Land Rights Initiative turns 8 today! As we mark this important milestone, I am incredibly grateful to the Centre for Policy Research, our researchers, donors, mentors, collaborators, government, civil society groups, and communities that have made this journey possible and our work sustainable.
I set up the Land Rights Initiative (“LRI”) with the belief that land is central not just to India’s economic development agenda but to the very idea of India itself. Even as we celebrate 75 years of India’s independence this year, almost 60 percent of all Indians are directly dependent upon the land for their livelihoods. Land is not just an economic resource; it is also central to individual dignity and community identity, history, and culture. Land reforms were crucial not only to India’s economic development but also to its political independence and social redistribution story.
India’s freedom movement was premised upon liberating us from a past of colonial domination and subordination and upon building a future that would bring about rapid economic development for all Indians and ensure individual dignity for all. The Indian Constitution adopted in 1950 safeguarded land rights of Scheduled Tribes and through the inclusion of the fundamental right to property in Article 19(1) (f), for the first time guaranteed equal property rights to all Indians, including women and Dalits or Scheduled Castes. Together, women, Scheduled Castes, and Adivasis or Scheduled Tribes constitute the bottom 60% of the population.
However, as the development agenda played out over the following decades, it brought to the fore the inherent tension between the utilitarian nature of the “development discourse” and the dignitarian nature of the “rights discourse”. This led to the gradual demise of the right to property through a series of constitutional amendments between 1951 and 1978. Ostensibly done for the benefit of the poor, the period since the abolition of the right to property in fact saw greater displacement and dispossession of people from the land due to various development projects. Particularly vulnerable were the Scheduled Tribes, which constitute only 8.6% of India’s population but constitute nearly 50% of those displaced between 1950 and 1999, many of them twice in one lifetime due to dams, mines, wildlife parks, and sanctuaries. This widespread development-induced displacement led to persistent and ubiquitous legal and extra-legal conflict over land, plaguing the lives of people across millions of hectares of land and threatening investments worth billions of dollars.
It was against this backdrop that Land Rights Initiative set out to investigate the reasons for conflict over land and to build a body of knowledge that would enable the government to formulate and implement policies in a way that would preserve the land rights of the people of India without derailing the development agenda.
Over the first five years of its existence, LRI released two pioneering research reports and a singular policy brief that outlined reasons for land conflict and made policy suggestions for reform. The first research report on Land Acquisition in India: A Review of Supreme Court Cases from 1950 to 2016 (CPR: 2017) constituted a first-time-ever comprehensive attempt to analyse all judicial decisions by the Supreme Court on land acquisition, numbering 1269, to illuminate the reasons for popular discontent with the government’s processes of land acquisition which had, in turn, led to both legal and extra-legal conflict over land. This Report has been used extensively by the Department of Land Resources in the Ministry of Rural Development and has been used in training and capacity-building programmes by the National Highways Authority of India and the National Institute for Defence Estates Management. The Report has also been used widely by individual litigants defending their lands against governmental acquisition. That this Report is now the authoritative text on land acquisition is evident from the fact that it was cited by opposing parties, both the government and farmers, before the Supreme Court Constitution bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and others (2020).
The second research report on The Legal Regime and Political Economy of Land Rights of Scheduled Tribes in Scheduled Areas of India(CPR:2018) for the first time mapped the Scheduled Areas and plotted the forest cover and mines in India to show a significant overlap with the Scheduled Areas. Through a review of the constitutional and legal provisions pertaining to the Scheduled Areas, and conflicting narratives of identity and development of Scheduled Tribes, the Report was able to shed light on the reasons for the displacement, poverty, and landlessness of Scheduled Tribes. Recommendations from this Report and the National Seminar on Understanding Landlessness and Displacement of, and Atrocities against Scheduled Tribes co-organised by LRI and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) in 2018, and the 2020 NCST report on Tribal Land Alienationin India, for which I served as an expert advisor, were incorporated into NCST’s Annual report (2019-2020) under Article 338A of the Constitution. NCST’s Annual Report was sent to the President of India in early 2021.
Consolidating our work over a five-year period, the policy brief on Understanding Land Conflict in India: Suggestions for Reform (2019) highlighted the conflicting people versus state narratives over land which in turn had led to over a thousand colonial and post-colonial laws and administrative practices. The absence of a publicly available comprehensive database of land laws greatly hampered citizen access to the laws that govern one of the most important aspects of our lives. The desire to fill this gap is what birthed LRI’s most ambitious project called One Thousand Land Laws: Mapping Indian Land Laws. Conceptualised and executed over a period of five years, this project involves an attempt to create a comprehensive, exploratory archive of all land laws in India, a veritable “google maps for land laws”. This year, we launched the web and mobile versions of this website, accessible at landlawsofindia.org.
The website currently features officially authenticated copies of nearly 500 original and active central laws, and state laws from a geographically representative sample of eight states, namely, Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Meghalaya, Punjab, and Telangana. The website also features Hindi and English language summaries of all laws. From laws pertaining to land reforms and land acquisition, to revenue and taxation and land use, forest and mining laws; from laws promoting and regulating urban and infrastructural development to laws dealing with evacuee, enemy, ancestral and religious property, this vast legal apparatus governs the lives of the people of India, and their interactions with each other and the state. Embedded within the website is a subject-wise classification of all the laws according to over thirty categories, further subdivided into a hundred and fifty sub categories.
For our work in creating citizen awareness and deepening democracy, in 2020, LRI was one of fifteen organisations (out of a hundred and fifty) shortlisted for the inaugural Shamnad Basheer Citizenship Prize, which recognises organisations transforming the field of law and justice. LRI’s research papers have informed courses and curricula across law schools and social science programmes. LRI’s internship programme has exposed and nurtured an entire generation of students in research on this complex subject. As the pioneering institution in the land policy space, LRI has also nurtured the land policy ecosystem by supporting the work of land policy initiatives at other research institutions.
Even as LRI enters its ninth year, climate devastation is upon us and world leaders are meeting in Egypt at the UN Climate Change Conference 27 to shape our collective response to the climate crisis. Our learnings over the past eight years have led us to conclude that land is not just crucial to the imagination of India, but also crucial to our imagination of sustainable survival on planet earth. We at LRI strongly believe that the indigenous imagination of “jal, jungle, zameen” as constituting an indivisible ecosystem, is crucial not just to the preservation of the way of life of Adivasis or Scheduled Tribes but is crucial to sustainable living on the planet. Land rights are an important mechanism for ensuring individual dignity and intergenerational equity, and community-based resource management systems are important for sustainable development. Over the next two years, LRI hopes to create dialogic engagement between our body of work on land rights and economic development with climate imaginaries of sustainable survival.
Dr. Namita Wahi
Founding Director, Land Rights Initiative
Senior Fellow, Centre for Policy Research
The 49th anniversary of the Centre of Policy Research is an important occasion, and one that calls for both celebration and introspection. The sheer efflorescence of output at CPR is reason to celebrate. CPR was envisaged as an ecosystem that interfaced between the university and government to breathe intellectual life into what its founder then saw as a “moribund system of public administration, hamstrung by the poverty of imagination”. Dr.V.A. Pai Panandiker, Former President of CPR, laid the foundations of a vibrant space that pioneered the impressive body of work on policy issues in India that has become synonymous with CPR.
The nature of policy research is not narrowly prescriptive here. What is emphasized is the option generating imagination, that is best suited to the complex, diverse, highly variegated governance ecosystem of the country. CPR’s experts contribute to a dialogic process that brings voices to the table that are not often heard during policy consultations. Policy makers often draw on this rich repertoire for innovative scenario building.
The local and the global are not seen as discrete spaces, but as a matrix of criss- crossing trajectories that require collaborative, consultative engagement. This kind of interdisciplinarity is fully on display at the hugely popular Annual CPR Dialogues that draws enthusiastic participation from across sectors. Moving seamlessly from the local through the national, regional and global domains, CPR’s work transcends programmatic silos.
Through all the multisectoral work that we do, the leitmotifs reflect (1) an engagement with first principles, (2) the long view of the nature of the ethicality of the social compact, (3) how it delivers on democracy, on social and economic rights and enhances human dignity. We examine the normative dimension – not merely what is expedient for policy – but on how it impacts those it is intended for.
As we enter the 50th year as one of India’s premier think tanks, we celebrate our various milestones, but also collectively introspect on our evolving role and mandate:
How useful is our research and to whom does it matter? Are we an effective bridge between state, civil society and academia?
Does our knowledge production feed effectively into policy spaces?
Do we contribute to a wider epistemic community beyond the compulsions of funding deadlines and ‘outcome’ expectations?
Do we buttress democratic praxis?
In our quest for solutions how sensitive have we been to what questions remain…which we failed to ask?
In the dialectical interplay between ‘governance’ and ‘democracy’ is embedded our abiding question of what it would take to build a responsive, equitable, inclusive, effective 21st century State for India.
Our research takes us to the intersections of this complex mosaic of perceptions, practices, structures, beliefs that collide, cohere, even collude in ways that significantly determine the manner in which the people of India experience their rights and the quality of citizenship. The changing nature of the state and its ‘capacity’ in the current phase of ‘globalization’ is the big idea that links our work on accountability, urbanization, sanitation, energy, climate change, land rights, migration, health, cities, and the nuts and bolts of federalism with the lived experiences of the citizens of the Republic whom the state is meant to serve – not just service.
The other big question that engages us, revolves around navigating the emerging geopolitical landscape and the congruence between domestic/ electoral compulsions, the economy and India’s global aspirations. As the norms of engagement in the global order change, how should India calibrate her geopolitical position? What are the new configurations at play?
In a globalized world, as the line between what is external and what is domestic becomes increasingly porous, how must India secure her credentials as a democratic, pluralistic polity with a stable growth trajectory?
For an institution that celebrates its Golden Jubilee next year, CPR is incredibly young. Its resilience and vitality is reflected in its ability to continuously reinvent itself. Keeping in mind the changing national scenario and global imperatives CPR has added newer projects, even while fine tuning and refining existing programs. There is a continuous striving for greater congruence between projects.
As much as we introspect, we also continue to make our work accessible in the larger public sphere and draw upon reasoned critique to help nuance, refine and push the envelope further on the quality, credibility, non-partisanship and efficacy of our suggestions for sustainable implementation. This enables us to sustain a unique multi-stakeholder space where leading public policy practitioners, academics, and members of civil society deliberate upon the opportunities and critical challenges that animate governance choices and trajectories for India in the 21st century. Our striving to sustain robust public discourse based on objective, informed and non-partisan research on the issues at stake is the enduring leitmotif of our work
for Faculty and PhD-holders belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Marginalised Groups
November 14-18, 2022
Centre for Policy Research is embarking on an ambitious programme to impart insights and skills in public policy research as well as research methods to scholars and faculty members belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other marginalised groups. The programme is funded by the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) and spanning over six months, this hybrid programme consists of three parts: 1) a 5-day inaugural workshop, 2) periodic online interactions will be facilitated between individual scholars and their respective subject experts, and 3) a 3-day concluding conference at the end of six-month period. The inaugural workshop will be held from November 14-18 2022 in New Delhi.
The workshop will have three components: 1) scholars and practitioners of public policy in India share their knowledge and experience; 2) methods in social science research will be explained in the context of individual participants, and; 3) lectures will be delivered on topics such as writing effective grant proposals, enhancing writing skills, exploring publication avenues, funding sources, and conducting impactful research.
Reading material, such as manuals, books, etc., will be provided. A candidate, belonging to any of the social groups mentioned above, should meet the following requirements. He/She must:
Below the age of 40 years
Trained in Social Sciences/ Humanities such as History, Law, Psychology, Sociology etc.
Holding a PhD (candidates without PhD but are teaching in universities and colleges are eligible)
The participants will get free boarding and lodging on a twin-sharing basis. Two-tier AC train fares by the shortest route will be reimbursed.
Eligible candidates may apply online or email their CVs to public.policy@cprindia.orgbefore 27 October 2022. Selected candidates will be intimated before 31 October 2022.
The Initiative on Climate, Energy and Environment (ICEE) at the Centre for Policy Research organised a seminar series from 2017 to 2018 entitled ‘Clearing the Air?’. Featuring the voices of prominent researchers, doctors, civil society members, and experts, this series of 10 events aimed to promote sustained and informed public discourse on the data, impacts, sources and policy challenges involved in addressing India’s air pollution crisis.
Filling the Knowledge Gap on Air Quality in Indian Cities Date: December 4, 2017 Speaker: Dr. Sarath Guttikunda – Founder and Director, UrbanEmissions.Info, NASA Earth and Space Science Fellow, and TED Fellow About the Seminar: Dr. Guttikunda discussed the contribution of various sources to air pollution in Delhi, identified gaps in knowledge and data availability on air pollution in India, and explained the challenges of monitoring emissions across different sources.
Selected excerpts from this discussion are available in the form of a written Q&A.
Health Effects of Exposure to Air Pollution (co-organised with Public Health Foundation of India) Date: December 20, 2017
Speakers:
Dr. Prabhakaran – Vice President (Research & Policy), Public Health Foundation of India
Dr. Preet Dhillon – Epidemiologist, Sr. Scientific Officer, Public Health Foundation of India
Moderated by Bhargav Krishna – Manager, Centre for Environmental Health, Public Health Foundation of India
About the Seminar: This panel of clinicians, health experts and researchers from the Public Health Foundation of India discussed the effects of air pollution on important health outcomes such as cardiovascular diseases, respiratory diseases and cancer.
Air Pollution as a Preventable Cause of Adverse Birth Outcomes in India: New Evidence from Cohort Studies in Tamil Nadu Date: January 10, 2018 Speaker: Kalpana Balakrishnan Ph.D., FAMS – Director, World Health Organization Collaborating Center for Occupational and Environmental Health, SRU-ICMR Centre for Advanced Research on Air Quality, Climate and Health, Department of Environmental Health Engineering, Sri Ramachandra University, Chennai
About the Seminar: Dr. Balakrishnan presents results from a recently concluded cohort study in Tamil Nadu that provides some of the first quantitative effects estimates for linking rural-urban PM2.5 exposures and birthweight in India, adding important evidence from high exposure settings that experience dual health burdens from ambient and household air pollution. Highlighting the need to consider maternal exposures to PM2.5, Dr. Balakrishnan emphasises the imminent need for strategic air quality actions focused on protecting vulnerable groups such as pregnant women and infants.
Role of the Transport Sector in Delhi’s Air Quality: Key Drivers and Opportunities for Intervention Date: February 1, 2018
Speakers:
Amit Bhatt – Director of Integrated Urban Transport, WRI-India
Parthaa Bosu – Lead Consultant, Environment Defence Fund
Sumit Sharma – Fellow and Associate Director, Earth Science and Climate Change, TERI
Moderated by Mukta Naik – Senior Researcher, CPR
About the Seminar: Vehicular pollution has been a significant contributor to air pollution in India. This panel deliberated on key technical and policy drivers for the reduction and management of emissions from the transport sector, including the source composition of air pollution from transport, potential gains from changes in fuel standards and fuel types, and issues related to public transport and modal shares.
Selected excerpts from this discussion are available in the form of a written Q&A.
Crop Burning as a Source of Air Pollution in the National Capital Region Date: February 23, 2018
Speakers:
Dr. HS Sidhu – Senior Research Engineer, Borlaug Institute of South Asia
Pritam Singh Hanjra – Farmer from village Urlana Khurd, Panipat, Haryana
Dr. Rajbir Yadav – Principal Scientist, Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI)
Moderated by Harish Damodaran – Rural Affairs and Agriculture Editor, The Indian Express
About the Seminar: This discussion on crop residue burning as a source of air pollution explored the genesis of the problem, and touched upon some recent technological interventions intended to address the issue. It also discussed some of the key political, scientific, economic and social drivers that need to be considered while designing a long-term solution to crop residue burning. Selected excerpts from this discussion are available in the form of a written Q&A.
Municipal Solid Waste as a Cause of Air Pollution Date: March 7, 2018 Speakers:
Ravi Agarwal – Founder & Director of Toxics Link
Nalini Shekhar – Co-founder of Hasiru Dala
Dr. Seema Awasthi – Founder & Director of ICUC Consultants Pvt. Ltd
Moderated by Arkaja Singh – Fellow, Centre for Policy Research
About the Seminar: Solid waste burning is being recognised as a significant contributor to the deteriorating air quality in the NCR. This panel discussed some of the best practices on waste disposal that can help reduce exposure to airborne toxins from municipal solid waste. Some of the strategies suggested gave primacy to waste workers, whereas others emphasised technology, infrastructure and management. Selected excerpts from this discussion are available in the form of a written Q&A.
Campaigning for Air Quality: Lessons from Two Decades of Advocacy Date: April 12, 2018 Speakers:
Anumita Roychowdhury – Executive Director, Research & Advocacy, Centre for Science and Environment
In conversation with Navroz K Dubash – Senior Fellow, Centre for Policy Research
About the Seminar: Anumita Roychowdhury has been at the forefront of the clean air campaign in India for more than two decades. In this conversation, she discussed effective strategies to improve air quality regulation and governance, and reflected on some of the lessons learnt from shaping policy through deep government engagement and work with the courts. She also discussed the importance of strong institutions, evidence-based policy, and effective long-term implementation strategies to deal with poor air quality. Selected excerpts from this discussion are available in the form of a written Q&A.
Power Plants as a Source of Air Pollution in India Date: May 11, 2018 Speakers:
Vinuta Gopal – Co-founder & Director, Asar Social Impact Advisors
Priyavrat Bhati – Programme Director, Energy, Centre for Science & Environment
Ritwick Dutta – Environmental Lawyer & Founder, Legal Initiative of Forest & Environment
Moderated by Shibani Ghosh – Fellow, Centre for Policy Research
About the Seminar: Sulphates, nitrates, mercury and particulate matter emitted from power plants contribute significantly to air pollution in the country. The panel discussed the scale of the problem, described the governing regulatory eco-system, and analysed the policy formulation process for the 2015 emission norms, explaining why there was limited compliance. The speakers also deliberated on the role of the courts – the National Green Tribunal and the Supreme Court – in regulating pollution from power plants. Selected excerpts from this discussion are available in the form of a written Q&A.
Thick with Dust: Air Pollution in the National Capital Region Date: July 16, 2018 Speakers:
Dr. Umesh Chandra Kulshrestha – Professor, JNU, New Delhi
Dr. Anuradha Shukla – Chief Scientist, Central Road Research Institute
Mr. Sunil Agarwal – Founder and Managing Director, Black Olive Ventures
Moderated by Navroz K Dubash – Senior Fellow, Centre for Policy Research
About the Seminar: While dust is often seen as nothing more than an irritant, suspended particulate matter and other dust pollutants present very real threats to air quality, and create toxic respiratory conditions, particularly for vulnerable sections of the population like outdoor workers, children, and the elderly. This panel explored the environmental and health-related consequences of dust in the air, including the nature and scale of the dust problem, how climatic factors and increasing desertification contribute to the problem, and what changes need to be made to the regulatory environment.
Lessons from the Ground: Civic Engagement with Air Pollution Date: August 8, 2018 Speakers:
Dr. Rohit Negi – Associate Professor, Ambedkar University, Delhi
Ashutosh Dikshit – CEO, United Residents Joint Action, Delhi
Chetan Bhattacharji – Managing Editor, NDTV
Moderated by Dr. Navroz K. Dubash – Senior Fellow, Centre for Policy Research
About the Seminar: This panel analysed whether and how civil society has been able to constructively contribute to the public discourse on air pollution. It also explored ways in which it has been able to – or can potentially in future – influence policy change and ensure effective and sustained action on air quality regulation and governance.
India’s Smart Cities Mission (SCM) was launched by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs in 2015 to improve infrastructure, enhance service delivery, increase citizen engagement, and meet sustainability and inclusivity goals through institutional and technological innovations. Over the last seven years, the SCM has been gradually implemented in 100 cities, with varied experiences and trajectories. The core SCM policy has also substantially evolved in its push for cities to ensure digitalization of municipal services and infrastructures and collecting large urban data (Parkar and Purandare, Forthcoming). Alongside city-level implementations and policy, literature on the SCM have also been diverse and evolving.
Early work unravelled the multiple interpretations of smartness in policy (Khan et al. 2018; Praharaj and Han 2019), highlighted institutional restructuring and rescaling through the Special Purpose Vehicles (Taraporevala 2018), suggested postcolonial imagination of ‘speed’ or ‘fast urbanism’ through a digital turn (Datta 2018), or as technological fixes (Khan et al. 2018). More recent work has tried to evaluate various trajectories of city-level implementations (Prasad et al. 2021), particular SCM infrastructures such as Integrated Command and Control Centres (ICCC) (Praharaj 2020), or smart city responses to the pandemic (Datta et al. 2021) and suggested that the SCM drives fragmented placemaking projects (Prasad et al. 2022). Other literature has tried to unravel various actors such as consultants that are involved in the SCM from contributing to national policy to the ideation and implementation of city-level projects (Purandare 2021).
As the SCM approaches its end date in June 2023 and cities rush to finish projects, this workshop seeks to bring together varied strands of research that try to take stock of the mission. We invite papers that are interested in looking at the multiple facets of the SCM such as policy and legislation, governance institutions and their relations, networks of actors and agencies, implications of technologies and infrastructures implemented in various cities. We seek to organize papers through the following axes:
I. Governing Smart Cities: Actors, Institutions and Relationships of Power
The Smart City Mission introduced mandatory institutional conditions to plan and monitor projects. The creation of Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) and the recourse to Project Management Consultants (PMCs) are instrumental in reshaping the boundaries between the public and the private sector, modifying the balance between scales of government, and in disrupting existing power relationships between and within the bureaucratic, political, and civil society realms. Adding on, the growth of digital solutions is likely to cause long-lasting impacts on organisational cultures and professional practices, leading to transformations in decision-making processes. Considering these factors, we seek papers that critically look at governance shifts at work under the SCM.
How do we understand the SCM impacts on the relationships between different scales of government and on the capacities of existing municipal agencies?
How do the networks of private actors such as PMCs, system integrators, and vendors shape implementations of the smart city?
What is the role of civil society and political actors in Smart City governance?
How do service and data centralization exercises through the ICCC shape convergences between multiple city agencies? Does the SCM tackle the problem of departmental silos, or does it enhance it further?
How can we locate the SPV between conventional governance agencies? What are possible futures of the SPV in municipal governance? What have been the impacts of SPV on procurement, financial practices and asset management?
II. Infrastructures and the Production of Cities
Cities under the SCM have substantially spent funds on redevelopment, retrofitting, and improving urban infrastructure. At the same time, cities have also invested in digital infrastructure such as CCTV cameras, optical fibre cables, sensors, and data centres. The SCM also gave rise to a new hybrid form of infrastructure which combined classical urban infrastructure with digital components through projects such as smart poles and smart roads. Further, the projects under the SCM involve creation of multiple apps and platforms that deliver or manage municipal services through automation and analytics. In this context, we seek papers that engage with infrastructures created under the SCM.
How does the SCM perform in infrastructure delivery in comparison to previous and contemporary urban development programs?
How do we conceptualise newer forms of urban infrastructures created under the SCM?
What is the future of the SCM digital infrastructures within conventional municipal governance or under new forms of governance such as SPVs?
What are various spatial effects of infrastructuring and placemaking exercises under the SCM on city planning and allied practices?
III. Sustainability and Inclusivity in Smart Cities
One of the stated objectives of the SCM is to focus on sustainable and inclusive development by placing communities at the core of planning and implementation. It attempts to bring integrated and sustainable solutions through innovative methods and careful selection of technologies. Many cities under the SCM have proposals for the development of green and open spaces (Mundoli et al., 2017). Amidst recurring environmental catastrophes such as heatwaves, pollution crisis, and urban flooding, cities have also devised disaster management plans (Prasad and Alizadeh, 2020). There is focus on solar powered energy and emphasis towards a switch to LED light bulbs from incandescent, halogen and compact fluorescent lighting systems. There are also projects that promote active transport, dedicated bike lanes, and non-motorised and electric vehicles. In this background, we call for papers that focus on environmental aspects of the projects under the SCM.
What solutions do Smart Cities offer to global environmental challenges? How effective are these solutions?
How do the projects under the SCM address ecological and social concerns faced by the cities? What are the outcomes of such projects?
How do Smart Cities contribute towards reduction of carbon emissions and attaining sustainable development goals?
How is the technology leveraged to offer sustainable solutions? How do these solutions impact the people living in cities?
IV. Digital Democracy Futures
The SCM asks cities to engage with citizens in creating their proposals and implementing solutions that enhance participation. Notwithstanding questions of digital literacy, policy vocabulary suggests using digital tools to ensure transparency, bring about accountability and engage with communities, organisations, and academic networks. In light of this, cities deploy various digital solutions ranging from app-based taxation and licensing, online grievance redressal portals, to kiosks for accessing municipal services. At the same time, cities also make use of multiple surveillance systems such as CCTV networks and collect vast urban data through these infrastructures and platforms. With this understanding, we invite papers that address questions of democracy in the context of digitalization.
How have cities engaged with citizens in planning and implementing the SCM? What are the experiences in engaging with citizens groups, communities, and civil society?
In what ways digital interventions impact transparency and accountability in governance practices?
How has digitalization contributed to participatory processes of urban governance? What are its implications towards conventional offline access to elected representatives?
How does data collection and algorithmic automation shape citizen experiences? What are the impacts of surveillance systems created in the SCM?
What are the implications of datafication practices in the context of limited privacy laws and protections?
Workshop Details
The workshop will be conducted in a hybrid mode, but with a preference that participants are able to travel to Delhi to present their work in person. Partial funding may be available for participants who require travel support. We expect the papers presented in the workshop to lead to an edited volume.
If you are interested in participating in the workshop, please send your abstracts of between 250-300 words to smartcities@cprindia.org by 14 October 2022. Please indicate your full name, current affiliation, and whether you will prefer to participate online or in person. If you would require funding to travel to Delhi, please indicate that as well.
Timeline:
Deadline for submissions of abstracts: 14 October 2022
Selection of abstracts: 21 October 2022
Full papers due: 18 December 2022
Workshop: 17 & 18 January 2023
Convenors:
Gaurav Mittal (Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi)
Khaliq Parkar (CESSMA, IRD, Universite Paris Cite, Paris)
Marie-Helene Zerah (CESSMA, IRD, Universite Paris Cite, Paris)
References:
Datta, Ayona. 2018. “Postcolonial Urban Futures: Imagining and Governing India’s Smart Urban Age.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 37(3): 393–410.
———. 2021. “Apps, Maps and War Rooms: On the Modes of Existence of ‘COVtech’ in India.” Urban Geography 42(3): 382–90.
Khan, Sama, Persis Taraporevala, and Marie-Helene Zerah. 2018. “Mission Impossible Defining Indian Smart Cities.” Economic & Political Weekly 53(49): 80–88.
Mundoli, Seema, Hita Unnikrishnan, and Harini Nagendra. 2017. “The ‘Sustainable’ in Smart Cities: Ignoring the Importance of Urban Ecosystems.” Decision 44(2): 103–20.
Parkar, Khaliq, and Uttara Purandare. Forthcoming. “Decoding the Digitalization of Urban Governance in India: Policy, People and Processes of the Smart Cities Mission and the National Urban Digital Mission.” Centre for Policy Research: New Delhi, India.
Praharaj, Sarbeswar. 2020. “Development challenges for big data command and control centres for smart cities in India.” In Nimish Biloria (ed) Data-driven Multivalence in the Built Environment. 75–90. Springer.
Praharaj, Sarbeswar, and Hoon Han. 2019. “Cutting through the Clutter of Smart City Definitions: A Reading into the Smart City Perceptions in India.” City, Culture and Society 18:100289. 1–10.
Prasad, Deepti, and Tooran Alizadeh. 2020. “What Makes Indian Cities Smart? A Policy Analysis of Smart Cities Mission.” Telematics and Informatics 55:101466. 1–15.
Prasad, Deepti, Tooran Alizadeh, and Robyn Dowling. 2021. “Multiscalar Smart City Governance in India.” Geoforum 121: 173–80.
———. 2022. “Smart City Place-Based Outcomes in India: Bubble Urbanism and Socio-Spatial Fragmentation.” Journal of Urban Design 00(00): 1–21.
Purandare, Uttara. 2021. “Who Drives India’s Smart Cities? Understanding the Role Of Consulting Firms in the Smart Cities Mission.” In Chris Hurl and Anne Vogenpohl (eds) Professional Service Firms and Politics in a Global Era: Public Policy, Private Expertise. 79–96. Springer.
Taraporevala, Persis. 2018. “Demystifying the Indian Smart City.” Centre for Policy Research: New Delhi, India, 1-35.
Established in 1973, Centre for Policy Research is a non-profit, non-partisan independent institution, dedicated to conducting research that contributes to high quality scholarship, better policies and a more robust public discourse. As one of 24 research institutes of the Indian Council of Social Sciences Research network, CPR has all requisite approvals and sanctions, and is authorised by the government as a recipient under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act.
The Income Tax Department visited our office to undertake a survey of CPR on 7th and 8th September 2022. We have extended full cooperation to the department during the survey, and will continue to do so in the future.
We hold ourselves to the highest standards of compliance and are confident that we have done nothing wrong. We are committed to working with the authorities to address any questions they might have.
We remain committed to our mission to provide rigorous research to policy making in India.
On behalf of CPR:
Yamini Aiyar
President and Chief Executive
Centre for Policy Research
Watch this webinar series focusing on key challenges and solutions in reaching universal access to water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) services in South Asia. Produced in partnership with Athena Infonomics, Centre for Policy Research’s Scaling City Institutions for India Initiative (CPR SCI-FI), Sanitation and Water for All, UNICEF, Freshwater Action Network South Asia (FANSA) and IRC.
WASH access in South Asia
In the past five years, South Asia has made good progress on improving sanitation. Access to at least basic water services is now also relatively high across the region, ranging from 99% in Maldives to 75% in Afghanistan. However, the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target of universal access to safely managed sanitation is a long way off, with 2020 Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) data suggesting that more than half of households in India, Bangladesh and Nepal do not have access to safely managed sanitation. Similarly, the SDG target for universal access to safely managed water is also off the mark, most notably in Nepal, Pakistan, Bhutan and Afghanistan, where three quarters of households lack access.
The 2020 JMP data suggest large variation in basic access to hygiene services across South Asia, with 80% of people in Pakistan able to wash their hands with soap and water at home, compared with 58% in Bangladesh. For countries in the region to deliver on their commitments to provide safely managed water and sanitation services to all by 2030, strong political will and adequate financing are required.
The South Asia Dialogue Series on SDG 6 is a joint initiative by WaterAid, CPR SCI-FI, Sanitation and Water for All, UNICEF, Athena Infonomics, FANSA and IRC to encourage evidence-based lessons across the region to facilitate discussions and address the challenges hampering progress towards SDG 6 in South Asia. The webinar series focuses on key challenges and solutions in the areas of: strengthening municipal finances; access to safe and affordable WASH services, and the impact of climate change on these; data systems and monitoring progress; and gender inclusion.
As the sector evolves, innovative solutions are emerging to help address some of the most pertinent issues. We look forward to encouraging and facilitating further discussions on these.
Webinar 1: Municipal financing for sanitation in small towns.
Webinar 2: Fostering robust local data ecosystems for sustainable sanitation service delivery in cities of South Asia.
Read a summary of the key takeaways from the webinars here.
Ashwini K Swain is a Fellow at CPR’s Initiative on Climate, Energy and Environment (ICEE). His research interests include the political economy of electricity, the interface between energy service needs and climate mitigation goals, and the water-energy-food nexus, especially in the Indian context. He has also worked on public participation in service delivery, and has a keen interest in the political economy of India and political analysis. In this edition of CPR Faculty Speak, he talks about his work and interests at CPR, why they matter, what impact he hopes to achieve and more.
Tell us about your research work and interests at CPR.
At CPR, I am a part of the Initiative on Climate, Energy and Environment (ICEE) and work on the energy theme. My research interests include the political economy of electricity, energy transition and the water-energy-food nexus. My work is largely focused on India, with a thrust on the state-level political economy context and Centre-state relations.
Why does these issue interest you?
I was introduced to the electricity sector as a potential case study to understand Centre-state relations in India, when I was a Master’s student. I got an opportunity then (2005) to work as a research assistant with Navroz Dubash at the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy (NIPFP). While electricity reforms and policies at that point in India and globally sought to separate the political and economic content of electricity sector decisions, Navroz’s research highlighted why such depoliticisation is neither feasible nor desirable. My research interests are shaped by exposure to that analysis at an early stage in my career, along with my disciplinary training in political economy and personal experiences with electricity access.
In our subsequent research, we suggest that electricity sector dynamics cannot be understood independent of the broader political economy trends; we explain how well-designed reform interventions have failed to achieve the desired results due to a lack of engagement with political costs and opportunities. While techno-economic solutions are important, the path forward for Indian electricity lies in finding ways to generate more political payoffs from improving electricity.
How have these issues evolved in the country and globally over the years?
Over nearly two decades of my observation, there has been significant progress in electrical development in India. However, despite sustained interventions, chronic challenges like losses, financial insolvency and unreliable supply are persisting in the sector. On the other hand, driven by a complex set of developmental imperatives, technology cost considerations and climate mitigation considerations, India has embarked on a path to decarbonise its energy consumption through a transition to cleaner sources of energy. Simultaneously, there is a greater recognition of the limits of the 1990s reforms and the importance of political economic forces.
Together, these developments pose potentially disruptive consequences as well as an opportunity to address the 20th century electricity challenges while making a transition to a 21st century energy future.
What impact do you aim to achieve through your research?
Through my research, I seek to highlight the importance of getting energy politics right, explain state-specific political economy forces that shape energy policy decisions and outcomes, and facilitate data-driven and state-specific approaches to improve electricity access. My work seeks to stimulate engagement with political opportunities and constraints as part of the energy policy discussion in India and promote data-driven policy choices.
What does a typical day look like for you at CPR?
A good part of my day goes to responding to emails, project management responsibilities and meeting with people. I try to keep some time for brainstorming with colleagues, reading and writing. Post COVID-19, some of the external meetings have converted to online meetings, which is helpful for time management. CPR generally has an event every other day, which is useful to learn about research outside your area. I am glad that we are getting back to physical events in the building after two years of pandemic related disruptions. Finally, teatime chat with colleagues is the bright spot in my day. I generally look forward to being in the CPR building.
What are you currently working on and why is it important?
I am currently working with my colleagues on four areas to achieve impact.
First, we have been engaging with the national energy policy discussion to suggest approaches to align political conditions to the achievement of an energy transition.
Second, we are analysing the performance of private electricity discoms in Delhi and Odisha, experiences with micro-privatisation in electricity, and centrally-sponsored distribution reforms to stimulate a wider engagement with India’s electricity distribution future.
Third, our work on state-specific approaches to energy transition proposes pathways towards convergence between energy transition imperatives and developmental imperatives, particularly around rural productivity.
Fourth, in collaboration with Prayas (Energy Group) and WRI-India, we are developing and executing a state-level framework to assess plans, actions and governance processes towards an energy transition. Building evidence and narratives on energy transition governance is a necessary complement to the techno-economic discourse. Thus, this work aims to catalyse a quicker uptake of energy transition-related ambitions and actions by the states, and seeks to inspire a race to the top among state-level and local actors.
In addition, we have started working on a transition away from coal in India and its consequences. I am looking forward to a colleague joining us in September and taking that work forward.
To know more about Ashwin K Swain’s work, click here.
The Centre for Policy Research and C-Voter announce an exhaustive study on
‘The Past, Present & Future of Modern South Asia’
12th August 2022: August 1947 stands out as the most consequential month in the history of South Asia. It not only marked the transition of the region from a British colony, but also the partition of Punjab and Bengal to create Pakistan (and modern day Bangladesh). The joyous celebration of Independence was unfortunately marked by unprecedented levels of violence and torment. The aftermath of the partition led to the death of close to a million people and the displacement of several millions. There is a long shadow of the partition; the ramifications of it have impacted India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh’s political, economic, and social life till date.
The Past, Present & Future of Modern South Asia as a study aims to take a deep dive into the views of common citizens in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. This study is a result of a collaborative effort between two internationally reputed research centres – the Centre for Policy Research (CPR) and the C-Voter. It uses the historical canvas of the partition to paint a picture of what citizens of the once same socio-political geography but now independent sovereign nations are thinking and feeling today; and how they look at their future.
Talking about the study, Rahul Verma, Fellow at CPR said, “Home to approximately 20 percent of the global population, the fate of South Asia is relevant on an international scale. Hence, the study aims to act as a comprehensive tool for predicting the nature of South Asia’s future and understanding the impacts of the partition on not only the region’s socio-political and economic status but also its impact in a broader, international context.”
Explaining the study design, Yashwant Deshmukh, Founder of C-Voter said, “The targeted sample size of the study is 15,000 respondents – approximately 6000 citizens of India and 4500 citizens each in Pakistan and Bangladesh – in three waves. The findings of the study will be based on a large scale sample survey using CATI (computer assisted telephone interview) method.”
“The survey instrument has been designed to collect information on critical issues such as religious and social harmony, democratic institutions and their legitimacy, international political relations, and each country’s successes and failures since partition.” added Sutanu Guru, Executive Director, C-Voter Foundation.
The results of the survey would be disseminated through panel discussions, short country reports along with a comprehensive comparative report, newspaper commentaries, and an edited volume. The edited volume will carry 25-30 short essays based on the survey data collected through this study by scholars studying politics and society of these three countries.
For media queries and more information, please contact:
Speakers:
Mr Preman Dinaraj, Chairperson, Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission
Dr Ashwini K Swain, Fellow, CPR
Ms Arkaja Singh, Fellow, State Capacity Initiative, CPR
Dr Abha Yadav, Associate Professor, IICA and Director, FOIR
Chairperson’s engagement with the electricity sector
The term ‘regulator’ often conveys a negative connotation. It gives the impression that an organization will regulate everything and make things difficult (in a market). The audit department (my parent department) as well as the income tax department are viewed as necessary evils. I was lucky that I spent around 20-22 years outside the department and with the Government of India. I have also worked with the UN High Commission for Refugees, looking after the Great Lakes operation in East Africa, also with the Republic of Mauritius for 5 years, and the Government of New Zealand for 2 years. This probably pulled me out of the (traditional) regulatory framework. Typically, the KSERC is considered a very friendly regulator by the regulated entities (distribution licensees, power producers, even average consumers who come with complaints).
The KSERC has three Consumer Grievance Redressal Forums in different parts of the state. The state electricity ombudsman is also within our ambit. Generally speaking, in Kerala, the manner in which grievances are addressed has been satisfactory to a large extent.
I ventured into the power sector by accident. At one stage I was the Director (subsidy) of the Ministry of Food, looking after the Food Corporation of India. Obtaining a lateral shift within Delhi was a difficult (task). The Department of Atomic Energy at the time was looking for someone who could work on contracts, so I moved into this department as a Director. They initially gave me a choice between continuing as a Director in the Ministry (which is based in Mumbai, Maharashtra) or as General Manager (contracts) in the Nuclear Power Corporation. The latter seemed more attractive because at the time, the Director of a department (this was a department which was also a ministry) did not get a car whereas the General Manager (contracts) did.
Choosing this role turned out to be a wise decision because the intricacies of contract, the contracting law, disputes, redressal forums, and generally, the type of cases one comes across in (the field of) contract are unique.
After two years in this role, I was promoted. At the time, the negotiations for the Kudankulam-I and II contracts were in progress. These were intergovernmental agreements between the Government of India and the Government of Russia. I was the principal negotiator on behalf of the Government of India. At this point, I moved into the Board as Director, Personnel and Industrial relations, however, I had to carry on the job of continuing negotiations. There was a great deal of satisfaction that I was able to see the first concrete-pour as part of this project. At present, this project is generating 2000MW of electricity. It is a cheap source of electricity, at around Rs. 4.12 per unit. It is a baseload station, which means power is available 24×7. It is also a reliable, green power that does not damage the environment.
Mandate of the SERC
The establishment of the SERC flows from Section 86 of the Electricity Act 2003 which clearly and elaborately delineates the role of the SERCs. (These commissions) are essentially entrusted with central generating stations and central transmission units. They do not get into the distribution sector.
The problems in the electricity sector are (in fact) being faced by persons concerned with distribution. This is where the average consumer comes into the picture. Electricity is a very sensitive topic; governments are formed and sometimes even fall on the basis of electricity pricing. Free electricity has also been offered at the time of elections. Without getting into the political context of electricity distribution, the manner in which electricity regulators work in the states is akin to trapeze artists. There is certainly a safety net because regulators cannot be removed from their jobs. However, the pressures, demands, and expectations faced by state regulators are tremendous. The interests of the public which pays for services have to be balanced with the interests of a group of consumers who get subsidized services (for example, extra high-tension consumers). Apart from this, the policy direction of the state government has to be taken into account.
Subsidy is often easier said than availed. Subsidies are promised but there is always a shortage at the time of giving money. One also has to maintain financial viability as far as the distribution licensees are concerned. In Kerala, which is a small state, there are 10 distribution licensees, and two “deemed distributors” i.e. the railways and the military engineering service. Conflicting interests exist, and the regulator has to carry out this balancing to ensure that nobody, including the regulator collapses (under such weight). The regulator has a highly politicized sensitive role and it is quite easy for things to go wrong.
Structure of KSERC
SERCs as per the Electricity Act have a Chairman and two Members. Interestingly, the legislation does not say that only persons from the power sector or those with technical expertise are eligible. As per the Act, persons from engineering, management, law, etc. are also considered eligible. This is a very wide net and in essence, serves to bring in people with experience. Since these are practically end-of-life postings, it is very important at this stage to put in people who have the requisite experience, apart from qualification, and further, someone who can manage this (specific kind of) work. The biggest challenge as far as the state (regulatory) commission is concerned is the reactionary part – challenges are quite a common feature but not very easy to overcome.
Each (state) regulatory commission has their own organizational structure. At the Forum of Regulators, we are now trying to envisage a standardized model structure which we could use for at least the bigger regulatory commissions. As far as the north-eastern states are concerned, there is a resource constraint, and maybe even the number of cases and the quantity of work is relatively low. For the bigger regulators, however, like Kerala, which has 10 distribution licensees, there is a big work-load.
KSERC has two Directors and a Director (legal). There are three verticals now. The legal vertical is headed by the Member (legal) – we call him a consultant because he is a retired Additional Special Secretary from the government with about 38 years of experience in framing of laws and regulations, and interpreting them. Three persons work under the Director (legal). The technical vertical is headed by the Director (technical), who is a Deputy Chief Engineer from one of the utilities – in this case from Kerala State Electricity Board. Here, there is (scope for) a conflict of interest. Therefore, one of the first things we do is to orient the joinee specifically to ensure that once they have left an organization, past approaches can be unlearned and the regulatory approach is learnt. Without this orientation, the role of the regulator will get constrained. Under the Director (technical), we have a Joint Director, two consultants, and electrical engineers.
We are currently trying to venture into making market-appointments. In a recent commission meeting, we took a decision to not take persons on deputation since we need to have in-house talent which is oriented, nurtured and developed. Otherwise, there is going to be a fallback as far as the system is concerned. The job market is fairly difficult. Going from the post of a Director into a Member in the commission is fairly difficult. There is a logical reason for this – a person who has solely been in the regulatory framework, unfortunately, does not have any direct exposure. It is advantageous to be involved with electrical and mechanical systems. If persons constrain themselves within the regulator, they will only be exposed to cases and regulations which come up before them.
The initial appointments that are made are for consultants, who are electrical engineers with a B. Tech. degree and have 3-4 years of experience. The commission pays about Rs.35,000 – Rs.40,000 with a 10% raise every year. If in our evaluation system, someone is found to be not delivering, in spite of all the hand holding, the person will run into difficulty and be asked to leave. However, there have been very few instances of such kind. In fact, people have gone on to join the National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. and other power companies. Some of them have mentioned that working at KSERC has been advantageous.
Key functions and considerations for KSERC
Beginning with tariffs, we have a Multi Year Tariff (MYT) framework. Such a framework provides some sort of stability (for a period of 5 years) in order to encourage investment and give people some element of certainty. Kerala has recently announced the MYT for 2022-23 till 2026-27, but interestingly we have only brought out the tariff for one year. This is because what normally happens is that if you give the regulated entity a tariff for five years, the management of the entity thanks you and that is about it. Compliance with the regulatory framework does not happen because the entity has given whatever it had to for five years.
Secondly, in Kerala particularly, we place a lot of importance on efficiency. If the system is able to function in a way that betters the norms, then the extra gain is shared between the distribution licensees and the general public in a 2:1 ratio. However, if the entity is inefficient, we ensure that the inefficiency is not passed on to the consumers. If the entity exceeds the normative values we check into why that has happened, and if it is not found to be reasonable we ensure that this is not passed on to the consumer. This is one of the principles of tariff setting to ensure that optimum efficiency is achieved.
It is also important to ensure that quality power is delivered because entities can always save on cost. This occurs when entities do not undertake regular maintenance or do not replace equipment when necessary. This is why we ensure that repair and maintenance is not compromised. If we find that there is a significant fall as far as repair and maintenance expenditure is concerned, we immediately ask for reasons, and if we find that it is not satisfactory we give a direction saying this should be set right within a given time frame.
The second part of our job involves framing regulations or subordinate legislations, from which the tariffs flow. The original legislation is the Act. Thereafter, the KSERC has the powers to make rules, regulations or orders whereby the role expected of a regulator can be fulfilled in a free, fair, and independent manner.
The regulation-making process (followed by the KSERC) is as follows:
Regulations are framed.
Regulations are pre-published, i.e. they are put on the commission’s website. In instances where these are not too large, they are even published in newspapers.
Public hearings are held; these are usually well attended. As many as 300-500 people attended the most recent set of hearings held before the finalization of the MYT for the next five years. This is also a forum (for the public) to let-off steam. Several good suggestions, criticisms, and recommendations are noted.
A stakeholder consultation process is also held.
Once both sets of consultations (with the general public and industry stakeholders) are over, the commission sits down to frame regulations.
The Electricity Act gives the KSERC both civil and criminal jurisdiction. Further, the Chairperson in Kerala has been given the rank, status and benefits of a judge. Hence, the order so issued is termed a quasi-judicial order. (In my opinion), there is nothing quasi about it – it is a judicial order. Any challenge to it lies before the appellate tribunal. The only ground on which a regulation can be challenged is that due process was not followed in framing it. If it has been followed, there is no way that the court would intervene – we have witnessed this in multiple cases.
The third aspect of the regulator’s job is consumer grievances. We already have the Consumers Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) and the electricity ombudsman. If somebody does not carry out an order, beyond these two there is remedy under Section 142, which is basically non-compliance. Once someone files a petition claiming non-compliance, the commission looks into it.
Balancing market development and consumer protection roles
Kerala has achieved 100% electrification. Even the most far-flung hamlet has been electrified and to a large extent we have ensured there is supply. Electrification and supply are two different aspects. There is no point in saying that a little bulb worked for two hours and then there was no power for the next one week. This is where the quality of supply regulations come into the picture. There are specific norms for how long it should take for electricity to be restored, fines to be imposed, etc. People are very active (in the state) – they file petitions and even represent themselves.
The second aspect is the disconnect between the interests of consumers and those of distribution licensees. The use of electricity in farming – which in Kerala is mainly cash crops – is less than 2%, so it is quite minor. Domestic consumers dominate the total number of consumers in the state which stands at more than 1 crore consumers. Non-domestic consumers (low tension, high tension, and extra-high tension) account for only around 28-29 lakhs, out of the total. Actual consumption of electricity is up to 150 units on an average, for domestic consumers. The first 40 units are free for Below Poverty Line (BPL) families and certain other identified groups like the tribal population. The next 50 units are charged at Rs.1.50 per unit. Thereafter, there is a telescopic weighted slab system. So practically about 200 units per month for 85 lakh domestic consumers are highly subsidised. The actual realisation is about Rs.5.73 while the average cost of supply is in the range of Rs.6.80+. This revenue gap is made up from subsidizing consumers, but in Kerala there is not much of industrialization; so if you start taxing industries very heavily in terms of energy costs then they would run out. Hence, we ensure that by-and-large they remain within the +/- 20% range. Currently, they are 103% in the present tariff.
It is also our endeavour to see that the average cost of power supply comes down. We try to control this by ensuring that wasteful expenditure, unnecessary manpower and power purchase costs are reduced. The good news is that the KSEB has made, what we call, a regulatory operating profit. To be sure, their balance sheet does reflect a loss of Rs. 600-650 crores, although this is much less compared to the loss burden of Rs. 3000-3500 crores that they had 5 years back. Regulatory operating profit means that compared to the norms when the KSEB is regulated, they made a profit of 70 crores this year.
The mandate from the state government is to ensure quality, reliable power with 24×7 supply, and ensure that it reaches everywhere. The KSEB has been very efficiently fulfilling this task, as have the other suppliers. The other nine suppliers cater to specific groups, for example, Info Park caters to computer-based industries. There is a special economic zone, and the two municipalities supplying power – Munnar where Tata Tea has become the main consumer, and Thrissur municipality. Subsidy, in this context, is cross-subsidization. For example, the ‘subsidy’ for the 12,000 BPL families does not come from the state government, it is cross-subsidized. At the same time, the commission has to ensure the financial viability of the distribution licensees because without them there is no supply. Hence, the cross-subsidisation has to be reliable, reasonable and affordable. In Kerala, the cross-subsidizing groups are heavy industries. While commercial entities are taxed slightly more, the norms are relaxed – there has been no noise around the tariffs we came out with two weeks back.
The average increase has been in the range of Rs. 35-40 p per consumer. This comes to about Rs.45 a month for 80 lakh consumers, and 150 units per consumer. Now if you look at the Consumer Price Index (CPI) – Wholesale Price Index (WPI), where we do a weighted average of 70:30 between CPI and WPI respectively, the average inflation in the last three years (the last tariff revision given to KSEB was in July 2019) is 19.8% whereas the average increase we have permitted in the latest tariff revision is 6.7%. But even with 6.7%, by distributing this tariff increase across the board except the free consumers, we have ensured that KSEB is getting approximately Rs. 1000 crores more. Their balance sheet has a loss of Rs. 600-700 crores vis-à-vis contribution. This is going to be the first step in turning the KSEB into an operational profit entity from a loss-making one. Its accumulated loss is about Rs. 9000 crores, so the next task is to wipe this out.
Consumer participation in the regulatory process
Let me give you a concrete example. When we were floating an amendment to the Renewable Energy (RE) Regulations, the KSEB had a proposal to use gross billing rather than net billing. Usually, consumers are eligible for net billing for up to 1 megawatt. Wherever there is a facility for banking, if 50 units are produced and 40 units are consumed, then the consumer can bank the remaining 10 units. At the end of the year, the billing adjustment can be done.
For an overall net export there is an average power purchase cost and for a net import you pay for it. When the proposal came up, the KSERC was initially inclined towards it but there was public opposition. The main opposition was simple and logical – the Government of India (Ministry of Power and Ministry of New and Renewable Energy) was encouraging the setting up of rooftop solar, under a subsidy scheme called Surya, wherein for up to 3 kilowatts there is a 40% upfront subsidy deductible from the price paid to the installer, and between 3 and 10 kilowatts, there is a 20% subsidy. So, on the one hand the central government is trying to subsidize and incentivize the scheme. and on the other hand, the KSEB wants gross billing. Someone had even done the calculation and pointed out that an average consumer, due to his net import, gets between Rs.100-150. It was not worthwhile for distribution licensees to dip into the pockets of 2,00,000 consumers just to take out Rs.150 each. This was an important contribution from the public.
Similarly, when we brought out the RE regulations, multiple issues were aired, such as not fixing a time-frame for when the grid will be connected and metered after the system is energized. When we held public hearings, people came and said the time-frame in this instance should not be more than 7 days. This was debated and now we have restricted it to 6 working days. Additionally, there is a sentimental aspect to democratic decentralization such that the average person gets to air their grievances in public forums.
Unbundling of the electricity sector
At the time when the Electricity Act was being passed, the Kerala government said that they do not want a trifurcation of power companies. However, from a regulatory standpoint, the (then) chairperson of the commission had insisted that there should be three separate vertically unintegrated units. Thus, even though the KSEB has both generation and distribution functions, they have separate accounts as far as the regulator is concerned, though they may integrate for balance sheet purposes. The KSEB calls them Standalone Basic Units (SBUs) – so there is a separate SBU for generation, SBU for transmission, and for distribution. As such, we get our accounts in three separate audited accounts.
I do not know if an integrated model is the best but one advantage it has is that talent flows across. If somebody is in the transmission business their entire life, they do not get exposure beyond that sector. However, in KSEB, there is cross-transferability as far as the officers and staff are concerned. Due to different verticals, everyone gets a chance to work everywhere and there is knowledge dissipation.
Federal aspect of regulation – mechanisms for coordination and cooperation
I will talk about two dimensions – (i) the regulated-regulator interaction, and (ii) the regulator-policy maker interaction, where the policy maker is the government of the day. The legislature gives us the policy, whereas the regulator engages in formulating subordinate legislation.
There is a need for the commissions to cooperate and talk to each other. This is where the Forum of Indian Regulators (FOR) comes in. FOIR meetings are quite heated – there is a lot of discussion and difference of opinions but these discussions are very elaborate. Every decision of the FOIR is thus thoroughly considered.
The relationship between the regulator and state government is tricky at times. Section 107 and 108 empower the union and state governments respectively to give directions to the commission. For instance, they will direct us to reduce the tariff by 50%. They have invoked this power twice in my tenure. The first approach here is to tell the minister that they cannot do this since tariff-setting is not their job. Depending on the person (and their advisors), the minister may or may not listen. If the minister does not listen, it is a personal call to defy. The chairperson’s job is not (typically) at stake. Further, there are at least two or three decisions of the appellate tribunals and Supreme Court which hold that directions under Section 108 are in the nature of recommendations – if the commission feels that the direction does not fulfil the requirements considered essential by it, it can reject the direction. We have done this in a polite fashion, after explaining our stance, and said that before issuing directions they should consult us since there is no need for confrontation. The state government in our case has been very cooperative. (At present), we have one of the best electricity ministers who understands things and does not interfere. This helps a lot, depending on the personality of the people involved. There is no day-to-day relationship or coordination between the central government and state regulators, however, there are meetings where the regulators are up-front in stating their points of view.
On the point of certain resources like coal being owned by the central government and reliance of states on these resources leading to tensions, every power purchase is governed by a contract between the generating company. So, strictly speaking, there is no scope for the central government to interfere in the day-to-day functions of the company. Secondly, the supply of electricity to a distribution licensee like the KSEB is again governed by a contract. In my experience at least, the central government cannot interfere with the supply of power since it is governed by the power purchase agreement. Thirdly, there has been (some) conflict but fortunately Kerala did not have any thermal power plants, or else there would have been some difficulty because coal import, coal allocation, and prioritisation would have come in. In Kerala, we consume approximately 24,000-25,000 million units annually, of which 30-35% is produced in-house and most of it is hydel, with a very small contribution from solar (rooftop solar and a few solar plants) and a not very significant contribution from wind power. While we did not come into conflict, there is scope for it in the broader framework, and my suggestion is to talk to the concerned persons. When a distribution company talks to the generator, the former is in a relative position of weakness since the generator can cut the former off. Here, the support of the regulator might be useful.
Views on a nationally integrated market for electricity
While the concept of one nation one price is excellent, one has to talk in terms of uniform electricity pricing at the level of the generator. Many of the new plants are more expensive and sell at rates higher than older, depreciated plants. If you mill these together there will be a net reduction especially for the large generators. So before thinking about single pricing for electricity we need to think about a single generational pricing.
Secondly, the conflict between the Ministry of Power and SERCs is pertinent and has come up for discussion before the FOIR. This is especially because an order of the Ministry of Power, even if under Section 179 of the Electricity Act, is an executive order and not subordinate legislation. As such, it does not have to go through the pre-publication process. Even if it did, it cannot count as subordinate legislation, since it is clearly defined who can make subordinate legislation. On the other hand, every regulation, rule and order of the commission is subordinate legislation, done for and on behalf of the concerned legislature (here, the Parliament). This conflict is being discussed (in) the FOIR. In the last one year, the stand has been that if you cannot implement something, do not implement but avoid a confrontation. If and when the matter becomes an issue, the courts can decide whether an executive order or a subordinate legislation takes precedence. I think this issue will play out in the long run and probably be settled by the courts.
Role of the regulator in the energy transition
Kerala does not have any thermal plants, so to that extent we are relatively far from the fossilization effect and its impact on climate change. 30% of power sources in Kerala are hydro and all the new plants are either wind or solar based. We will not have the problem of retiring older thermal plants – we had two of them, one was a BSES plant that retired in 2012 and a NTPC plant in Kayamkulam where they have put up 82 MW of floating solar power (over 200 acres of backwaters) – 40MW is already being produced. The commission-determined rate is Rs.3.16.
Regarding the role of the regulator, there is a proposed amendment to the Electricity Act to de-license distribution. I anticipate that the major private players will concentrate on urban areas, which will place the SEB under a lot of stress since it does not distinguish between consumers based on the urban/rural criterion. De-licensing will disable the regulator from stepping in and ensuring a level playing field. If there is no requirement for the licensing of distribution companies and if as a matter of right they can utilize open access then that is going to be a very big challenge. It will lead to many disputes which will affect the sustainability of every SEB. This is a big challenge.
Kerala is yet to comply with the Renewable Purchase Obligation (RPO). After much deliberation, the KSERC had given a RPO target lower than the MNRE target but that was also not fulfilled. However, in the last three years, this situation has turned around. Kerala is now expecting about 1000MW of rooftop solar. They have contracted for 800MW of wind, solar and other renewable sources, and they are thinking of setting up another four generators in Idukki to generate another 850MW. Complying with RPO may not be a problem for Kerala in the near future. Even Tamil Nadu is in excess of its RPO because they have got a huge element of wind, and Karnataka too in terms of solar and hydro power. Similarly, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh will not have a RPO problem. The issue is going to be the effect on the transmission system especially with reference to maintaining the frequency. This has been discussed at the FOIR. The technical committee has been addressing it, suggesting various solutions like having a spinning reserve to ensure that frequency is maintained at all points of time. The challenge is that no one wants to offer their plant as a spinning reserve, especially the hydro ones, since they can come on stream at the shortest possible time. Secondly, everyone wants the benefit but does not want to offer their backyard. Hence, some solution needs to be hammered out between the states regarding where spinning reserves can be set up and how costs are to be borne.
Demand Side Management (DSM) is a function for the concerned utility. Kerala has been doing this to some extent. The actual challenge of DSM comes in during the peak hours, which in Kerala is from 6 pm – 10 pm. We have not agreed to the demand of increasing it to 5 pm – 11 pm. We have excluded domestic consumers, and for others we have already installed TOD meters.
Now, with the introduction of the smart meters, we would expect that the high-paying consumers at least install them. There was a proposal to install smart meters throughout the state on an operational expenditure model and the company had said that the cost would be about Rs. 140 to 142 per consumer per month. This is a big difference compared with Rs. 7 which is currently being paid by the consumer. So, while we welcome smart meters, it has to be implemented phase-wise. It has to begin with the higher paying consumers. In fact most of the higher paying consumers, especially the high-tension industries, who are on TOD, have been demanding that the electricity pricing should be on the basis of voltage. They should be willing to spend money on smart meters now. According to them, their TOD meters will need some software change to address this issue. We are however hoping to slowly move into smart meters and that DSM will be managed by the distribution company. There will be several incentives and disincentives in terms of DSM to ensure that there is not too much peak load.
Interface between the KSERC and projects like Smart City
I am really confused about the concept, purpose or mission of smart cities. There is no exchange of information between the commission and the electricity board because the essence of any distribution licensee is the licensing area – whatever we are now trying to do is well within these smart cities. For instance, in the case of KSEB, any capital expenditure over Rs. 10 crores requires the approval of the commission. So, if any of these smart city projects exceeds the Rs. 10 crores investment – which I estimate it will – there will be some interaction with us. For instance, in Thiruvananthapuram, the smart city project has started trenching. The city has cables (telephone, ethernet) all over the place and nobody has a map, so you do not know where to begin and where to dig. They are trying to trench and this is a facility for everyone, so there will be a user charge which will either get charged by the corporation or the smart city project. This is going to cost more than Rs. 10 crores. KSEB has filed a position saying we are doing this under the smart city project. As far as funding is concerned, I believe some funds are flowing from the smart city project, some from either state government’s or KSEB’s funds. Wherever in the pricing of tariff, if anything comes free either by way of a grant or of a consumer contribution, it is not allowed as part of the tariff. For other smart city projects, they have unfortunately not been doing well and are running at a huge loss, as is the electricity business. They have not got what they anticipated, perhaps because of Covid etc, but things are not looking good.
