Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 73,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'catslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 73,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/ppp-model-in-power-distribution-opposed-by-meena-menon-12110/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/ppp-model-in-power-distribution-opposed-by-meena-menon-12110/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'catslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 74,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 74,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/ppp-model-in-power-distribution-opposed-by-meena-menon-12110/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/ppp-model-in-power-distribution-opposed-by-meena-menon-12110/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Code Context
            if (Configure::read('debug')) {

                trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);

            } else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680fd2a5c0b26-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680fd2a5c0b26-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr680fd2a5c0b26-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680fd2a5c0b26-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680fd2a5c0b26-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680fd2a5c0b26-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680fd2a5c0b26-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr680fd2a5c0b26-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr680fd2a5c0b26-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 11991,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;PPP model in power distribution opposed by Meena Menon&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Maharashtra says it could go against existing franchisee norms&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Power distribution utilities of three States including Maharashtra have objected to the proposed suggestions by a sub-group of the Task Force on Private Participation in the Power Sector of the Planning Commission. They feel the proposals could go against existing franchisee norms in the States and skew the tariff.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sub-group had been pushing for Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) in the distribution of electricity as the way forward. The concessionaire selected by competitive bidding would be responsible for maintenance, operation and upgrading of the distribution network. It has also suggested providing the requisite flexibility to the concessionaire to procure bulk power from the market at competitive prices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Official sources said Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh were also unhappy with the report submitted in October 2011.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Task Force was formed on November 9, 2010 under B.K. Chaturvedi, member, Planning Commission, which in turn formed two sub-groups to examine and evolve the framework for the franchisee and PPP models.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maharashtra has voiced strong objections as it pioneered the franchisee model, starting with the power loom town of Bhiwandi, near Mumbai, where theft was rampant and losses were huge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After a franchisee was appointed to recover the outstanding amounts from consumers &amp;mdash; many of them illegally tapping power &amp;mdash; the model was adopted in three other areas, Nagpur, Jalgaon and Aurangabad.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the sub-group felt that essentially the franchisee was handling the operation and maintenance (O and M) obligations of distribution companies and they were not regulated by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC).The model did not address significant issues such as the need for capital investments, ensuring quantity and quality of supply, financial sustainability, competition and open access.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sub-group felt neither the privatisation model as in Delhi nor the franchisee model would deliver the desired outcomes and pitched for a well formulated PPP which would be consistent with the Electricity Act.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Delhi, despite 10 years of reform, the mandatory provisions of open access have not been operationalised and the average power purchase cost has increased 49 per cent in the last two years, the report by the sub-group said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Mahavitaran&#039;s counter&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Maharashtra&#039;s power distribution utility, Mahavitaran, has submitted a response to the proposals and countered the charge that a franchisee cannot distribute electricity in urban areas unless it had a distribution licence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahavitaran contends that the franchisee model was in consonance with section 14 of the Electricity Act. The legality of appointing distribution franchisees in urban areas was challenged in the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, which upheld the allotment of distribution franchisees in urban areas in its 2008 order.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Backing the franchisee model, Mahavitaran said in Bhiwandi, which was given to a franchisee, Torrent, in January 2007, aggregate technical and commercial losses reduced from 58 per cent to 18 per cent. Improvement in collection efficiency rose to 100 per cent from 68 per cent and financial gains in the first three years of operation touched Rs. 419 crore, besides a saving of Rs. 30 crore a year on human resource and operation and maintenance costs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission in a case of 2007 analysed the franchisee model of Mahavitaran and observed that appointing a franchisee in three divisions of Nagpur would result in net benefits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even the Power Ministers&#039; conference held on July 13, 2011 unanimously resolved that States would initiate steps to appoint distribution franchisees in urban areas. Mahavitaran officials also raised the issue of tariffs, among other things.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the PPP model proposed, the operator would seek and secure periodic tariff increase and this would lead to different tariffs for different areas within a State. On the other hand, the franchisee is not allowed to seek a tariff increase independently.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 19 December, 2011, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article2727413.ece#&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;ppp-model-in-power-distribution-opposed-by-meena-menon-12110&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 12110,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 11991,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | PPP model in power distribution opposed by Meena Menon&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Energy&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;

Maharashtra says it could go against existing franchisee norms

Power distribution utilities of three States including Maharashtra have objected to the proposed suggestions by a sub-group of the Task Force on Private Participation in the Power Sector of the Planning Commission....&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Maharashtra says it could go against existing franchisee norms&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Power distribution utilities of three States including Maharashtra have objected to the proposed suggestions by a sub-group of the Task Force on Private Participation in the Power Sector of the Planning Commission. They feel the proposals could go against existing franchisee norms in the States and skew the tariff.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The sub-group had been pushing for Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) in the distribution of electricity as the way forward. The concessionaire selected by competitive bidding would be responsible for maintenance, operation and upgrading of the distribution network. It has also suggested providing the requisite flexibility to the concessionaire to procure bulk power from the market at competitive prices.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Official sources said Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh were also unhappy with the report submitted in October 2011.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Task Force was formed on November 9, 2010 under B.K. Chaturvedi, member, Planning Commission, which in turn formed two sub-groups to examine and evolve the framework for the franchisee and PPP models.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Maharashtra has voiced strong objections as it pioneered the franchisee model, starting with the power loom town of Bhiwandi, near Mumbai, where theft was rampant and losses were huge.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;After a franchisee was appointed to recover the outstanding amounts from consumers &amp;mdash; many of them illegally tapping power &amp;mdash; the model was adopted in three other areas, Nagpur, Jalgaon and Aurangabad.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, the sub-group felt that essentially the franchisee was handling the operation and maintenance (O and M) obligations of distribution companies and they were not regulated by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC).The model did not address significant issues such as the need for capital investments, ensuring quantity and quality of supply, financial sustainability, competition and open access.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The sub-group felt neither the privatisation model as in Delhi nor the franchisee model would deliver the desired outcomes and pitched for a well formulated PPP which would be consistent with the Electricity Act.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In Delhi, despite 10 years of reform, the mandatory provisions of open access have not been operationalised and the average power purchase cost has increased 49 per cent in the last two years, the report by the sub-group said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Mahavitaran&#039;s counter&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Maharashtra&#039;s power distribution utility, Mahavitaran, has submitted a response to the proposals and countered the charge that a franchisee cannot distribute electricity in urban areas unless it had a distribution licence.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Mahavitaran contends that the franchisee model was in consonance with section 14 of the Electricity Act. The legality of appointing distribution franchisees in urban areas was challenged in the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, which upheld the allotment of distribution franchisees in urban areas in its 2008 order.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Backing the franchisee model, Mahavitaran said in Bhiwandi, which was given to a franchisee, Torrent, in January 2007, aggregate technical and commercial losses reduced from 58 per cent to 18 per cent. Improvement in collection efficiency rose to 100 per cent from 68 per cent and financial gains in the first three years of operation touched Rs. 419 crore, besides a saving of Rs. 30 crore a year on human resource and operation and maintenance costs.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission in a case of 2007 analysed the franchisee model of Mahavitaran and observed that appointing a franchisee in three divisions of Nagpur would result in net benefits.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Even the Power Ministers&#039; conference held on July 13, 2011 unanimously resolved that States would initiate steps to appoint distribution franchisees in urban areas. Mahavitaran officials also raised the issue of tariffs, among other things.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In the PPP model proposed, the operator would seek and secure periodic tariff increase and this would lead to different tariffs for different areas within a State. On the other hand, the franchisee is not allowed to seek a tariff increase independently.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 11991,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;PPP model in power distribution opposed by Meena Menon&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Maharashtra says it could go against existing franchisee norms&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Power distribution utilities of three States including Maharashtra have objected to the proposed suggestions by a sub-group of the Task Force on Private Participation in the Power Sector of the Planning Commission. They feel the proposals could go against existing franchisee norms in the States and skew the tariff.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sub-group had been pushing for Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) in the distribution of electricity as the way forward. The concessionaire selected by competitive bidding would be responsible for maintenance, operation and upgrading of the distribution network. It has also suggested providing the requisite flexibility to the concessionaire to procure bulk power from the market at competitive prices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Official sources said Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh were also unhappy with the report submitted in October 2011.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Task Force was formed on November 9, 2010 under B.K. Chaturvedi, member, Planning Commission, which in turn formed two sub-groups to examine and evolve the framework for the franchisee and PPP models.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maharashtra has voiced strong objections as it pioneered the franchisee model, starting with the power loom town of Bhiwandi, near Mumbai, where theft was rampant and losses were huge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After a franchisee was appointed to recover the outstanding amounts from consumers &amp;mdash; many of them illegally tapping power &amp;mdash; the model was adopted in three other areas, Nagpur, Jalgaon and Aurangabad.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the sub-group felt that essentially the franchisee was handling the operation and maintenance (O and M) obligations of distribution companies and they were not regulated by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC).The model did not address significant issues such as the need for capital investments, ensuring quantity and quality of supply, financial sustainability, competition and open access.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sub-group felt neither the privatisation model as in Delhi nor the franchisee model would deliver the desired outcomes and pitched for a well formulated PPP which would be consistent with the Electricity Act.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Delhi, despite 10 years of reform, the mandatory provisions of open access have not been operationalised and the average power purchase cost has increased 49 per cent in the last two years, the report by the sub-group said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Mahavitaran&#039;s counter&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Maharashtra&#039;s power distribution utility, Mahavitaran, has submitted a response to the proposals and countered the charge that a franchisee cannot distribute electricity in urban areas unless it had a distribution licence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahavitaran contends that the franchisee model was in consonance with section 14 of the Electricity Act. The legality of appointing distribution franchisees in urban areas was challenged in the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, which upheld the allotment of distribution franchisees in urban areas in its 2008 order.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Backing the franchisee model, Mahavitaran said in Bhiwandi, which was given to a franchisee, Torrent, in January 2007, aggregate technical and commercial losses reduced from 58 per cent to 18 per cent. Improvement in collection efficiency rose to 100 per cent from 68 per cent and financial gains in the first three years of operation touched Rs. 419 crore, besides a saving of Rs. 30 crore a year on human resource and operation and maintenance costs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission in a case of 2007 analysed the franchisee model of Mahavitaran and observed that appointing a franchisee in three divisions of Nagpur would result in net benefits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even the Power Ministers&#039; conference held on July 13, 2011 unanimously resolved that States would initiate steps to appoint distribution franchisees in urban areas. Mahavitaran officials also raised the issue of tariffs, among other things.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the PPP model proposed, the operator would seek and secure periodic tariff increase and this would lead to different tariffs for different areas within a State. On the other hand, the franchisee is not allowed to seek a tariff increase independently.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 19 December, 2011, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article2727413.ece#&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;ppp-model-in-power-distribution-opposed-by-meena-menon-12110&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 12110,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 11991
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | PPP model in power distribution opposed by Meena Menon&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Energy&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;

Maharashtra says it could go against existing franchisee norms

Power distribution utilities of three States including Maharashtra have objected to the proposed suggestions by a sub-group of the Task Force on Private Participation in the Power Sector of the Planning Commission....&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Maharashtra says it could go against existing franchisee norms&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Power distribution utilities of three States including Maharashtra have objected to the proposed suggestions by a sub-group of the Task Force on Private Participation in the Power Sector of the Planning Commission. They feel the proposals could go against existing franchisee norms in the States and skew the tariff.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The sub-group had been pushing for Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) in the distribution of electricity as the way forward. The concessionaire selected by competitive bidding would be responsible for maintenance, operation and upgrading of the distribution network. It has also suggested providing the requisite flexibility to the concessionaire to procure bulk power from the market at competitive prices.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Official sources said Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh were also unhappy with the report submitted in October 2011.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Task Force was formed on November 9, 2010 under B.K. Chaturvedi, member, Planning Commission, which in turn formed two sub-groups to examine and evolve the framework for the franchisee and PPP models.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Maharashtra has voiced strong objections as it pioneered the franchisee model, starting with the power loom town of Bhiwandi, near Mumbai, where theft was rampant and losses were huge.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;After a franchisee was appointed to recover the outstanding amounts from consumers &amp;mdash; many of them illegally tapping power &amp;mdash; the model was adopted in three other areas, Nagpur, Jalgaon and Aurangabad.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, the sub-group felt that essentially the franchisee was handling the operation and maintenance (O and M) obligations of distribution companies and they were not regulated by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC).The model did not address significant issues such as the need for capital investments, ensuring quantity and quality of supply, financial sustainability, competition and open access.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The sub-group felt neither the privatisation model as in Delhi nor the franchisee model would deliver the desired outcomes and pitched for a well formulated PPP which would be consistent with the Electricity Act.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In Delhi, despite 10 years of reform, the mandatory provisions of open access have not been operationalised and the average power purchase cost has increased 49 per cent in the last two years, the report by the sub-group said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Mahavitaran&#039;s counter&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Maharashtra&#039;s power distribution utility, Mahavitaran, has submitted a response to the proposals and countered the charge that a franchisee cannot distribute electricity in urban areas unless it had a distribution licence.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Mahavitaran contends that the franchisee model was in consonance with section 14 of the Electricity Act. The legality of appointing distribution franchisees in urban areas was challenged in the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, which upheld the allotment of distribution franchisees in urban areas in its 2008 order.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Backing the franchisee model, Mahavitaran said in Bhiwandi, which was given to a franchisee, Torrent, in January 2007, aggregate technical and commercial losses reduced from 58 per cent to 18 per cent. Improvement in collection efficiency rose to 100 per cent from 68 per cent and financial gains in the first three years of operation touched Rs. 419 crore, besides a saving of Rs. 30 crore a year on human resource and operation and maintenance costs.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission in a case of 2007 analysed the franchisee model of Mahavitaran and observed that appointing a franchisee in three divisions of Nagpur would result in net benefits.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Even the Power Ministers&#039; conference held on July 13, 2011 unanimously resolved that States would initiate steps to appoint distribution franchisees in urban areas. Mahavitaran officials also raised the issue of tariffs, among other things.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In the PPP model proposed, the operator would seek and secure periodic tariff increase and this would lead to different tariffs for different areas within a State. On the other hand, the franchisee is not allowed to seek a tariff increase independently.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/ppp-model-in-power-distribution-opposed-by-meena-menon-12110.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | PPP model in power distribution opposed by Meena Menon | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="

Maharashtra says it could go against existing franchisee norms

Power distribution utilities of three States including Maharashtra have objected to the proposed suggestions by a sub-group of the Task Force on Private Participation in the Power Sector of the Planning Commission...."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>PPP model in power distribution opposed by Meena Menon</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <br /><div align="justify"><em>Maharashtra says it could go against existing franchisee norms<br /></em><br />Power distribution utilities of three States including Maharashtra have objected to the proposed suggestions by a sub-group of the Task Force on Private Participation in the Power Sector of the Planning Commission. They feel the proposals could go against existing franchisee norms in the States and skew the tariff.<br /><br />The sub-group had been pushing for Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) in the distribution of electricity as the way forward. The concessionaire selected by competitive bidding would be responsible for maintenance, operation and upgrading of the distribution network. It has also suggested providing the requisite flexibility to the concessionaire to procure bulk power from the market at competitive prices.<br /><br />Official sources said Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh were also unhappy with the report submitted in October 2011.<br /><br />The Task Force was formed on November 9, 2010 under B.K. Chaturvedi, member, Planning Commission, which in turn formed two sub-groups to examine and evolve the framework for the franchisee and PPP models.<br /><br />Maharashtra has voiced strong objections as it pioneered the franchisee model, starting with the power loom town of Bhiwandi, near Mumbai, where theft was rampant and losses were huge.<br /><br />After a franchisee was appointed to recover the outstanding amounts from consumers &mdash; many of them illegally tapping power &mdash; the model was adopted in three other areas, Nagpur, Jalgaon and Aurangabad.<br /><br />However, the sub-group felt that essentially the franchisee was handling the operation and maintenance (O and M) obligations of distribution companies and they were not regulated by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC).The model did not address significant issues such as the need for capital investments, ensuring quantity and quality of supply, financial sustainability, competition and open access.<br /><br />The sub-group felt neither the privatisation model as in Delhi nor the franchisee model would deliver the desired outcomes and pitched for a well formulated PPP which would be consistent with the Electricity Act.<br /><br />In Delhi, despite 10 years of reform, the mandatory provisions of open access have not been operationalised and the average power purchase cost has increased 49 per cent in the last two years, the report by the sub-group said.<br /><br /><em>Mahavitaran's counter<br /></em><br />Maharashtra's power distribution utility, Mahavitaran, has submitted a response to the proposals and countered the charge that a franchisee cannot distribute electricity in urban areas unless it had a distribution licence.<br /><br />Mahavitaran contends that the franchisee model was in consonance with section 14 of the Electricity Act. The legality of appointing distribution franchisees in urban areas was challenged in the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, which upheld the allotment of distribution franchisees in urban areas in its 2008 order.<br /><br />Backing the franchisee model, Mahavitaran said in Bhiwandi, which was given to a franchisee, Torrent, in January 2007, aggregate technical and commercial losses reduced from 58 per cent to 18 per cent. Improvement in collection efficiency rose to 100 per cent from 68 per cent and financial gains in the first three years of operation touched Rs. 419 crore, besides a saving of Rs. 30 crore a year on human resource and operation and maintenance costs.<br /><br />The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission in a case of 2007 analysed the franchisee model of Mahavitaran and observed that appointing a franchisee in three divisions of Nagpur would result in net benefits.<br /><br />Even the Power Ministers' conference held on July 13, 2011 unanimously resolved that States would initiate steps to appoint distribution franchisees in urban areas. Mahavitaran officials also raised the issue of tariffs, among other things.<br /><br />In the PPP model proposed, the operator would seek and secure periodic tariff increase and this would lead to different tariffs for different areas within a State. On the other hand, the franchisee is not allowed to seek a tariff increase independently.</div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$maxBufferLength = (int) 8192
$file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php'
$line = (int) 853
$message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Code Context
            $response->getStatusCode(),

            ($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')

        ));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680fd2a5c0b26-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680fd2a5c0b26-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr680fd2a5c0b26-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680fd2a5c0b26-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680fd2a5c0b26-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680fd2a5c0b26-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680fd2a5c0b26-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr680fd2a5c0b26-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr680fd2a5c0b26-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 11991,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;PPP model in power distribution opposed by Meena Menon&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Maharashtra says it could go against existing franchisee norms&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Power distribution utilities of three States including Maharashtra have objected to the proposed suggestions by a sub-group of the Task Force on Private Participation in the Power Sector of the Planning Commission. They feel the proposals could go against existing franchisee norms in the States and skew the tariff.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sub-group had been pushing for Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) in the distribution of electricity as the way forward. The concessionaire selected by competitive bidding would be responsible for maintenance, operation and upgrading of the distribution network. It has also suggested providing the requisite flexibility to the concessionaire to procure bulk power from the market at competitive prices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Official sources said Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh were also unhappy with the report submitted in October 2011.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Task Force was formed on November 9, 2010 under B.K. Chaturvedi, member, Planning Commission, which in turn formed two sub-groups to examine and evolve the framework for the franchisee and PPP models.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maharashtra has voiced strong objections as it pioneered the franchisee model, starting with the power loom town of Bhiwandi, near Mumbai, where theft was rampant and losses were huge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After a franchisee was appointed to recover the outstanding amounts from consumers &amp;mdash; many of them illegally tapping power &amp;mdash; the model was adopted in three other areas, Nagpur, Jalgaon and Aurangabad.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the sub-group felt that essentially the franchisee was handling the operation and maintenance (O and M) obligations of distribution companies and they were not regulated by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC).The model did not address significant issues such as the need for capital investments, ensuring quantity and quality of supply, financial sustainability, competition and open access.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sub-group felt neither the privatisation model as in Delhi nor the franchisee model would deliver the desired outcomes and pitched for a well formulated PPP which would be consistent with the Electricity Act.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Delhi, despite 10 years of reform, the mandatory provisions of open access have not been operationalised and the average power purchase cost has increased 49 per cent in the last two years, the report by the sub-group said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Mahavitaran&#039;s counter&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Maharashtra&#039;s power distribution utility, Mahavitaran, has submitted a response to the proposals and countered the charge that a franchisee cannot distribute electricity in urban areas unless it had a distribution licence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahavitaran contends that the franchisee model was in consonance with section 14 of the Electricity Act. The legality of appointing distribution franchisees in urban areas was challenged in the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, which upheld the allotment of distribution franchisees in urban areas in its 2008 order.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Backing the franchisee model, Mahavitaran said in Bhiwandi, which was given to a franchisee, Torrent, in January 2007, aggregate technical and commercial losses reduced from 58 per cent to 18 per cent. Improvement in collection efficiency rose to 100 per cent from 68 per cent and financial gains in the first three years of operation touched Rs. 419 crore, besides a saving of Rs. 30 crore a year on human resource and operation and maintenance costs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission in a case of 2007 analysed the franchisee model of Mahavitaran and observed that appointing a franchisee in three divisions of Nagpur would result in net benefits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even the Power Ministers&#039; conference held on July 13, 2011 unanimously resolved that States would initiate steps to appoint distribution franchisees in urban areas. Mahavitaran officials also raised the issue of tariffs, among other things.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the PPP model proposed, the operator would seek and secure periodic tariff increase and this would lead to different tariffs for different areas within a State. On the other hand, the franchisee is not allowed to seek a tariff increase independently.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 19 December, 2011, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article2727413.ece#&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;ppp-model-in-power-distribution-opposed-by-meena-menon-12110&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 12110,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 11991,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | PPP model in power distribution opposed by Meena Menon&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Energy&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;

Maharashtra says it could go against existing franchisee norms

Power distribution utilities of three States including Maharashtra have objected to the proposed suggestions by a sub-group of the Task Force on Private Participation in the Power Sector of the Planning Commission....&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Maharashtra says it could go against existing franchisee norms&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Power distribution utilities of three States including Maharashtra have objected to the proposed suggestions by a sub-group of the Task Force on Private Participation in the Power Sector of the Planning Commission. They feel the proposals could go against existing franchisee norms in the States and skew the tariff.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The sub-group had been pushing for Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) in the distribution of electricity as the way forward. The concessionaire selected by competitive bidding would be responsible for maintenance, operation and upgrading of the distribution network. It has also suggested providing the requisite flexibility to the concessionaire to procure bulk power from the market at competitive prices.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Official sources said Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh were also unhappy with the report submitted in October 2011.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Task Force was formed on November 9, 2010 under B.K. Chaturvedi, member, Planning Commission, which in turn formed two sub-groups to examine and evolve the framework for the franchisee and PPP models.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Maharashtra has voiced strong objections as it pioneered the franchisee model, starting with the power loom town of Bhiwandi, near Mumbai, where theft was rampant and losses were huge.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;After a franchisee was appointed to recover the outstanding amounts from consumers &amp;mdash; many of them illegally tapping power &amp;mdash; the model was adopted in three other areas, Nagpur, Jalgaon and Aurangabad.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, the sub-group felt that essentially the franchisee was handling the operation and maintenance (O and M) obligations of distribution companies and they were not regulated by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC).The model did not address significant issues such as the need for capital investments, ensuring quantity and quality of supply, financial sustainability, competition and open access.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The sub-group felt neither the privatisation model as in Delhi nor the franchisee model would deliver the desired outcomes and pitched for a well formulated PPP which would be consistent with the Electricity Act.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In Delhi, despite 10 years of reform, the mandatory provisions of open access have not been operationalised and the average power purchase cost has increased 49 per cent in the last two years, the report by the sub-group said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Mahavitaran&#039;s counter&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Maharashtra&#039;s power distribution utility, Mahavitaran, has submitted a response to the proposals and countered the charge that a franchisee cannot distribute electricity in urban areas unless it had a distribution licence.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Mahavitaran contends that the franchisee model was in consonance with section 14 of the Electricity Act. The legality of appointing distribution franchisees in urban areas was challenged in the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, which upheld the allotment of distribution franchisees in urban areas in its 2008 order.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Backing the franchisee model, Mahavitaran said in Bhiwandi, which was given to a franchisee, Torrent, in January 2007, aggregate technical and commercial losses reduced from 58 per cent to 18 per cent. Improvement in collection efficiency rose to 100 per cent from 68 per cent and financial gains in the first three years of operation touched Rs. 419 crore, besides a saving of Rs. 30 crore a year on human resource and operation and maintenance costs.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission in a case of 2007 analysed the franchisee model of Mahavitaran and observed that appointing a franchisee in three divisions of Nagpur would result in net benefits.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Even the Power Ministers&#039; conference held on July 13, 2011 unanimously resolved that States would initiate steps to appoint distribution franchisees in urban areas. Mahavitaran officials also raised the issue of tariffs, among other things.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In the PPP model proposed, the operator would seek and secure periodic tariff increase and this would lead to different tariffs for different areas within a State. On the other hand, the franchisee is not allowed to seek a tariff increase independently.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 11991,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;PPP model in power distribution opposed by Meena Menon&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Maharashtra says it could go against existing franchisee norms&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Power distribution utilities of three States including Maharashtra have objected to the proposed suggestions by a sub-group of the Task Force on Private Participation in the Power Sector of the Planning Commission. They feel the proposals could go against existing franchisee norms in the States and skew the tariff.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sub-group had been pushing for Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) in the distribution of electricity as the way forward. The concessionaire selected by competitive bidding would be responsible for maintenance, operation and upgrading of the distribution network. It has also suggested providing the requisite flexibility to the concessionaire to procure bulk power from the market at competitive prices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Official sources said Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh were also unhappy with the report submitted in October 2011.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Task Force was formed on November 9, 2010 under B.K. Chaturvedi, member, Planning Commission, which in turn formed two sub-groups to examine and evolve the framework for the franchisee and PPP models.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maharashtra has voiced strong objections as it pioneered the franchisee model, starting with the power loom town of Bhiwandi, near Mumbai, where theft was rampant and losses were huge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After a franchisee was appointed to recover the outstanding amounts from consumers &amp;mdash; many of them illegally tapping power &amp;mdash; the model was adopted in three other areas, Nagpur, Jalgaon and Aurangabad.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the sub-group felt that essentially the franchisee was handling the operation and maintenance (O and M) obligations of distribution companies and they were not regulated by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC).The model did not address significant issues such as the need for capital investments, ensuring quantity and quality of supply, financial sustainability, competition and open access.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sub-group felt neither the privatisation model as in Delhi nor the franchisee model would deliver the desired outcomes and pitched for a well formulated PPP which would be consistent with the Electricity Act.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Delhi, despite 10 years of reform, the mandatory provisions of open access have not been operationalised and the average power purchase cost has increased 49 per cent in the last two years, the report by the sub-group said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Mahavitaran&#039;s counter&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Maharashtra&#039;s power distribution utility, Mahavitaran, has submitted a response to the proposals and countered the charge that a franchisee cannot distribute electricity in urban areas unless it had a distribution licence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahavitaran contends that the franchisee model was in consonance with section 14 of the Electricity Act. The legality of appointing distribution franchisees in urban areas was challenged in the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, which upheld the allotment of distribution franchisees in urban areas in its 2008 order.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Backing the franchisee model, Mahavitaran said in Bhiwandi, which was given to a franchisee, Torrent, in January 2007, aggregate technical and commercial losses reduced from 58 per cent to 18 per cent. Improvement in collection efficiency rose to 100 per cent from 68 per cent and financial gains in the first three years of operation touched Rs. 419 crore, besides a saving of Rs. 30 crore a year on human resource and operation and maintenance costs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission in a case of 2007 analysed the franchisee model of Mahavitaran and observed that appointing a franchisee in three divisions of Nagpur would result in net benefits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even the Power Ministers&#039; conference held on July 13, 2011 unanimously resolved that States would initiate steps to appoint distribution franchisees in urban areas. Mahavitaran officials also raised the issue of tariffs, among other things.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the PPP model proposed, the operator would seek and secure periodic tariff increase and this would lead to different tariffs for different areas within a State. On the other hand, the franchisee is not allowed to seek a tariff increase independently.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 19 December, 2011, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article2727413.ece#&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;ppp-model-in-power-distribution-opposed-by-meena-menon-12110&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 12110,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 11991
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | PPP model in power distribution opposed by Meena Menon&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Energy&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;

Maharashtra says it could go against existing franchisee norms

Power distribution utilities of three States including Maharashtra have objected to the proposed suggestions by a sub-group of the Task Force on Private Participation in the Power Sector of the Planning Commission....&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Maharashtra says it could go against existing franchisee norms&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Power distribution utilities of three States including Maharashtra have objected to the proposed suggestions by a sub-group of the Task Force on Private Participation in the Power Sector of the Planning Commission. They feel the proposals could go against existing franchisee norms in the States and skew the tariff.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The sub-group had been pushing for Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) in the distribution of electricity as the way forward. The concessionaire selected by competitive bidding would be responsible for maintenance, operation and upgrading of the distribution network. It has also suggested providing the requisite flexibility to the concessionaire to procure bulk power from the market at competitive prices.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Official sources said Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh were also unhappy with the report submitted in October 2011.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Task Force was formed on November 9, 2010 under B.K. Chaturvedi, member, Planning Commission, which in turn formed two sub-groups to examine and evolve the framework for the franchisee and PPP models.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Maharashtra has voiced strong objections as it pioneered the franchisee model, starting with the power loom town of Bhiwandi, near Mumbai, where theft was rampant and losses were huge.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;After a franchisee was appointed to recover the outstanding amounts from consumers &amp;mdash; many of them illegally tapping power &amp;mdash; the model was adopted in three other areas, Nagpur, Jalgaon and Aurangabad.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, the sub-group felt that essentially the franchisee was handling the operation and maintenance (O and M) obligations of distribution companies and they were not regulated by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC).The model did not address significant issues such as the need for capital investments, ensuring quantity and quality of supply, financial sustainability, competition and open access.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The sub-group felt neither the privatisation model as in Delhi nor the franchisee model would deliver the desired outcomes and pitched for a well formulated PPP which would be consistent with the Electricity Act.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In Delhi, despite 10 years of reform, the mandatory provisions of open access have not been operationalised and the average power purchase cost has increased 49 per cent in the last two years, the report by the sub-group said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Mahavitaran&#039;s counter&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Maharashtra&#039;s power distribution utility, Mahavitaran, has submitted a response to the proposals and countered the charge that a franchisee cannot distribute electricity in urban areas unless it had a distribution licence.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Mahavitaran contends that the franchisee model was in consonance with section 14 of the Electricity Act. The legality of appointing distribution franchisees in urban areas was challenged in the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, which upheld the allotment of distribution franchisees in urban areas in its 2008 order.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Backing the franchisee model, Mahavitaran said in Bhiwandi, which was given to a franchisee, Torrent, in January 2007, aggregate technical and commercial losses reduced from 58 per cent to 18 per cent. Improvement in collection efficiency rose to 100 per cent from 68 per cent and financial gains in the first three years of operation touched Rs. 419 crore, besides a saving of Rs. 30 crore a year on human resource and operation and maintenance costs.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission in a case of 2007 analysed the franchisee model of Mahavitaran and observed that appointing a franchisee in three divisions of Nagpur would result in net benefits.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Even the Power Ministers&#039; conference held on July 13, 2011 unanimously resolved that States would initiate steps to appoint distribution franchisees in urban areas. Mahavitaran officials also raised the issue of tariffs, among other things.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In the PPP model proposed, the operator would seek and secure periodic tariff increase and this would lead to different tariffs for different areas within a State. On the other hand, the franchisee is not allowed to seek a tariff increase independently.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/ppp-model-in-power-distribution-opposed-by-meena-menon-12110.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | PPP model in power distribution opposed by Meena Menon | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="

Maharashtra says it could go against existing franchisee norms

Power distribution utilities of three States including Maharashtra have objected to the proposed suggestions by a sub-group of the Task Force on Private Participation in the Power Sector of the Planning Commission...."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>PPP model in power distribution opposed by Meena Menon</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <br /><div align="justify"><em>Maharashtra says it could go against existing franchisee norms<br /></em><br />Power distribution utilities of three States including Maharashtra have objected to the proposed suggestions by a sub-group of the Task Force on Private Participation in the Power Sector of the Planning Commission. They feel the proposals could go against existing franchisee norms in the States and skew the tariff.<br /><br />The sub-group had been pushing for Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) in the distribution of electricity as the way forward. The concessionaire selected by competitive bidding would be responsible for maintenance, operation and upgrading of the distribution network. It has also suggested providing the requisite flexibility to the concessionaire to procure bulk power from the market at competitive prices.<br /><br />Official sources said Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh were also unhappy with the report submitted in October 2011.<br /><br />The Task Force was formed on November 9, 2010 under B.K. Chaturvedi, member, Planning Commission, which in turn formed two sub-groups to examine and evolve the framework for the franchisee and PPP models.<br /><br />Maharashtra has voiced strong objections as it pioneered the franchisee model, starting with the power loom town of Bhiwandi, near Mumbai, where theft was rampant and losses were huge.<br /><br />After a franchisee was appointed to recover the outstanding amounts from consumers &mdash; many of them illegally tapping power &mdash; the model was adopted in three other areas, Nagpur, Jalgaon and Aurangabad.<br /><br />However, the sub-group felt that essentially the franchisee was handling the operation and maintenance (O and M) obligations of distribution companies and they were not regulated by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC).The model did not address significant issues such as the need for capital investments, ensuring quantity and quality of supply, financial sustainability, competition and open access.<br /><br />The sub-group felt neither the privatisation model as in Delhi nor the franchisee model would deliver the desired outcomes and pitched for a well formulated PPP which would be consistent with the Electricity Act.<br /><br />In Delhi, despite 10 years of reform, the mandatory provisions of open access have not been operationalised and the average power purchase cost has increased 49 per cent in the last two years, the report by the sub-group said.<br /><br /><em>Mahavitaran's counter<br /></em><br />Maharashtra's power distribution utility, Mahavitaran, has submitted a response to the proposals and countered the charge that a franchisee cannot distribute electricity in urban areas unless it had a distribution licence.<br /><br />Mahavitaran contends that the franchisee model was in consonance with section 14 of the Electricity Act. The legality of appointing distribution franchisees in urban areas was challenged in the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, which upheld the allotment of distribution franchisees in urban areas in its 2008 order.<br /><br />Backing the franchisee model, Mahavitaran said in Bhiwandi, which was given to a franchisee, Torrent, in January 2007, aggregate technical and commercial losses reduced from 58 per cent to 18 per cent. Improvement in collection efficiency rose to 100 per cent from 68 per cent and financial gains in the first three years of operation touched Rs. 419 crore, besides a saving of Rs. 30 crore a year on human resource and operation and maintenance costs.<br /><br />The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission in a case of 2007 analysed the franchisee model of Mahavitaran and observed that appointing a franchisee in three divisions of Nagpur would result in net benefits.<br /><br />Even the Power Ministers' conference held on July 13, 2011 unanimously resolved that States would initiate steps to appoint distribution franchisees in urban areas. Mahavitaran officials also raised the issue of tariffs, among other things.<br /><br />In the PPP model proposed, the operator would seek and secure periodic tariff increase and this would lead to different tariffs for different areas within a State. On the other hand, the franchisee is not allowed to seek a tariff increase independently.</div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$reasonPhrase = 'OK'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Code Context
                    $value

                ), $first);

                $first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680fd2a5c0b26-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680fd2a5c0b26-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr680fd2a5c0b26-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680fd2a5c0b26-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680fd2a5c0b26-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680fd2a5c0b26-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680fd2a5c0b26-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr680fd2a5c0b26-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr680fd2a5c0b26-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 11991,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;PPP model in power distribution opposed by Meena Menon&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Maharashtra says it could go against existing franchisee norms&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Power distribution utilities of three States including Maharashtra have objected to the proposed suggestions by a sub-group of the Task Force on Private Participation in the Power Sector of the Planning Commission. They feel the proposals could go against existing franchisee norms in the States and skew the tariff.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sub-group had been pushing for Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) in the distribution of electricity as the way forward. The concessionaire selected by competitive bidding would be responsible for maintenance, operation and upgrading of the distribution network. It has also suggested providing the requisite flexibility to the concessionaire to procure bulk power from the market at competitive prices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Official sources said Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh were also unhappy with the report submitted in October 2011.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Task Force was formed on November 9, 2010 under B.K. Chaturvedi, member, Planning Commission, which in turn formed two sub-groups to examine and evolve the framework for the franchisee and PPP models.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maharashtra has voiced strong objections as it pioneered the franchisee model, starting with the power loom town of Bhiwandi, near Mumbai, where theft was rampant and losses were huge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After a franchisee was appointed to recover the outstanding amounts from consumers &amp;mdash; many of them illegally tapping power &amp;mdash; the model was adopted in three other areas, Nagpur, Jalgaon and Aurangabad.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the sub-group felt that essentially the franchisee was handling the operation and maintenance (O and M) obligations of distribution companies and they were not regulated by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC).The model did not address significant issues such as the need for capital investments, ensuring quantity and quality of supply, financial sustainability, competition and open access.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sub-group felt neither the privatisation model as in Delhi nor the franchisee model would deliver the desired outcomes and pitched for a well formulated PPP which would be consistent with the Electricity Act.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Delhi, despite 10 years of reform, the mandatory provisions of open access have not been operationalised and the average power purchase cost has increased 49 per cent in the last two years, the report by the sub-group said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Mahavitaran&#039;s counter&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Maharashtra&#039;s power distribution utility, Mahavitaran, has submitted a response to the proposals and countered the charge that a franchisee cannot distribute electricity in urban areas unless it had a distribution licence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahavitaran contends that the franchisee model was in consonance with section 14 of the Electricity Act. The legality of appointing distribution franchisees in urban areas was challenged in the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, which upheld the allotment of distribution franchisees in urban areas in its 2008 order.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Backing the franchisee model, Mahavitaran said in Bhiwandi, which was given to a franchisee, Torrent, in January 2007, aggregate technical and commercial losses reduced from 58 per cent to 18 per cent. Improvement in collection efficiency rose to 100 per cent from 68 per cent and financial gains in the first three years of operation touched Rs. 419 crore, besides a saving of Rs. 30 crore a year on human resource and operation and maintenance costs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission in a case of 2007 analysed the franchisee model of Mahavitaran and observed that appointing a franchisee in three divisions of Nagpur would result in net benefits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even the Power Ministers&#039; conference held on July 13, 2011 unanimously resolved that States would initiate steps to appoint distribution franchisees in urban areas. Mahavitaran officials also raised the issue of tariffs, among other things.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the PPP model proposed, the operator would seek and secure periodic tariff increase and this would lead to different tariffs for different areas within a State. On the other hand, the franchisee is not allowed to seek a tariff increase independently.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 19 December, 2011, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article2727413.ece#&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;ppp-model-in-power-distribution-opposed-by-meena-menon-12110&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 12110,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 11991,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | PPP model in power distribution opposed by Meena Menon&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Energy&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;

Maharashtra says it could go against existing franchisee norms

Power distribution utilities of three States including Maharashtra have objected to the proposed suggestions by a sub-group of the Task Force on Private Participation in the Power Sector of the Planning Commission....&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Maharashtra says it could go against existing franchisee norms&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Power distribution utilities of three States including Maharashtra have objected to the proposed suggestions by a sub-group of the Task Force on Private Participation in the Power Sector of the Planning Commission. They feel the proposals could go against existing franchisee norms in the States and skew the tariff.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The sub-group had been pushing for Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) in the distribution of electricity as the way forward. The concessionaire selected by competitive bidding would be responsible for maintenance, operation and upgrading of the distribution network. It has also suggested providing the requisite flexibility to the concessionaire to procure bulk power from the market at competitive prices.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Official sources said Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh were also unhappy with the report submitted in October 2011.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Task Force was formed on November 9, 2010 under B.K. Chaturvedi, member, Planning Commission, which in turn formed two sub-groups to examine and evolve the framework for the franchisee and PPP models.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Maharashtra has voiced strong objections as it pioneered the franchisee model, starting with the power loom town of Bhiwandi, near Mumbai, where theft was rampant and losses were huge.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;After a franchisee was appointed to recover the outstanding amounts from consumers &amp;mdash; many of them illegally tapping power &amp;mdash; the model was adopted in three other areas, Nagpur, Jalgaon and Aurangabad.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, the sub-group felt that essentially the franchisee was handling the operation and maintenance (O and M) obligations of distribution companies and they were not regulated by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC).The model did not address significant issues such as the need for capital investments, ensuring quantity and quality of supply, financial sustainability, competition and open access.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The sub-group felt neither the privatisation model as in Delhi nor the franchisee model would deliver the desired outcomes and pitched for a well formulated PPP which would be consistent with the Electricity Act.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In Delhi, despite 10 years of reform, the mandatory provisions of open access have not been operationalised and the average power purchase cost has increased 49 per cent in the last two years, the report by the sub-group said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Mahavitaran&#039;s counter&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Maharashtra&#039;s power distribution utility, Mahavitaran, has submitted a response to the proposals and countered the charge that a franchisee cannot distribute electricity in urban areas unless it had a distribution licence.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Mahavitaran contends that the franchisee model was in consonance with section 14 of the Electricity Act. The legality of appointing distribution franchisees in urban areas was challenged in the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, which upheld the allotment of distribution franchisees in urban areas in its 2008 order.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Backing the franchisee model, Mahavitaran said in Bhiwandi, which was given to a franchisee, Torrent, in January 2007, aggregate technical and commercial losses reduced from 58 per cent to 18 per cent. Improvement in collection efficiency rose to 100 per cent from 68 per cent and financial gains in the first three years of operation touched Rs. 419 crore, besides a saving of Rs. 30 crore a year on human resource and operation and maintenance costs.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission in a case of 2007 analysed the franchisee model of Mahavitaran and observed that appointing a franchisee in three divisions of Nagpur would result in net benefits.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Even the Power Ministers&#039; conference held on July 13, 2011 unanimously resolved that States would initiate steps to appoint distribution franchisees in urban areas. Mahavitaran officials also raised the issue of tariffs, among other things.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In the PPP model proposed, the operator would seek and secure periodic tariff increase and this would lead to different tariffs for different areas within a State. On the other hand, the franchisee is not allowed to seek a tariff increase independently.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 11991,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;PPP model in power distribution opposed by Meena Menon&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Maharashtra says it could go against existing franchisee norms&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Power distribution utilities of three States including Maharashtra have objected to the proposed suggestions by a sub-group of the Task Force on Private Participation in the Power Sector of the Planning Commission. They feel the proposals could go against existing franchisee norms in the States and skew the tariff.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sub-group had been pushing for Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) in the distribution of electricity as the way forward. The concessionaire selected by competitive bidding would be responsible for maintenance, operation and upgrading of the distribution network. It has also suggested providing the requisite flexibility to the concessionaire to procure bulk power from the market at competitive prices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Official sources said Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh were also unhappy with the report submitted in October 2011.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Task Force was formed on November 9, 2010 under B.K. Chaturvedi, member, Planning Commission, which in turn formed two sub-groups to examine and evolve the framework for the franchisee and PPP models.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maharashtra has voiced strong objections as it pioneered the franchisee model, starting with the power loom town of Bhiwandi, near Mumbai, where theft was rampant and losses were huge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After a franchisee was appointed to recover the outstanding amounts from consumers &amp;mdash; many of them illegally tapping power &amp;mdash; the model was adopted in three other areas, Nagpur, Jalgaon and Aurangabad.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However, the sub-group felt that essentially the franchisee was handling the operation and maintenance (O and M) obligations of distribution companies and they were not regulated by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC).The model did not address significant issues such as the need for capital investments, ensuring quantity and quality of supply, financial sustainability, competition and open access.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The sub-group felt neither the privatisation model as in Delhi nor the franchisee model would deliver the desired outcomes and pitched for a well formulated PPP which would be consistent with the Electricity Act.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Delhi, despite 10 years of reform, the mandatory provisions of open access have not been operationalised and the average power purchase cost has increased 49 per cent in the last two years, the report by the sub-group said.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Mahavitaran&#039;s counter&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Maharashtra&#039;s power distribution utility, Mahavitaran, has submitted a response to the proposals and countered the charge that a franchisee cannot distribute electricity in urban areas unless it had a distribution licence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mahavitaran contends that the franchisee model was in consonance with section 14 of the Electricity Act. The legality of appointing distribution franchisees in urban areas was challenged in the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, which upheld the allotment of distribution franchisees in urban areas in its 2008 order.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Backing the franchisee model, Mahavitaran said in Bhiwandi, which was given to a franchisee, Torrent, in January 2007, aggregate technical and commercial losses reduced from 58 per cent to 18 per cent. Improvement in collection efficiency rose to 100 per cent from 68 per cent and financial gains in the first three years of operation touched Rs. 419 crore, besides a saving of Rs. 30 crore a year on human resource and operation and maintenance costs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission in a case of 2007 analysed the franchisee model of Mahavitaran and observed that appointing a franchisee in three divisions of Nagpur would result in net benefits.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even the Power Ministers&#039; conference held on July 13, 2011 unanimously resolved that States would initiate steps to appoint distribution franchisees in urban areas. Mahavitaran officials also raised the issue of tariffs, among other things.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the PPP model proposed, the operator would seek and secure periodic tariff increase and this would lead to different tariffs for different areas within a State. On the other hand, the franchisee is not allowed to seek a tariff increase independently.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 19 December, 2011, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article2727413.ece#&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;ppp-model-in-power-distribution-opposed-by-meena-menon-12110&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 12110,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 11991
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | PPP model in power distribution opposed by Meena Menon&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Energy&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;

Maharashtra says it could go against existing franchisee norms

Power distribution utilities of three States including Maharashtra have objected to the proposed suggestions by a sub-group of the Task Force on Private Participation in the Power Sector of the Planning Commission....&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Maharashtra says it could go against existing franchisee norms&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Power distribution utilities of three States including Maharashtra have objected to the proposed suggestions by a sub-group of the Task Force on Private Participation in the Power Sector of the Planning Commission. They feel the proposals could go against existing franchisee norms in the States and skew the tariff.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The sub-group had been pushing for Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) in the distribution of electricity as the way forward. The concessionaire selected by competitive bidding would be responsible for maintenance, operation and upgrading of the distribution network. It has also suggested providing the requisite flexibility to the concessionaire to procure bulk power from the market at competitive prices.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Official sources said Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh were also unhappy with the report submitted in October 2011.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Task Force was formed on November 9, 2010 under B.K. Chaturvedi, member, Planning Commission, which in turn formed two sub-groups to examine and evolve the framework for the franchisee and PPP models.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Maharashtra has voiced strong objections as it pioneered the franchisee model, starting with the power loom town of Bhiwandi, near Mumbai, where theft was rampant and losses were huge.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;After a franchisee was appointed to recover the outstanding amounts from consumers &amp;mdash; many of them illegally tapping power &amp;mdash; the model was adopted in three other areas, Nagpur, Jalgaon and Aurangabad.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, the sub-group felt that essentially the franchisee was handling the operation and maintenance (O and M) obligations of distribution companies and they were not regulated by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC).The model did not address significant issues such as the need for capital investments, ensuring quantity and quality of supply, financial sustainability, competition and open access.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The sub-group felt neither the privatisation model as in Delhi nor the franchisee model would deliver the desired outcomes and pitched for a well formulated PPP which would be consistent with the Electricity Act.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In Delhi, despite 10 years of reform, the mandatory provisions of open access have not been operationalised and the average power purchase cost has increased 49 per cent in the last two years, the report by the sub-group said.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Mahavitaran&#039;s counter&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Maharashtra&#039;s power distribution utility, Mahavitaran, has submitted a response to the proposals and countered the charge that a franchisee cannot distribute electricity in urban areas unless it had a distribution licence.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Mahavitaran contends that the franchisee model was in consonance with section 14 of the Electricity Act. The legality of appointing distribution franchisees in urban areas was challenged in the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, which upheld the allotment of distribution franchisees in urban areas in its 2008 order.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Backing the franchisee model, Mahavitaran said in Bhiwandi, which was given to a franchisee, Torrent, in January 2007, aggregate technical and commercial losses reduced from 58 per cent to 18 per cent. Improvement in collection efficiency rose to 100 per cent from 68 per cent and financial gains in the first three years of operation touched Rs. 419 crore, besides a saving of Rs. 30 crore a year on human resource and operation and maintenance costs.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission in a case of 2007 analysed the franchisee model of Mahavitaran and observed that appointing a franchisee in three divisions of Nagpur would result in net benefits.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Even the Power Ministers&#039; conference held on July 13, 2011 unanimously resolved that States would initiate steps to appoint distribution franchisees in urban areas. Mahavitaran officials also raised the issue of tariffs, among other things.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In the PPP model proposed, the operator would seek and secure periodic tariff increase and this would lead to different tariffs for different areas within a State. On the other hand, the franchisee is not allowed to seek a tariff increase independently.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/ppp-model-in-power-distribution-opposed-by-meena-menon-12110.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | PPP model in power distribution opposed by Meena Menon | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="

Maharashtra says it could go against existing franchisee norms

Power distribution utilities of three States including Maharashtra have objected to the proposed suggestions by a sub-group of the Task Force on Private Participation in the Power Sector of the Planning Commission...."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>PPP model in power distribution opposed by Meena Menon</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <br /><div align="justify"><em>Maharashtra says it could go against existing franchisee norms<br /></em><br />Power distribution utilities of three States including Maharashtra have objected to the proposed suggestions by a sub-group of the Task Force on Private Participation in the Power Sector of the Planning Commission. They feel the proposals could go against existing franchisee norms in the States and skew the tariff.<br /><br />The sub-group had been pushing for Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) in the distribution of electricity as the way forward. The concessionaire selected by competitive bidding would be responsible for maintenance, operation and upgrading of the distribution network. It has also suggested providing the requisite flexibility to the concessionaire to procure bulk power from the market at competitive prices.<br /><br />Official sources said Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh were also unhappy with the report submitted in October 2011.<br /><br />The Task Force was formed on November 9, 2010 under B.K. Chaturvedi, member, Planning Commission, which in turn formed two sub-groups to examine and evolve the framework for the franchisee and PPP models.<br /><br />Maharashtra has voiced strong objections as it pioneered the franchisee model, starting with the power loom town of Bhiwandi, near Mumbai, where theft was rampant and losses were huge.<br /><br />After a franchisee was appointed to recover the outstanding amounts from consumers &mdash; many of them illegally tapping power &mdash; the model was adopted in three other areas, Nagpur, Jalgaon and Aurangabad.<br /><br />However, the sub-group felt that essentially the franchisee was handling the operation and maintenance (O and M) obligations of distribution companies and they were not regulated by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC).The model did not address significant issues such as the need for capital investments, ensuring quantity and quality of supply, financial sustainability, competition and open access.<br /><br />The sub-group felt neither the privatisation model as in Delhi nor the franchisee model would deliver the desired outcomes and pitched for a well formulated PPP which would be consistent with the Electricity Act.<br /><br />In Delhi, despite 10 years of reform, the mandatory provisions of open access have not been operationalised and the average power purchase cost has increased 49 per cent in the last two years, the report by the sub-group said.<br /><br /><em>Mahavitaran's counter<br /></em><br />Maharashtra's power distribution utility, Mahavitaran, has submitted a response to the proposals and countered the charge that a franchisee cannot distribute electricity in urban areas unless it had a distribution licence.<br /><br />Mahavitaran contends that the franchisee model was in consonance with section 14 of the Electricity Act. The legality of appointing distribution franchisees in urban areas was challenged in the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, which upheld the allotment of distribution franchisees in urban areas in its 2008 order.<br /><br />Backing the franchisee model, Mahavitaran said in Bhiwandi, which was given to a franchisee, Torrent, in January 2007, aggregate technical and commercial losses reduced from 58 per cent to 18 per cent. Improvement in collection efficiency rose to 100 per cent from 68 per cent and financial gains in the first three years of operation touched Rs. 419 crore, besides a saving of Rs. 30 crore a year on human resource and operation and maintenance costs.<br /><br />The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission in a case of 2007 analysed the franchisee model of Mahavitaran and observed that appointing a franchisee in three divisions of Nagpur would result in net benefits.<br /><br />Even the Power Ministers' conference held on July 13, 2011 unanimously resolved that States would initiate steps to appoint distribution franchisees in urban areas. Mahavitaran officials also raised the issue of tariffs, among other things.<br /><br />In the PPP model proposed, the operator would seek and secure periodic tariff increase and this would lead to different tariffs for different areas within a State. On the other hand, the franchisee is not allowed to seek a tariff increase independently.</div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$cookies = []
$values = [
	(int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
]
$name = 'Content-Type'
$first = true
$value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

<head>

    <link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>

    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>

$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
	'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		'id' => (int) 11991,
		'title' => 'PPP model in power distribution opposed by Meena Menon',
		'subheading' => '',
		'description' => '<br />
<div align="justify">
<em>Maharashtra says it could go against existing franchisee norms<br />
</em><br />
Power distribution utilities of three States including Maharashtra have objected to the proposed suggestions by a sub-group of the Task Force on Private Participation in the Power Sector of the Planning Commission. They feel the proposals could go against existing franchisee norms in the States and skew the tariff.<br />
<br />
The sub-group had been pushing for Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) in the distribution of electricity as the way forward. The concessionaire selected by competitive bidding would be responsible for maintenance, operation and upgrading of the distribution network. It has also suggested providing the requisite flexibility to the concessionaire to procure bulk power from the market at competitive prices.<br />
<br />
Official sources said Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh were also unhappy with the report submitted in October 2011.<br />
<br />
The Task Force was formed on November 9, 2010 under B.K. Chaturvedi, member, Planning Commission, which in turn formed two sub-groups to examine and evolve the framework for the franchisee and PPP models.<br />
<br />
Maharashtra has voiced strong objections as it pioneered the franchisee model, starting with the power loom town of Bhiwandi, near Mumbai, where theft was rampant and losses were huge.<br />
<br />
After a franchisee was appointed to recover the outstanding amounts from consumers &mdash; many of them illegally tapping power &mdash; the model was adopted in three other areas, Nagpur, Jalgaon and Aurangabad.<br />
<br />
However, the sub-group felt that essentially the franchisee was handling the operation and maintenance (O and M) obligations of distribution companies and they were not regulated by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC).The model did not address significant issues such as the need for capital investments, ensuring quantity and quality of supply, financial sustainability, competition and open access.<br />
<br />
The sub-group felt neither the privatisation model as in Delhi nor the franchisee model would deliver the desired outcomes and pitched for a well formulated PPP which would be consistent with the Electricity Act.<br />
<br />
In Delhi, despite 10 years of reform, the mandatory provisions of open access have not been operationalised and the average power purchase cost has increased 49 per cent in the last two years, the report by the sub-group said.<br />
<br />
<em>Mahavitaran's counter<br />
</em><br />
Maharashtra's power distribution utility, Mahavitaran, has submitted a response to the proposals and countered the charge that a franchisee cannot distribute electricity in urban areas unless it had a distribution licence.<br />
<br />
Mahavitaran contends that the franchisee model was in consonance with section 14 of the Electricity Act. The legality of appointing distribution franchisees in urban areas was challenged in the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, which upheld the allotment of distribution franchisees in urban areas in its 2008 order.<br />
<br />
Backing the franchisee model, Mahavitaran said in Bhiwandi, which was given to a franchisee, Torrent, in January 2007, aggregate technical and commercial losses reduced from 58 per cent to 18 per cent. Improvement in collection efficiency rose to 100 per cent from 68 per cent and financial gains in the first three years of operation touched Rs. 419 crore, besides a saving of Rs. 30 crore a year on human resource and operation and maintenance costs.<br />
<br />
The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission in a case of 2007 analysed the franchisee model of Mahavitaran and observed that appointing a franchisee in three divisions of Nagpur would result in net benefits.<br />
<br />
Even the Power Ministers' conference held on July 13, 2011 unanimously resolved that States would initiate steps to appoint distribution franchisees in urban areas. Mahavitaran officials also raised the issue of tariffs, among other things.<br />
<br />
In the PPP model proposed, the operator would seek and secure periodic tariff increase and this would lead to different tariffs for different areas within a State. On the other hand, the franchisee is not allowed to seek a tariff increase independently.
</div>',
		'credit_writer' => 'The Hindu, 19 December, 2011, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article2727413.ece#',
		'article_img' => '',
		'article_img_thumb' => '',
		'status' => (int) 1,
		'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
		'lang' => 'EN',
		'category_id' => (int) 16,
		'tag_keyword' => '',
		'seo_url' => 'ppp-model-in-power-distribution-opposed-by-meena-menon-12110',
		'meta_title' => null,
		'meta_keywords' => null,
		'meta_description' => null,
		'noindex' => (int) 0,
		'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		'most_visit_section_id' => null,
		'article_big_img' => null,
		'liveid' => (int) 12110,
		'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'edate' => '',
		'tags' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		'[new]' => false,
		'[accessible]' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[hasErrors]' => false,
		'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[repository]' => 'Articles'
	
	},
	'articleid' => (int) 11991,
	'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | PPP model in power distribution opposed by Meena Menon',
	'metaKeywords' => 'Energy',
	'metaDesc' => '

Maharashtra says it could go against existing franchisee norms

Power distribution utilities of three States including Maharashtra have objected to the proposed suggestions by a sub-group of the Task Force on Private Participation in the Power Sector of the Planning Commission....',
	'disp' => '<br /><div align="justify"><em>Maharashtra says it could go against existing franchisee norms<br /></em><br />Power distribution utilities of three States including Maharashtra have objected to the proposed suggestions by a sub-group of the Task Force on Private Participation in the Power Sector of the Planning Commission. They feel the proposals could go against existing franchisee norms in the States and skew the tariff.<br /><br />The sub-group had been pushing for Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) in the distribution of electricity as the way forward. The concessionaire selected by competitive bidding would be responsible for maintenance, operation and upgrading of the distribution network. It has also suggested providing the requisite flexibility to the concessionaire to procure bulk power from the market at competitive prices.<br /><br />Official sources said Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh were also unhappy with the report submitted in October 2011.<br /><br />The Task Force was formed on November 9, 2010 under B.K. Chaturvedi, member, Planning Commission, which in turn formed two sub-groups to examine and evolve the framework for the franchisee and PPP models.<br /><br />Maharashtra has voiced strong objections as it pioneered the franchisee model, starting with the power loom town of Bhiwandi, near Mumbai, where theft was rampant and losses were huge.<br /><br />After a franchisee was appointed to recover the outstanding amounts from consumers &mdash; many of them illegally tapping power &mdash; the model was adopted in three other areas, Nagpur, Jalgaon and Aurangabad.<br /><br />However, the sub-group felt that essentially the franchisee was handling the operation and maintenance (O and M) obligations of distribution companies and they were not regulated by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC).The model did not address significant issues such as the need for capital investments, ensuring quantity and quality of supply, financial sustainability, competition and open access.<br /><br />The sub-group felt neither the privatisation model as in Delhi nor the franchisee model would deliver the desired outcomes and pitched for a well formulated PPP which would be consistent with the Electricity Act.<br /><br />In Delhi, despite 10 years of reform, the mandatory provisions of open access have not been operationalised and the average power purchase cost has increased 49 per cent in the last two years, the report by the sub-group said.<br /><br /><em>Mahavitaran's counter<br /></em><br />Maharashtra's power distribution utility, Mahavitaran, has submitted a response to the proposals and countered the charge that a franchisee cannot distribute electricity in urban areas unless it had a distribution licence.<br /><br />Mahavitaran contends that the franchisee model was in consonance with section 14 of the Electricity Act. The legality of appointing distribution franchisees in urban areas was challenged in the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, which upheld the allotment of distribution franchisees in urban areas in its 2008 order.<br /><br />Backing the franchisee model, Mahavitaran said in Bhiwandi, which was given to a franchisee, Torrent, in January 2007, aggregate technical and commercial losses reduced from 58 per cent to 18 per cent. Improvement in collection efficiency rose to 100 per cent from 68 per cent and financial gains in the first three years of operation touched Rs. 419 crore, besides a saving of Rs. 30 crore a year on human resource and operation and maintenance costs.<br /><br />The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission in a case of 2007 analysed the franchisee model of Mahavitaran and observed that appointing a franchisee in three divisions of Nagpur would result in net benefits.<br /><br />Even the Power Ministers' conference held on July 13, 2011 unanimously resolved that States would initiate steps to appoint distribution franchisees in urban areas. Mahavitaran officials also raised the issue of tariffs, among other things.<br /><br />In the PPP model proposed, the operator would seek and secure periodic tariff increase and this would lead to different tariffs for different areas within a State. On the other hand, the franchisee is not allowed to seek a tariff increase independently.</div>',
	'lang' => 'English',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 11991,
	'title' => 'PPP model in power distribution opposed by Meena Menon',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '<br />
<div align="justify">
<em>Maharashtra says it could go against existing franchisee norms<br />
</em><br />
Power distribution utilities of three States including Maharashtra have objected to the proposed suggestions by a sub-group of the Task Force on Private Participation in the Power Sector of the Planning Commission. They feel the proposals could go against existing franchisee norms in the States and skew the tariff.<br />
<br />
The sub-group had been pushing for Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) in the distribution of electricity as the way forward. The concessionaire selected by competitive bidding would be responsible for maintenance, operation and upgrading of the distribution network. It has also suggested providing the requisite flexibility to the concessionaire to procure bulk power from the market at competitive prices.<br />
<br />
Official sources said Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh were also unhappy with the report submitted in October 2011.<br />
<br />
The Task Force was formed on November 9, 2010 under B.K. Chaturvedi, member, Planning Commission, which in turn formed two sub-groups to examine and evolve the framework for the franchisee and PPP models.<br />
<br />
Maharashtra has voiced strong objections as it pioneered the franchisee model, starting with the power loom town of Bhiwandi, near Mumbai, where theft was rampant and losses were huge.<br />
<br />
After a franchisee was appointed to recover the outstanding amounts from consumers &mdash; many of them illegally tapping power &mdash; the model was adopted in three other areas, Nagpur, Jalgaon and Aurangabad.<br />
<br />
However, the sub-group felt that essentially the franchisee was handling the operation and maintenance (O and M) obligations of distribution companies and they were not regulated by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC).The model did not address significant issues such as the need for capital investments, ensuring quantity and quality of supply, financial sustainability, competition and open access.<br />
<br />
The sub-group felt neither the privatisation model as in Delhi nor the franchisee model would deliver the desired outcomes and pitched for a well formulated PPP which would be consistent with the Electricity Act.<br />
<br />
In Delhi, despite 10 years of reform, the mandatory provisions of open access have not been operationalised and the average power purchase cost has increased 49 per cent in the last two years, the report by the sub-group said.<br />
<br />
<em>Mahavitaran's counter<br />
</em><br />
Maharashtra's power distribution utility, Mahavitaran, has submitted a response to the proposals and countered the charge that a franchisee cannot distribute electricity in urban areas unless it had a distribution licence.<br />
<br />
Mahavitaran contends that the franchisee model was in consonance with section 14 of the Electricity Act. The legality of appointing distribution franchisees in urban areas was challenged in the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, which upheld the allotment of distribution franchisees in urban areas in its 2008 order.<br />
<br />
Backing the franchisee model, Mahavitaran said in Bhiwandi, which was given to a franchisee, Torrent, in January 2007, aggregate technical and commercial losses reduced from 58 per cent to 18 per cent. Improvement in collection efficiency rose to 100 per cent from 68 per cent and financial gains in the first three years of operation touched Rs. 419 crore, besides a saving of Rs. 30 crore a year on human resource and operation and maintenance costs.<br />
<br />
The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission in a case of 2007 analysed the franchisee model of Mahavitaran and observed that appointing a franchisee in three divisions of Nagpur would result in net benefits.<br />
<br />
Even the Power Ministers' conference held on July 13, 2011 unanimously resolved that States would initiate steps to appoint distribution franchisees in urban areas. Mahavitaran officials also raised the issue of tariffs, among other things.<br />
<br />
In the PPP model proposed, the operator would seek and secure periodic tariff increase and this would lead to different tariffs for different areas within a State. On the other hand, the franchisee is not allowed to seek a tariff increase independently.
</div>',
	'credit_writer' => 'The Hindu, 19 December, 2011, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article2727413.ece#',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 16,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'ppp-model-in-power-distribution-opposed-by-meena-menon-12110',
	'meta_title' => null,
	'meta_keywords' => null,
	'meta_description' => null,
	'noindex' => (int) 0,
	'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	'most_visit_section_id' => null,
	'article_big_img' => null,
	'liveid' => (int) 12110,
	'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'edate' => '',
	'tags' => [
		(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	'[new]' => false,
	'[accessible]' => [
		'*' => true,
		'id' => false
	],
	'[dirty]' => [],
	'[original]' => [],
	'[virtual]' => [],
	'[hasErrors]' => false,
	'[errors]' => [],
	'[invalid]' => [],
	'[repository]' => 'Articles'

}
$articleid = (int) 11991
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | PPP model in power distribution opposed by Meena Menon'
$metaKeywords = 'Energy'
$metaDesc = '

Maharashtra says it could go against existing franchisee norms

Power distribution utilities of three States including Maharashtra have objected to the proposed suggestions by a sub-group of the Task Force on Private Participation in the Power Sector of the Planning Commission....'
$disp = '<br /><div align="justify"><em>Maharashtra says it could go against existing franchisee norms<br /></em><br />Power distribution utilities of three States including Maharashtra have objected to the proposed suggestions by a sub-group of the Task Force on Private Participation in the Power Sector of the Planning Commission. They feel the proposals could go against existing franchisee norms in the States and skew the tariff.<br /><br />The sub-group had been pushing for Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) in the distribution of electricity as the way forward. The concessionaire selected by competitive bidding would be responsible for maintenance, operation and upgrading of the distribution network. It has also suggested providing the requisite flexibility to the concessionaire to procure bulk power from the market at competitive prices.<br /><br />Official sources said Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh were also unhappy with the report submitted in October 2011.<br /><br />The Task Force was formed on November 9, 2010 under B.K. Chaturvedi, member, Planning Commission, which in turn formed two sub-groups to examine and evolve the framework for the franchisee and PPP models.<br /><br />Maharashtra has voiced strong objections as it pioneered the franchisee model, starting with the power loom town of Bhiwandi, near Mumbai, where theft was rampant and losses were huge.<br /><br />After a franchisee was appointed to recover the outstanding amounts from consumers &mdash; many of them illegally tapping power &mdash; the model was adopted in three other areas, Nagpur, Jalgaon and Aurangabad.<br /><br />However, the sub-group felt that essentially the franchisee was handling the operation and maintenance (O and M) obligations of distribution companies and they were not regulated by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC).The model did not address significant issues such as the need for capital investments, ensuring quantity and quality of supply, financial sustainability, competition and open access.<br /><br />The sub-group felt neither the privatisation model as in Delhi nor the franchisee model would deliver the desired outcomes and pitched for a well formulated PPP which would be consistent with the Electricity Act.<br /><br />In Delhi, despite 10 years of reform, the mandatory provisions of open access have not been operationalised and the average power purchase cost has increased 49 per cent in the last two years, the report by the sub-group said.<br /><br /><em>Mahavitaran's counter<br /></em><br />Maharashtra's power distribution utility, Mahavitaran, has submitted a response to the proposals and countered the charge that a franchisee cannot distribute electricity in urban areas unless it had a distribution licence.<br /><br />Mahavitaran contends that the franchisee model was in consonance with section 14 of the Electricity Act. The legality of appointing distribution franchisees in urban areas was challenged in the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, which upheld the allotment of distribution franchisees in urban areas in its 2008 order.<br /><br />Backing the franchisee model, Mahavitaran said in Bhiwandi, which was given to a franchisee, Torrent, in January 2007, aggregate technical and commercial losses reduced from 58 per cent to 18 per cent. Improvement in collection efficiency rose to 100 per cent from 68 per cent and financial gains in the first three years of operation touched Rs. 419 crore, besides a saving of Rs. 30 crore a year on human resource and operation and maintenance costs.<br /><br />The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission in a case of 2007 analysed the franchisee model of Mahavitaran and observed that appointing a franchisee in three divisions of Nagpur would result in net benefits.<br /><br />Even the Power Ministers' conference held on July 13, 2011 unanimously resolved that States would initiate steps to appoint distribution franchisees in urban areas. Mahavitaran officials also raised the issue of tariffs, among other things.<br /><br />In the PPP model proposed, the operator would seek and secure periodic tariff increase and this would lead to different tariffs for different areas within a State. On the other hand, the franchisee is not allowed to seek a tariff increase independently.</div>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'

include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51

PPP model in power distribution opposed by Meena Menon

Maharashtra says it could go against existing franchisee norms Power distribution utilities of three States including Maharashtra have objected to the proposed suggestions by a sub-group of the Task Force on Private Participation in the Power Sector of the Planning Commission. They feel the proposals could go against existing franchisee norms in the States and skew the tariff. The sub-group had been pushing for Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) in the distribution of electricity as the way forward. The concessionaire selected by competitive bidding would be responsible for maintenance, operation and upgrading of the distribution network. It has also suggested providing the requisite flexibility to the concessionaire to procure bulk power from the market at competitive prices. Official sources said Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh were also unhappy with the report submitted in October 2011. The Task Force was formed on November 9, 2010 under B.K. Chaturvedi, member, Planning Commission, which in turn formed two sub-groups to examine and evolve the framework for the franchisee and PPP models. Maharashtra has voiced strong objections as it pioneered the franchisee model, starting with the power loom town of Bhiwandi, near Mumbai, where theft was rampant and losses were huge. After a franchisee was appointed to recover the outstanding amounts from consumers — many of them illegally tapping power — the model was adopted in three other areas, Nagpur, Jalgaon and Aurangabad. However, the sub-group felt that essentially the franchisee was handling the operation and maintenance (O and M) obligations of distribution companies and they were not regulated by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC).The model did not address significant issues such as the need for capital investments, ensuring quantity and quality of supply, financial sustainability, competition and open access. The sub-group felt neither the privatisation model as in Delhi nor the franchisee model would deliver the desired outcomes and pitched for a well formulated PPP which would be consistent with the Electricity Act. In Delhi, despite 10 years of reform, the mandatory provisions of open access have not been operationalised and the average power purchase cost has increased 49 per cent in the last two years, the report by the sub-group said. Mahavitaran's counter Maharashtra's power distribution utility, Mahavitaran, has submitted a response to the proposals and countered the charge that a franchisee cannot distribute electricity in urban areas unless it had a distribution licence. Mahavitaran contends that the franchisee model was in consonance with section 14 of the Electricity Act. The legality of appointing distribution franchisees in urban areas was challenged in the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, which upheld the allotment of distribution franchisees in urban areas in its 2008 order. Backing the franchisee model, Mahavitaran said in Bhiwandi, which was given to a franchisee, Torrent, in January 2007, aggregate technical and commercial losses reduced from 58 per cent to 18 per cent. Improvement in collection efficiency rose to 100 per cent from 68 per cent and financial gains in the first three years of operation touched Rs. 419 crore, besides a saving of Rs. 30 crore a year on human resource and operation and maintenance costs. The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission in a case of 2007 analysed the franchisee model of Mahavitaran and observed that appointing a franchisee in three divisions of Nagpur would result in net benefits. Even the Power Ministers' conference held on July 13, 2011 unanimously resolved that States would initiate steps to appoint distribution franchisees in urban areas. Mahavitaran officials also raised the issue of tariffs, among other things. In the PPP model proposed, the operator would seek and secure periodic tariff increase and this would lead to different tariffs for different areas within a State. On the other hand, the franchisee is not allowed to seek a tariff increase independently.