![](/images/main_logo.png)
Last week, the Power Finance Corporation reported that state-owned power distribution companies across the country made financial losses amounting to Rs 68,832 crore in 2022-23. This is four times higher than the losses witnessed in 2021-22, and roughly equivalent to the annual budget of a state like Uttarakhand. This blog examines some of the causes and implications of such losses.
Overview of financial losses
For several years now, electricity distribution companies (discoms), which are mostly state-owned, have witnessed steep financial losses. Between 2017-18 and 2022-23, losses accumulated to over three lakh crore rupees. In 2021-22, discom witnessed substantial reduction in their losses, primarily because states released 1.54 lakh rupees in subsidies to clear pending dues. State governments provide discoms with subsidies, so that domestic and agricultural consumers receive affordable power. These payments are typically delayed which creates cash flow constraints, and leads to an accumulation of debt. In addition, costs incurred by discoms in 2021-22 remained unchanged.
Note: Data from 2020-21 onwards does not include Odisha, and Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu since their distribution function was privatised in 2020-21. Data for Ladakh is available from 2021-22 onwards. Data for Jammu and Kashmir is not available. The Delhi Municipal Council Distribution Utility has been included from 2020-21 onwards.
Sources: Power Finance Corporation reports for various years; PRS.
As of 2022-23, losses have increased again to reach Rs 68,832 crore. This increase has been driven by rising costs. At a per unit level, the cost of supplying one kilowatt of electricity rose from 7.6 rupees in 2021-22, to 8.6 rupees in 2022-23 (See Table 1).
Table 1: Financial details of state-owned power distribution companies
Details |
2019-20 |
2020-21 |
2021-22 |
2022-23 |
Average cost of supplying power (ACS) |
7.4 |
7.7 |
7.6 |
8.6 |
Average revenue realised (ARR) |
6.8 |
7.1 |
7.3 |
7.8 |
Per unit loss (ACS-ARR) |
0.6 |
0.6 |
0.3 |
0.7 |
Total losses (in Rs crore) |
-60,231 |
-76,899 |
-16,579 |
-68,832 |
Note: Data from 2020-21 onwards does not include Odisha, and Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu since their distribution function was privatised in 2020-21. Data for Ladakh is available from 2021-22 onwards. Data for Jammu and Kashmir is not available. The Delhi Municipal Council Distribution Utility has been included from 2020-21 onwards.
Sources: Power Finance Corporation reports for various years; PRS.
Purchase of electricity from generation companies (gencos) forms about 70% of a discom’s total costs, and coal is the primary source for generating electricity. The following chain of events took place in 2022-23: (i) consumer demand for electricity rose by 10% over the previous year, as compared to a 6% year-on-year increase in the past 10 years, (ii) coal had to be imported to meet the increased demand, and (iii) global coal prices were elevated.
Coal imported at elevated prices to keep up with rising electricity demand
In 2022-23, demand for electricity increased by 10% over 2021-22. Between 2008-09 and 2018-19, demand increased at an annual growth rate (CAGR) of 6%. Electricity demand grew as the economy grew (at 7%), and largely came from domestic and agricultural consumers. These consumer categories account for 54% of the total electricity sales, and their demand rose by 7%.
Sources: Central Electricity Regulatory Commission; PRS.
Electricity cannot be stored at scale, which means that generation must be scheduled depending on anticipated demand. The Central Electricity Authority anticipates annual demand for each year. It estimated that demand in 2022-23 would be at 1,505 billion units. However, the actual demand was higher than anticipated in the first few months of 2022-23 (See Figure 3).
To meet this demand, electricity generation had to be ramped up. Coal stocks had already depleted from 29 million tonnes in June 2021 to eight million tonnes in September 2021, on account of high demand in 2021-22. To ensure uninterrupted supply of power, the Ministry of Power directed gencos to import coal. The Ministry noted that without imports, widespread power cuts and blackouts would have occurred.
Sources: Load Generation Balance Report 2022 and 2023, Central Electricity Authority; PRS.
Coal imports rose by about 27 million tonnes in 2022-23. While this constituted only 5% of the overall coal used in the sector, the price at which it was imported significantly impacted the sector. In 2021-22, India imported coal at an average price of Rs 8,300 per tonne. This rose to Rs 12,500 per tonne in 2022-23, a 51% increase. Coal was primarily imported from Indonesia, and prices shot up due to the Russia-Ukraine war, and demand surge by countries like India and China.
Sources: Ministry of Power; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; PRS.
Coal import situation going forward
In January 2023, the Ministry of Power advised gencos to import 6% of the required coal, to ensure sufficient stock until September 2023. It noted that due to floods and variable rainfall in various parts of the country, hydro generation capacity reduced by about 14%. This put additional burden on coal based thermal generation in 2023-24. Following this, in October 2023, the Ministry directed all gencos to continue using at least 6% imported coal until March 2024.
Sources: Ministry of Coal; PRS.
Structural issues in the power sector and its impact on state finances
Discoms witness persistent financial losses due to certain structural issues. Their costs are typically high because of old contracts with generation companies (gencos). Power purchase costs in these contracts do not account for production efficiencies over the years, and costs remain unchanged. Tariffs are only revised every few years, to ensure that consumers are protected from supply chain shocks. As a result, costs are carried forward for a few years. In addition, discoms sell electricity to certain consumers such as agricultural and residential consumers, below cost. This is supposed to primarily be recovered through subsidy grants provided by state governments. However, states often delay subsidy payments leading to cash flow issues, and accumulation of debt. In addition, tariff recovery from the power sold is not optimal.
Losses reported in the generation sector have also increased. In 2022-23, state-owned gencos reported losses worth Rs 7,175 crore, as compared to the Rs 4,245 crore in 2021-22. Rajasthan accounted for 87% of these, at Rs 6,278 crore. Note that under the Late Payment Surcharge Rules, 2022, discoms are required to make upfront payments to gencos.
Risk to state finances
Persistent financial losses, high debt and guarantees extended by states continue to pose a risk to state finances. These are contingent liabilities for state governments, i.e., in the event a discom is unable to repay its debt, the state would have to take it over.
Several such schemes have been introduced in the past to bail discoms out (See Table 2). As of 2022-23, discoms have an outstanding debt worth Rs 6.61 lakh crore, 2.4% of the national GDP. Debt is significantly high in states such as Tamil Nadu (6% of GSDP), Rajasthan (6% of GSDP), and Uttar Pradesh (3% of GSDP). Previous Finance Commissions have recognised that strengthening discom finances is key in minimising the risk to state finances.
Table 2: Key government schemes for the turnaround of the distribution sector over the years
Year |
Scheme |
Details |
2002 |
Bailout Package |
States take over the debt of state electricity boards worth Rs 35,000 crore, 50% waiver of interest payable by state electricity boards to central PSUs |
2012 |
Financial Restructuring Package |
States take over 50% of the outstanding short-term liabilities worth Rs 56,908 crore |
2015 |
Ujwal Discom Assurance Yojana (UDAY) |
States take over 75% of the debt of discoms worth Rs 2.3 lakh crore and also provide grants for any future losses |
2020 |
Liquidity Infusion Scheme |
Discoms get loans worth Rs 1.35 lakh crore from Power Finance Corporation and REC Limited to settle outstanding dues of generators, state governments provide guarantee |
2022 |
Revamped Distribution Sector Scheme |
Central government to provide result-linked financial assistance worth Rs 97,631 crore for strengthening of supply infrastructure |
Sources: NITI Aayog, Press Releases of the Ministry of Power; PRS.
For more details on the impact of discom finances on state finances, see here. For more details on structural issues in the power distribution sector, see here.
ANNEXURE
Table 3: Cost and revenue structure of discoms on energy sold basis (in Rs per kw)
Details |
2019-20 |
2020-21 |
2021-22 |
2022-23 |
Average cost of supplying power (ACS) |
7.4 |
7.7 |
7.6 |
8.6 |
of which |
||||
Cost of procuring power |
5.8 |
5.9 |
5.8 |
6.6 |
Average revenue realised (ARR) |
6.8 |
7.1 |
7.3 |
7.8 |
of which |
||||
Revenue from sale of power |
5.0 |
4.9 |
5.1 |
5.5 |
Tariff subsidy |
1.3 |
1.4 |
1.4 |
1.5 |
Regulatory income and revenue grant under UDAY |
0.3 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.2 |
Per unit loss |
0.6 |
0.6 |
0.3 |
0.7 |
Total financial losses |
-60,231 |
-76,899 |
-16,579 |
-68,832 |
Sources: Power Finance Corporation reports for various years; PRS.
Table 4: State-wise profit/loss of power distribution companies (in Rs crore)
State/UT |
2017-18 |
2018-19 |
2019-20 |
2020-21 |
2021-22 |
2022-23 |
Andaman and Nicobar Islands |
-605 |
-645 |
-678 |
-757 |
-86 |
-76 |
Andhra Pradesh |
-546 |
-16,831 |
1,103 |
-6,894 |
-2,595 |
1,211 |
Arunachal Pradesh |
-429 |
-420 |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
Assam |
-259 |
311 |
1,141 |
-107 |
357 |
-800 |
Bihar |
-1,872 |
-1,845 |
-2,913 |
-2,966 |
-2,546 |
-10 |
Chandigarh |
321 |
131 |
59 |
79 |
-101 |
NA |
Chhattisgarh |
-739 |
-814 |
-571 |
-713 |
-807 |
-1,015 |
Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu |
312 |
-149 |
-125 |
NA |
NA |
NA |
Delhi |
NA |
NA |
NA |
98 |
57 |
-141 |
Goa |
26 |
-121 |
-276 |
78 |
117 |
69 |
Gujarat |
426 |
184 |
314 |
429 |
371 |
147 |
Haryana |
412 |
281 |
331 |
637 |
849 |
975 |
Himachal Pradesh |
-44 |
132 |
43 |
-153 |
-141 |
-1,340 |
Jharkhand |
-212 |
-730 |
-1,111 |
-2,556 |
-1,721 |
-3,545 |
Karnataka |
-2,439 |
-4,889 |
-2,501 |
-5,382 |
4,719 |
-2,414 |
Kerala |
-784 |
-135 |
-270 |
-483 |
98 |
-1,022 |
Ladakh |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
-11 |
-57 |
Lakshadweep |
-98 |
-120 |
-115 |
-117 |
NA |
NA |
Madhya Pradesh |
-5,802 |
-9,713 |
-5,034 |
-9,884 |
-2,354 |
1,842 |
Maharashtra |
-3,927 |
2,549 |
-5,011 |
-7,129 |
-1,147 |
-19,846 |
Manipur |
-8 |
-42 |
-15 |
-15 |
-22 |
-146 |
Meghalaya |
-287 |
-202 |
-443 |
-101 |
-157 |
-193 |
Mizoram |
87 |
-260 |
-291 |
-115 |
-59 |
-158 |
Nagaland |
-62 |
-94 |
-477 |
-17 |
24 |
33 |
Puducherry |
5 |
-39 |
-306 |
-23 |
84 |
-131 |
Punjab |
-2,760 |
363 |
-975 |
49 |
1,680 |
-1,375 |
Rajasthan |
-11,314 |
-12,524 |
-12,277 |
-5,994 |
2,374 |
-2,024 |
Sikkim |
-29 |
-3 |
-179 |
-34 |
NA |
71 |
Tamil Nadu |
-12,541 |
-17,186 |
-16,528 |
-13,066 |
-9,130 |
-9,192 |
Telangana |
-6,697 |
-9,525 |
-6,966 |
-6,686 |
-831 |
-11,103 |
Tripura |
28 |
38 |
-104 |
-4 |
-127 |
-193 |
Uttar Pradesh |
-5,269 |
-5,902 |
-3,866 |
-10,660 |
-6,498 |
-15,512 |
Uttarakhand |
-229 |
-808 |
-323 |
-152 |
-21 |
-1,224 |
West Bengal |
-871 |
-1,171 |
-1,867 |
-4,261 |
1,045 |
-1,663 |
State Sector |
-56,206 |
-80,179 |
-60,231 |
-76,899 |
-16,579 |
-68,832 |
Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu |
NA |
NA |
NA |
242 |
148 |
104 |
Delhi |
109 |
657 |
-975 |
1,876 |
521 |
-76 |
Gujarat |
574 |
307 |
612 |
655 |
522 |
627 |
Odisha |
NA |
NA |
-842 |
-853 |
940 |
746 |
Maharashtra |
NA |
590 |
1,696 |
-375 |
360 |
42 |
Uttar Pradesh |
182 |
126 |
172 |
333 |
256 |
212 |
West Bengal |
658 |
377 |
379 |
398 |
66 |
-12 |
Private Sector |
1,523 |
2,057 |
1,042 |
2,276 |
2,813 |
1,643 |
All-India |
-54,683 |
-78,122 |
-59,189 |
-77,896 |
-13,766 |
-67,189 |
Note: Minus sign (-) indicates loss; Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu discom was privatised on April 1, 2022; New Delhi Municipal Council Distribution utility has been added from 2020-21 onwards.
Sources: Power Finance Corporation reports for various years; PRS.
Recently, the Karnataka legislature passed the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) Bill, 2020. BBMP is the municipal corporation of the Greater Bengaluru metropolitan area. The BBMP Act, 2020 seeks to improve decentralisation, ensure public participation, and address certain administrative and structural concerns in Bengaluru. In this blog, we discuss some common issues in urban local governance in India, in the context of Bengaluru’s municipal administration.
The Constitution (74th Amendment) Act, 1992 provided for the establishment of urban local bodies (ULBs) (including municipal corporations) as institutions of local self-government. It also empowered state governments to devolve certain functions, authority, and power to collect revenue to these bodies, and made periodic elections for them compulsory.
Urban governance is part of the state list under the Constitution. Thus, the administrative framework and regulation of ULBs varies across states. However, experts have highlighted that ULBs across India face similar challenges. For instance, ULBs across the country lack autonomy in city management and several city-level functions are managed by parastatals (managed by and accountable to the state). Several taxation powers have also not been devolved to these bodies, leading to stressed municipal finances. These challenges have led to poor service delivery in cities and also created administrative and governance challenges at the municipal level.
BBMP was established under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (KMC Act). The BBMP Act, 2020 replaces provisions of the KMC Act, 1976 in its application to Bengaluru. It adds a new level of zonal committees to the existing three-tier municipal structure in the city, and also gives the Corporation some more taxation powers. Certain common issues in urban local governance in India, with provisions related to them in the BBMP Act, 2020 are given below.
Functional overlap with parastatals for key functions
The Constitution (74th Amendment) Act, 1992 empowered states to devolve the responsibility of 18 functions including urban planning, regulation of land use, water supply, and slum upgradation to ULBs. However, in most Indian cities including Bengaluru, a majority of these functions are carried out by parastatals. For example, in Bengaluru, the Bengaluru Development Authority is responsible for land regulation and the Karnataka Slum Clearance Board is responsible for slum rehabilitation.
The BBMP Act, 2020 provides the Corporation with the power and responsibility to prepare and implement schemes for the 18 functions provided for in the Constitution (74th Amendment) Act, 1992. However, it does not provide clarity if new bodies at the municipal level will be created, or the existing parastatals will continue to perform these functions and if so, whether their accountability will shift from the state to the municipal corporation.
This could create a two-fold challenge in administration. First, if there are multiple agencies performing similar functions, it could lead to a functional overlap, ambiguity, and wastage of resources. Second, and more importantly, the presence of parastatals that are managed by and accountable to the state government leads to an erosion of the ULB’s autonomy. Several experts have highlighted that this lack of autonomy faced by municipal corporations in most Indian cities leads to a challenge in governance, effective service delivery, and development of urban areas.
An Expert Committee on Urban Infrastructure (2011) had recommended that activity mapping should be done for the 18 functions. Under this, functions in the exclusive domain of municipalities and those which need to be shared with the state and the central government must be specified. Experts have also recommended that the municipality should be responsible for providing civic amenities in its jurisdiction and if a parastatal exercises a civic function, it should be accountable to the municipality.
Stressed municipal finances
Indian ULBs are amongst the weakest in the world in terms of fiscal autonomy and have limited effective devolution of revenue. They also have limited capacity to raise resources through their own sources of revenue such as property tax. Municipal revenue in India accounts for only one percent of the GDP (2017-18). This leads to a dependence on transfers by the state and central government.
ULBs in states like Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Bihar, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, and Haryana are in poor financial condition. This has been attributed to limited powers to raise revenue and levy taxes, and problems in the management of existing resources. For instance, the finances of Bihar’s ULBs were assessed to be poor because of: (i) delays in release of grants, (ii) inadequate devolution of funds, and (iii) delays in revision of tax rates and assessments of landholdings.
In comparison, Karnataka ranks high among Indian states in key indicators for fiscal capacity like collection of property taxes, grants from Central Finance Commissions, and state government transfers. The BBMP Act, 2020 further increases the taxation powers of the Corporation, by allowing it to impose taxes on professions and entertainment.
Experts have recommended that the central government and the respective state government should provide additional funds and facilitate additional funding mechanisms for ULBs to strengthen their finances. The revenue of ULBs can be augmented through measures including assignment of greater powers of taxation to the ULBs by the state government, reforms in land and property-based taxes (such as the use of technology to cover more properties), and issuing of municipal bonds (debt instruments issued by ULBs to finance development projects).
Powers of elected municipal officials
The executive power with state-appointed municipal Commissioners and elected municipal officers differs across states. States like Tamil Nadu and Gujarat, and cities like Chennai and Hyderabad vest the executive power in the Commissioner. In contrast, the executive power of the Corporation is exercised by a Mayor-in council (consisting of the Mayor and up to 10 elected members of the Corporation) in Kolkata and Madhya Pradesh. This is unlike large metropolitan cities in other countries like New York and London, where elected Mayors are designated as executive heads. Experts have noted that charging Commissioners with executive power diluted the role of the Mayor and violated the spirit of self-governance.
Under the BBMP Act, 2020, both the elected Mayor and the state-appointed Chief Commissioner exercise several executive functions. The Mayor is responsible for approving contracts and preparing the budget estimate for the Corporation. He is also required to discharge all functions assigned to him by the Corporation. On the other hand, executive functions of the Chief Commissioner include: (i) selling or leasing properties owned by the Corporation, and (ii) regulating and issuing instructions regarding public streets.
The Expert Committee on Urban Infrastructure (2011) has recommended that the Commissioner should act as a city manager and should be recruited through a transparent search-cum-selection process led by the Mayor. A Model Municipal law, released by the Urban Development Ministry in 2003, provided that the executive power should be exercised by an Empowered Standing Committee consisting of the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and seven elected councillors.
Management of staff and human resources
Experts have noted that municipal administration in India suffers from staffing issues which leads to a failure in delivering basic urban services. These include overstaffing of untrained manpower, shortage of qualified technical staff and managerial supervisors, and unwillingness to innovate in methods for service delivery.
The BBMP Act, 2020 provides that the Corporation may make bye-laws for the due performance of duties by its employees. However, it does not mention other aspects of human resource management such as recruitment and promotion. A CAG report (2020) looking at the implementation of the Constitution (74th Amendment) Act, 1992 in Karnataka has observed that the power to assess municipal staff requirements, recruiting such staff, and determining their pay, transfer and promotion vests with the state government. This is in contrast with the recommendations of several experts who have suggested that municipalities should appoint their personnel to ensure accountability, adequate recruitment, and proper management of staff.
Other states including Kerala, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu also allow the state governments to regulate recruitment and staffing for ULBs. In cities like Mumbai, and Coimbatore, and some states like Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh, while the recruitment process is conducted by the respective municipal corporations, the final sanction for hiring staff lies with the state government.