341; Payne J.E. Survey of the international evidence on the causal relationship between energy consumption and growth // Journal of Economic Studies. 2010. Vol. 37, p. 53 - 95.

² Electricity Supply Act 1948, Central Electricity Regulatory Commission of India - http://www.cercind.gov.in/ElectSupply Act1948.pdf

^{Dossani R.} 3 Reorganization of the power distribution sector in India // Energy Policy. 2004. Vol. 32, p. 1277 - 1289.

^{Zhan Yin-Fang, Parker David} 4 & Kirkpatrick Colin. Assessing the Effects of Privatization, Competition of Economic Performance of Electricity Sector and Reform // National University of Singapore. SCAPE (Centre applied and Policy Economics). Department of Economics SCAPE Working Papers, N 2005/11, August 2005, p. 5 - http://www.fas.nus.edu.sg/ecs/pub/wp-scape/0511.pdf

^{Hawdon D.} 5 Performance of power sectors in developing countries - A Study of efficiency and World Bank policy using data envelopment analysis // Surrey Energy Economics Centre Discussion Paper. 1996. Vol. 88, p. 4 - 37.

^{Zhan Yin-Fang, Parker David & Kirkpatrick Colin.} 6 Op. cit., p. 3.

^{Kapila R., Kapila U.} 7 Understanding India's economic reforms. Vol. 5. New Delhi, Academic Foundation. 1996, p. 55 - 56.

^{Rajan A.T.} 8 Power sector reform in Orissa: an ex-post analysis of the causal factors // Energy Policy. 2000. Vol. 28, p. 657 - 699.

⁹ The Gazette of India, 22.10.1991.

^{Ranganathan V.} 10 Electricity privatization revisited: a commentary on the case for new initiatives in India // Energy Policv. 1996. Vol. 24, p. 821 - 825.

¹¹ The Gazette of India, 02.06.2003.

¹² BP Statistical Review of World Energy, June 2012 - bp.com/statisticalreview

¹³ Central Electricity Authority, Ministry of Power, Government of India. All India regionwise generating installed capacity (mw) of power utilities including allocated shares in joint and central sector utilities February 2013 - http://www.cea.nic.in/rcports/monthly/executivc_rcp/feb1.3/8.pdf

¹⁴ http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=74497

¹⁵ The Independent, 1.06.07.

¹⁶ Load Generation Balance Report, Central Electricity Authority. Government of India, 2008 - 2012.

¹⁷ World Energy Outlook, Reference Scenario: India. International Energy Agency, 2010.

¹⁸ Central Electricity Authority, Government of India. 30.11.2012.

^{Joseph K.L.} 19 The Politics of Power: Electricity Reform in India, Energy Policy. 2010. Vol. 38, p. 503 - 511.

²⁰ Energy Statistics 2012. Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation. Government of India.

²¹ World Energy Outlook, International Energy Agency, 2007.

^{Joseph K.L.} 22 Op. cit.

²³ For example, in Karnataka, rural grooming consumes 45% of all electricity, but generates only 5% of revenue (Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission, 2005). As a result, 50% of the state's budget expenditures are spent on subsidies, while in the same year 4% and 1% went to education and health (Government of Karnataka, 2005).

^{Vanhney A.} 24 Democracy, Development and the Countryside: Urban-Rural Strategies in India. New York. 1998, p. 35 - 39.

^{Sharma D., Madamha S., Chan R.} 25 Electricity industry reforms in the Philippines // Energy Policy. 2004. Vol. 32, p. 1487 - 1497.

²⁶ Pakistan: approximately 30% of oil, gas and hydropower, Bangladesh: almost 90% of gas / / IEA Energy Statistics 2012 bv country.

²⁷ Ibidem.

^{Bhattacharyya S.} 28 Power sector reform in South Asia: Why slow and limited so far? // Energy Policy. 2007. Vol. 35, p. 478 - 502.

²⁹ Bangladesh Economic Review 2004, Government of Bangladesh; Economic Survey 2004 - 2005. Government of Pakistan.

^{Mahmood I.E.} 30 Providing the infrastructure to support growth and development. Presentation to Bangladesh Development Forum, 2004.

³¹ Data from relevant country offices: Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation of India, 2012; National Electric Power Authority of Pakistan, 2012; Power Development Board of Bangladesh, 2012.

Permanent link to this publication: