MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_01C72F36.1BB3DBE0" This document is a Single File Web Page, also known as a Web Archive file. If you are seeing this message, your browser or editor doesn't support Web Archive files. Please download a browser that supports Web Archive, such as Microsoft Internet Explorer. ------=_NextPart_01C72F36.1BB3DBE0 Content-Location: file:///C:/E08BA2B3/Review_FaultyMeters.htm Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" APERC -- Review of Faulty Meters

AP ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

 

 

REGULATORY INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

QUALITY OF SERVICE

 

ANALYSIS OF THE REPORT ON

‘FAULTY METERS’

 

 

****

 <= /span>

 

(1)   = Standard: The Licensee shall maintai= n the percentage of defective meters to the total number of meters in service, at a value not greater than 3%.

 

(2)   = Data Availability:  Data furnished by the DISCOMs is not consistent for all the months in terms= of circles covered and also data furnished does not cover all the EROs.  Circle-wise, month-wise data availability is furnished hereunder:

CPDCL

Na= me of the Circle (Total Number of EROs)<= /span>

Mo= nth

AT= P
(17)

HY= D-C
(4)

HY= D-N
(5)

HY= D-S
(3)

Kurnool
(11)

MB= NR
(17)

MD= K
(5)

NL= G
(15)

RR= (N)
(4)

RR= (S)
(4)

To= tal
(85)

% = EROs covered

Apr'05

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

4<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

9<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

4<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

17=

20= .00

May'05

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

4<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

12=

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

4<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

20=

23= .53

Jun'05

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

4<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

16=

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

3<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

23=

27= .06

Jul'05

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

4<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

16=

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

4<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

24=

28= .24

Aug'05

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

16=

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

16=

18= .82

Sept'05

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

0<= o:p>

0.= 00

Oct'05

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

0<= o:p>

0.= 00

Nov'05

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

1<= o:p>

2<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

1<= o:p>

8<= o:p>

3<= o:p>

3<= o:p>

18=

21= .18

Dec'05

3<= o:p>

3<= o:p>

1<= o:p>

3<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

16=

2<= o:p>

8<= o:p>

4<= o:p>

3<= o:p>

43=

50= .59

Jan'06

13=

3<= o:p>

1<= o:p>

3<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

17=

2<= o:p>

8<= o:p>

4<= o:p>

3<= o:p>

54=

63= .53

Feb'06

13=

3<= o:p>

1<= o:p>

3<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

13=

2<= o:p>

8<= o:p>

4<= o:p>

3<= o:p>

50=

58= .82

Mar'06

13=

3<= o:p>

1<= o:p>

3<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

13=

1<= o:p>

8<= o:p>

4<= o:p>

3<= o:p>

49=

57= .65

Av= erage for 2005-06

4<= o:p>

1<= o:p>

2<= o:p>

1<= o:p>

0<= o:p>

11=

1<= o:p>

3<= o:p>

3<= o:p>

1<= o:p>

26=

&n= bsp;

20= .6%

25= .0%

35= .0%

38= .9%

0.= 0%

62= .7%

13= .3%

22= .2%

70= .8%

31= .3%

30= .8%

 

 

 

 

 

EP= DCL

 

NP= DCL

Na= me of the Circle (Total Number of EROs)<= /span>

 

Na= me of the Circle (Total Number of EROs)<= /span>

Mo= nth

El= uru (7)

RJ= Y
(8)

SK= LM
(4)

VS= P
(5)

VZ= M
(3)

To= tal
(27)

% = EROs covered

 

AB= D
(5)

Ka= rim (10)

KH= AM
(8)

NZ= M
(8)

WG= L
(13)

To= tal
(44)

% = EROs covered

Apr'05

7<= o:p>

8<= o:p>

4<= o:p>

5<= o:p>

2<= o:p>

26=

96= .30

 

-<= o:p>

9<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

8<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

17=

38= .64

May'05

7<= o:p>

1<= o:p>

4<= o:p>

4<= o:p>

1<= o:p>

17=

62= .96

 

-<= o:p>

9<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

8<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

17=

38= .64

Jun'05

7<= o:p>

1<= o:p>

4<= o:p>

5<= o:p>

1<= o:p>

18=

66= .67

 

-<= o:p>

9<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

6<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

15=

34= .09

Jul'05

7<= o:p>

8<= o:p>

4<= o:p>

5<= o:p>

3<= o:p>

27=

10= 0.00

 

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

0<= o:p>

0.= 00

Aug'05

7<= o:p>

8<= o:p>

4<= o:p>

5<= o:p>

3<= o:p>

27=

10= 0.00

 

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

6<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

6<= o:p>

13= .64

Sept'05

7<= o:p>

8<= o:p>

4<= o:p>

5<= o:p>

3<= o:p>

27=

10= 0.00

 

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

6<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

6<= o:p>

13= .64

Oct'05

7<= o:p>

8<= o:p>

4<= o:p>

3<= o:p>

3<= o:p>

25=

92= .59

 

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

6<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

6<= o:p>

13= .64

Nov'05

1<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

4<= o:p>

5<= o:p>

3<= o:p>

13=

48= .15

 

2<= o:p>

9<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

5<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

16=

36= .36

Dec'05

1<= o:p>

1<= o:p>

4<= o:p>

5<= o:p>

2<= o:p>

13=

48= .15

 

-<= o:p>

9<= o:p>

6<= o:p>

5<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

20=

45= .45

Jan'06

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

4<= o:p>

5<= o:p>

2<= o:p>

11=

40= .74

 

5<= o:p>

9<= o:p>

6<= o:p>

8<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

28=

63= .64

Feb'06

2<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

4<= o:p>

5<= o:p>

3<= o:p>

14=

51= .85

 

-<= o:p>

9<= o:p>

6<= o:p>

8<= o:p>

5<= o:p>

28=

63= .64

Mar'06

3<= o:p>

8<= o:p>

4<= o:p>

5<= o:p>

3<= o:p>

23=

85= .19

 

4<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

6<= o:p>

8<= o:p>

7<= o:p>

25=

56= .82

Av= erage for 2005-06

5<= o:p>

4<= o:p>

4<= o:p>

5<= o:p>

2<= o:p>

20=

 

 

1<= o:p>

5<= o:p>

4<= o:p>

5<= o:p>

1<= o:p>

15=

&n= bsp;

66= .7%

53= .1%

10= 0.0%

95= .0%

80= .6%

74= .4%

 

 

18= .3%

52= .5%

43= .8%

58= .3%

7.= 7%

34= .8%

 

 

SPDCL

Na= me of the Circle (Total Number of EROs)<= /span>

Mo= nth

GN= T
(15)

KD= P
(14)

NL= R (15)

OG= L
(12)

TP= T
(15)

VJ= A
(16)

To= tal
(87)

% = EROs covered

Apr'05

4<= o:p>

8<= o:p>

1<= o:p>

9<= o:p>

2<= o:p>

7<= o:p>

31=

35= .63

May'05

6<= o:p>

7<= o:p>

4<= o:p>

9<= o:p>

7<= o:p>

10=

43=

49= .43

Jun'05

6<= o:p>

8<= o:p>

4<= o:p>

9<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

9<= o:p>

36=

41= .38

Jul'05

5<= o:p>

8<= o:p>

4<= o:p>

9<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

9<= o:p>

35=

40= .23

Aug'05

3<= o:p>

8<= o:p>

3<= o:p>

9<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

9<= o:p>

32=

36= .78

Sept'05

3<= o:p>

8<= o:p>

3<= o:p>

9<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

9<= o:p>

32=

36= .78

Oct'05

5<= o:p>

8<= o:p>

3<= o:p>

9<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

9<= o:p>

34=

39= .08

Nov'05

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

0<= o:p>

0.= 00

Dec'05

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

-<= o:p>

0<= o:p>

0.= 00

Jan'06

6<= o:p>

7<= o:p>

5<= o:p>

10=

10=

11=

49=

56= .32

Feb'06

6<= o:p>

10=

7<= o:p>

10=

10=

11=

54=

62= .07

Mar'06

6<= o:p>

10=

7<= o:p>

10=

10=

11=

54=

62= .07

Av= erage for 2005-06

4<= o:p>

7<= o:p>

3<= o:p>

8<= o:p>

3<= o:p>

8<= o:p>

33=

&n= bsp;

27= .8%

48= .8%

22= .8%

64= .6%

21= .7%

49= .5%

38= .3%

 

 

 

 

 

 

As against the total number of 243 EROs in the four DISCOms,= the data for EROs furnished by the DISCOMs month-wise are as follows:

 

Month<= /p>

CPDCL<= /p>

EPDCL<= /p>

NPDCL<= /p>

SPDCL<= /p>

Total<= /p>

EROs covered in percentage<= /o:p>

(Total-85)=

(Total-27)=

(Total-44)=

(Total-87)=

(Total-243)

A= pr'05

17

26

17

31

91

37.45%

M= ay'05

20

17

17

43

97

39.92%

J= un'05

23

18

15

36

92

37.86%

J= ul'05

24

27

0

35

86

35.39%

A= ug'05

16

27

6

32

81

33.33%

S= ept'05

0

27

6

32

65

26.75%

O= ct'05

0

25

6

34

65

26.75%

N= ov'05

18

13

16

0

47

19.34%

D= ec'05

43

13

20

0

76

31.28%

J= an'06

54

11

28

49

142

58.44%

F= eb'06

50

14

28

54

146

60.08%

M= ar'06

49

23

25

54

151

62.14%

Average for 2005-06

26

20

15

33

95

 

30.8%<= /p>

74.1%<= /p>

34.8%<= /p>

38.3%<= /p>

39.1%<= /p>

 

 

Maximum of 62.14% EROs covered in the month of Mar’06 and a minimum of 19.34% EROs covered in the month of Nov’05, across all= the DISCOMs.

 

(3) Level of Faulty mete= rs :: =  As per the data available, the DISC= OM –       = ;  Month-wise percentage faulty meters are as follows:

 

 

Month

CPDCL

EPDCL

NPDCL

SPDCL

Percentage Faulty Meters

Apr'05

0.32

0.33

2.40

0.50

May'05

0.27

0.79

1.59

0.38

Jun'05

0.30

0.65

1.73

0.35

Jul'05

0.40

0.46

-

0.44

Aug'05

0.43

0.55

0.72

0.38

Sept'05

-

0.62

0.80

0.35

Oct'05

-

0.46

0.79

0.31

Nov'05

0.55

1.30

1.03

-

Dec'05

0.46

1.24

0.75

-

Jan'06

0.53

1.79

0.90

0.28

Feb'06

0.37

1.10

1.58

0.26

Mar'06

0.42

1.15

2.54

0.28

Average for 2005-06=

0.41

0.87

1.35

0.35

 

  &nb= sp;         It may be seen that the percentage faulty meters is well below the specified standard of 3% for all the months across all the four = DISCOMs.

 

(4) For the following EROs the percentage faulty meters exceeded the specif= ied standard of 3%.

DISCOM

ERO

Month

% Faulty

 Meters

CPDCL

Kodangal

July

3.65%

Alampur

Dec

Jan

4.19%

4.55%

Gadwal

Dec

Jan

4.01%

4.00%

EPDCL

Srikakulam=

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

3.42%

7.02%

3.17%

4.38%

5.54%

5.59%

6.49%

Tekkali

Nov

4.06%

Narsipatnam

Jan

3.77%

 

(5) The level of faulty meters is = almost negligible in a few EROs.

=  

Number of EROs for which negligible faulty meters leve= l is reported

Month

CPDCL

EPDCL

NPDCL

SPDCL

Total

Apr’05

2

11

2

5

20

May’05

2

2

2

6

12

Jun’05

2

2

1

4

9

Jul’05

4

9

-

3

16

Aug’05

-

10

1

4

15

Sept’05

-

10

2

5

17

Oct’05

-

10

2

4

16

Nov’05

8

3

1

-

12

Dec’05

11

4

-

-

15

Jan’06

6

2

-

26

34

Feb’06

8

3

2

30

43

Mar’06

9

4

1

26

40

 

(6) Data inconsistency and data aberrations : The percentage of faulty meters is the percenta= ge of faulty meters over the meters in service.&= nbsp; The meters in service shown for the ERO’s is not consistent in all the month= s, with huge variations.  An exam= ple of Sainikpuri and Hubsiguda EROs of CPDCL are shown below. 

 

Name of ERO

Month

Meters in Service

Sainikpuri=

July

99,075

Nov

6,84,700

Dec

2,65,964

Jan

3,62,462

Feb

2,62,898

Mar

3,44,690

Habsiguda<= span style=3D'font-family:Arial'>

July

91,888

Nov

4,17,416

Dec

2,08,708

Feb

2,08,708

Mar

1,27,996

 

 

(7) The status of coverage of sect= ions in the EROs of the four DI= SCOMs is given below:

 

Month

CPDCL (482)=

EPDCL (261)=

NPDCL (285)=

SPDCL (444)=

Total (1472)

No. of sections covered<= /o:p>

Percentage<= /p>

No. of sections covered<= /o:p>

Percentage<= /p>

No. of sections covered<= /o:p>

Percentage<= /p>

No. of sections covered<= /o:p>

Percentage<= /p>

No. of sections covered<= /o:p>

Percentage<= /p>

Ap= ril'05

80

16.60%

199

76.25%

97

34.04%

167

37.61%

543

36.89%

Ma= y'05

92

19.09%

145

55.56%

96

33.68%

266

59.91%

599

40.69%

Ju= n'05

105

21.78%

155

59.39%

81

28.42%

225

50.68%

566

38.45%

Ju= l'05

105

21.78%

215

82.38%

0

0.00%

211

47.52%

531

36.07%

Au= g'05

60

12.45%

204

78.16%

41

14.39%

200

45.05%

505

34.31%

Se= pt'05

0

0.00%

219

83.91%

47

16.49%

188

42.34%

454

30.84%

Oc= t'05

0

0.00%

204

78.16%

42

14.74%

214

48.20%

460

31.25%

No= v'05

98

20.33%

110

42.15%

111

38.95%

0

0.00%

319

21.67%

De= c'05

212

43.98%

104

39.85%

137

48.07%

0

0.00%

453

30.77%

Ja= n'06

256

53.11%

90

34.48%

177

62.11%

307

69.14%

830

56.39%

Fe= b'06

243

50.41%

116

44.44%

181

63.51%

333

75.00%

873

59.31%

Ma= r'06

220

45.64%

194

74.33%

171

60.00%

336

75.68%

921

62.57%

Average for 2005-06

123

25.43%

163

62.42%

98

34.53%

204

45.93%

588

39.93%

 

 

 

 

 

(8) The above analysis reveals the following features;

 

= (a)   &= nbsp;    Reg= ulatory

 

Th= e DISCOMs are maintaining faulty meters level well with= in the 3% standard specified by the Commission.&n= bsp;

A = separate analysis will be given on the response of Licensee to the meter related com= plaints of the consumers.

 

(b)   &= nbsp;   Organisational:

(i)          &nb= sp;      The data of faulty meters is maintained in t= he EROs through the status of meter noted by the meter r= eader in the bill.  But the coverage= of EROs is poor and varies from 18 to 64% in CPDCL, from= 13 to 64% in NPDCL and from 35 to 62% in SPDCL, which is not satisfactory. 

(ii)          &n= bsp;    The highest coverage of EROs is in EPDCL, which varies from 48% to 100% in different months. 

(iii)          &= nbsp;  Within the EROs = it is observed that the coverage of sections varies from 21.67% in November’= ;05 to 62.57% in March’06.  = The EPDCL has the highest coverage of sections (62.42%) in the reports of EROs.

(iv)   =            There is h= uge data inconsistency and data aberrations which are to be attended and streamlined and improvement is expected in    2006-07 reports. 

 

 

 

SECRETARY

 

REGULATORY INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

QUALITY OF SERVICE

 

ANALYSIS OF THE REPORT ON=

‘METER RELATED COMPLAINTS’

 

****

 

(I) Standard:

 = ;

<= span style=3D'font-family:Arial'>  &nb= sp;         (a) Time frame

<= span style=3D'font-family:Arial'> 

(i) Inspection for checking correctness of       meter

-

within 7 days in towns and cities and within 15 day= s in rural areas.

(ii) Replaceme= nt of Meter if it is      <= /span>defective

        = ;    (stuck up, slow/ fast, creeping  etc.)

-

within 15 days thereafter.

(iii) Replacem= ent of burnt meters

(i)            &n= bsp;    due to causes attributable to Licencee.

(ii)     &nbs= p;         Due to c= auses attributable to consumer.

 

-

 

-

 

within 7 days<= o:p>

 

within 7 days = of payment of cost of meter

 = ;

(b)  Liability to bear the cost of burnt meter:=

(i)          &nb= sp;      At Lic= ensees cost - if the burning of meter is due to causes attributable to the License= e like high voltage, loose contacts, aging of meter etc.

(ii)   =             At consumer’s cost - If the meter is burnt due to causes attributable to= the consumer such as tampering, defect in consumer’s installation, meter getting wet, connecting unauthorized additional load by the consumer, etc.<= b>

(iii)          &= nbsp;  The Li= censee shall serve a notice to the consumer for recovery of cost of the meter with= in 7 days of detection and shall replace the meter within 7 days of receiving the payment from the consumer and after necessary corrective action is taken to avoid future damage to the meter.

 

(c) Compensation for default:=

The Licensee has to pay compensation to the con= sumer @ Rs.50/- for each day of default beyond the specified period.

 (= II) Data Availability - Reporting performance :=   Data furnished by the DISCOMs is not consistent for all the months in terms of circles covered and also data furnished does not cover all the Section Offices.  Circle-wise, month-wise data availability is furnished hereunder:

(i) CPDCL

Nam= e of the Circle (Total Number of Sections)

Mon= th

ATP=
(79)

HYD= -C
(27)

HYD= -N
(33)

HYD= -S
(28)

Kurnool
(57)

MBN= R
(68)

MDK=
(53)

NLG=
(66)

RR = (N)
(32)

RR = (S)
(39)

Tot= al
(482)

% Sections covered

Apr'05

-

-

14<= o:p>

-

-

29<= o:p>

-

50<= o:p>

18<= o:p>

-

111=

23.= 03

May'05

-

-

14<= o:p>

-

-

25<= o:p>

-

51<= o:p>

7

-

97<= o:p>

20.= 12

Jun'05

-

-

14<= o:p>

-

-

26<= o:p>

-

45<= o:p>

23<= o:p>

-

108=

22.= 41

Jul'05

-

-

14<= o:p>

-

-

48<= o:p>

1

57<= o:p>

23<= o:p>

-

143=

29.= 67

Aug'05

-

-

-

-

-

47<= o:p>

-

54<= o:p>

-

-

101=

20.= 95

Sept'05

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

50<= o:p>

-

-

50<= o:p>

10.= 37

Oct'05

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0

0.0= 0

Nov'05

-

-

8

14<= o:p>

-

-

4

20<= o:p>

18<= o:p>

17<= o:p>

81<= o:p>

16.= 80

Dec'05

13<= o:p>

6

9

23<= o:p>

-

35<= o:p>

9

22<= o:p>

30<= o:p>

21<= o:p>

168=

34.= 85

Jan'06

36<= o:p>

9

9

26<= o:p>

-

35<= o:p>

3

20<= o:p>

30<= o:p>

20<= o:p>

188=

39.= 00

Feb'06

44<= o:p>

8

9

21<= o:p>

-

35<= o:p>

5

21<= o:p>

26<= o:p>

17<= o:p>

186=

38.= 59

Mar'06

48<= o:p>

16<= o:p>

-

16<= o:p>

-

33<= o:p>

4

12<= o:p>

26<= o:p>

16<= o:p>

171=

35.= 48

Ave= rage for 2005-06

12<= o:p>

3

8

8

0

26<= o:p>

2

34<= o:p>

17<= o:p>

8

117=

&nb= sp;

14.= 9%

12.= 0%

23.= 0%

29.= 8%

0.0= %

38.= 4%

4.1= %

50.= 8%

52.= 3%

19.= 4%

24.= 3%

 

 

<= o:p> 

·= ;      =   There is no report from Kurnool = Circle during the entire year, a glaring default of Kurnool Circle. 

·= ;      =   The highest level of reporting is from RR (N) circle, at 52.3%. 

·= ;      =   It may be observed that the level of reporting has generally picked up from November 2005, after streamlining of the problems in data transmission.

 

 

 

 

(ii) EPDCL =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;            =   (iii) NPDCL

Name of the Circle (Total Num= ber of Sections)

 <= /p>

Name of the Circle (Total Num= ber of Sections)

Month

Eluru
(66)

RJY
(73)

SKLM
(37)

VSP
(59)

VZM
(26)

Total
(261)

% Sections covered=

 <= /p>

ABD
(48)

Karim
(65)

KHAM
(50)

NZM
(51)

WGL
(71)

Total
(285)

% Sections covered=

Ap= r'05

2

20

15

51

10

98

37.55

 

-

-

-

-

-

0

0.00

Ma= y'05

3

24

13

49

8

97

37.16

 

-

-

-

-

-

0

0.00

Ju= n'05

1

21

-

-

-

22

8.43

 

-

-

-

-

-

0

0.00

Ju= l'05

2

24

33

36

14

109

41.76

 

-

-

-

-

-

0

0.00

Au= g'05

-

13

36

41

21

111

42.53

 

-

-

-

-

-

0

0.00

Se= pt'05

-

56

27

33

19

135

51.72

 

-

-

-

-

-

0

0.00

Oc= t'05

-

61

11

39

20

131

50.19

 

-

-

-

-

-

0

0.00

No= v'05

5

19

-

37

21

82

31.42

 

8

-

-

13

-

21

7.37

De= c'05

4

3

26

44

20

97

37.16

 

-

6

-

10

-

16

5.61

Ja= n'06

4

5

17

37

19

82

31.42

 

28

-

-

10

-

38

13.33

Fe= b'06

10

6

-

40

8

64

24.52

 

-

-

-

10

-

10

3.51

Ma= r'06

17

68

26

55

16

182

69.73

 

23

-

-

19

-

42

14.74

Average for 2005-06

4

27

17

39

15

101

 

 

5

1

0

5

0

11

 

6.1%

36.5%

45.9%

65.3%

56.4%

38.6%

 

 

10.2%

0.8%

0.0%

10.1%

0.0%

3.7%

 

Minimum level of reporting is= by Eluru Ci= rcle at 6.11%, a very poor performance. Maximum level of reporting is from Visakhapatnam Circle at 65.3%.

 

There is no reporting from Khammam = Circle and Warangal Circle, very objectionable performance. &nb= sp; Maximum level of reporting is from ABD Circle at 10.2% which itself = is poor.  Thus the level of rep= orting by NPDCL is very poor.

  &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;        =

  &nb= sp;            =          (iv) SPDCL

Name of the Circle (Total Nu= mber of Sections)

 =

Month<= /p>

GNT
(79)

KDP
(64)

NLR (71)

OGL
(63)

TPT
(94)

VJA
(73)

Total
(444)

% Sections covered

A= pr'05

13

57

1

-

-

-

71

15.99

M= ay'05

14

58

2

-

62

56

192

43.24

J= un'05

15

-

7

-

-

-

22

4.95

J= ul'05

9

1

8

45

40

57

160

36.04

A= ug'05

13

1

8

46

41

60

169

38.06

S= ept'05

14

1

6

45

48

59

173

38.96

O= ct'05

1

-

5

-

61

69

136

30.63

N= ov'05

-

-

-

-

-

-

0

0.00

D= ec'05

-

-

-

-

-

-

0

0.00

J= an'06

25

42

24

43

48

54

236

53.15

F= eb'06

26

43

27

39

47

54

236

53.15

M= ar'06

26

49

29

27

38

51

220

49.55

Average for 2005-06

13

21

10

20

32

38

135

 =

16.5%<= /p>

32.8%<= /p>

13.7%<= /p>

32.4%<= /p>

34.1%<= /p>

52.5%<= /p>

30.3%<= /p>

 

 

·        Minimum le= vel of reporting is from Nellore = Circle at 13.7%.

·        Maximum le= vel of reporting is from Vijayawa= da Circle at 52.5%. 

·        There is perceptible improvement in reporting across all circles of DISCOM from January’06 onwards. 

 

(v) All DISCOMs:=

The analysis of reporting by the four DISCOMs reveals that the EPDCL has performed well hav= ing achieved the level of 69.73% by March 2006, followed by SPDCL at 49.55% and CPDCL at 35.48%.  The performa= nce of NPDCL is very poor at 14.74% even in March 2006.

 

(III)  Coverage of Sections in the reports sent:

(i)=       =             &nb= sp;        As against the total number of 1472 Section Offices in the four DISCOms, the data for Secti= on Offices furnished by the DISCOMs month-wise are= as follows:

Month<= /p>

CPDCL<= /p>

EPDCL<= /p>

NPDCL<= /p>

SPDCL<= /p>

Total<= /p>

Sections covered in percenta= ge

(Total-482)

(Total-261)

(Total-285)

(Total-444)

(Total-1472)

A= pr'05

111

98

0

71

280

19.02

M= ay'05

97

97

0

192

386

26.22

J= un'05

108

22

0

22

152

10.33

J= ul'05

143

109

0

160

412

27.99

A= ug'05

101

111

0

169

381

25.88

S= ept'05

50

135

0

173

358

24.32

O= ct'05

0

131

0

136

267

18.14

N= ov'05

81

82

21

0

184

12.50

D= ec'05

168

97

16

0

281

19.09

J= an'06

188

82

38

236

544

36.96

F= eb'06

186

64

10

236

496

33.70

M= ar'06

171

182

42

220

615

41.78

Average of 2005-06

117

101

11

135

363

 

24.3%<= /p>

38.6%<= /p>

3.7%

30.3%<= /p>

24.7%<= /p>

 

 

It may be seen from the above that the highest coverage of sections is in EPDCL at 38.6% while the minimum is by NPDCL at 3.7%.  The poor coverage of se= ctions may be attributable to lack of system / records in Rura= l areas, which should have been streamlined by March’2006.  But even in March’2006, the overall coverage is at 41.78% which requires further efforts by DISCOMs in this regard.

 

 

 

(ii)  &nbs= p;     Maximum and Minimum levels of coverage

The maximum and minimum coverage of Section Of= fices in each of DISCOMs is as follows: 

 

DISCOM

Maximum

Month

Minimum

Month

Remarks

CPDCL

39%

Jan’06

10.37%

Sept’05

No report in Oct’05

EPDCL

69.73%

Mar’06

8.43%

Jun’05

-

NPDCL

14.74%

Mar’06

3.51%

Feb’06

No report from April to Oct’05

SPDCL

53.15%

Jan & Feb’06

4.95%

Jun’05

No report in Nov & Dec’05

Overall

41.78%

Mar’06

10.33%

Jun’05

-
 

It may be seen that EPDCL and SPDCL are perform= ing better in reporting aspect.

 

(IV) No. of complaints received and attended within time frame:  The details are furnished month-wise, circle-wi= se and DISCOM-wise here under:

CPDCL

Name of the Circle

Month

Item

ATP

HYD-C

HYD-N

HYD-S

MBNR

MDK

NLG

RR (N)<= /p>

RR (S)<= /p>

Total

Apr

To= tal Complaints

-

-

787

-

1324

-

2778

1361

-

6250

Re= ctified within Time Frame

-

-

388

-

1061

-

2778

1348

-

5575

Percentage (%)

-

-

49.30

-

80.14

-

100.00<= /p>

99.04

-

89.20

May

To= tal Complaints

-

-

799

-

1403

-

2374

349

-

4925

Re= ctified within Time Frame

-

-

384

-

622

-

2374

336

-

3716

Percentage (%)

-

-

48.06

-

44.33

-

100.00<= /p>

96.28

-

75.45

Jun

To= tal Complaints

-

-

828

-

1026

-

1404

1349

-

4607

Re= ctified within Time Frame

-

-

423

-

515

-

1404

1336

-

3678

Percentage (%)

-

-

51.09

-

50.19

-

100.00<= /p>

99.04

-

79.84

Jul

To= tal Complaints

-

-

1023

-

1014

7

1555

1845

-

5444

Re= ctified within Time Frame

-

-

543

-

504

7

1555

1832

-

4441

Percentage (%)

-

-

53.08

-

49.70

100.00<= /p>

100.00<= /p>

99.30

-

81.58

Aug

To= tal Complaints

-

-

-

-

947

-

1712

-

-

2659

Re= ctified within Time Frame

-

-

-

-

497

-

1712

-

-

2209

Percentage (%)

-

-

-

-

52.48

-

100.00<= /p>

-

-

83.08

Sep

To= tal Complaints

-

-

-

-

-

-

2223

-

-

2223

Re= ctified within Time Frame

-

-

-

-

-

-

2223

-

-

2223

Percentage (%)

-

-

-

-

-

-

100.00<= /p>

-

-

100.00<= /p>

Nov

To= tal Complaints

-

-

1294

250

-

7

966

1335

400

4252

Re= ctified within Time Frame

-

-

99

245

-

7

432

965

377

2125

Percentage (%)

-

-

7.65

98.00

-

100.00<= /p>

44.72

72.28

94.25

49.98

Dec

To= tal Complaints

754

42

1202

1282

1125

84

934

2156

437

8016

Re= ctified within Time Frame

429

31

53

1277

470

74

357

1780

389

4860

Percentage (%)

56.90

73.81

4.41

99.61

41.78

88.10

38.22

82.56

89.02

60.63

Jan

To= tal Complaints

2909

61

1050

1555

1021

14

1057

2094

319

10080

Re= ctified within Time Frame

997

41

61

1554

437

14

320

1718

259

5401

Percentage (%)

34.27

67.21

5.81

99.94

42.80

100.00<= /p>

30.27

82.04

81.19

53.58

Feb

To= tal Complaints

4071

224

932

1538

956

15

1090

2297

205

11328

Re= ctified within Time Frame

1682

224

49

1536

335

15

406

1840

189

6276

Percentage (%)

41.32

100.00<= /p>

5.26

99.87

35.04

100.00<= /p>

37.25

80.10

92.20

55.40

Mar

To= tal Complaints

3273

740

-

1284

1208

14

100

2082

355

9056

Re= ctified within Time Frame

1394

559

-

1283

845

14

54

1712

318

6179

Percentage (%)

42.59

75.54

-

99.92

69.95

100.00<= /p>

54.00

82.23

89.58

68.23

No report from Kurnool Circle and no report from the DISCOM in October’05.

 <= /p>

 

 

EPDCL

Name of the Circle

Month

Item

Eluru

RJY

SKLM

VSP

VZM

Total

Apr

To= tal Complaints

139

764

210

3612

26

4751

Re= ctified within Time Frame

139

601

183

3612

26

4561

Percentage (%)

100.00<= /p>

78.66

87.14

100.00<= /p>

100.00<= /p>

96.00<= /p>

May

To= tal Complaints

294

819

554

3376

37

5080

Re= ctified within Time Frame

291

600

296

3376

37

4600

Percentage (%)

98.98

73.26

53.43

100.00<= /p>

100.00<= /p>

90.55<= /p>

Jun

To= tal Complaints

14

790

-

-

-

804

Re= ctified within Time Frame

11

579

-

-

-

590

Percentage (%)

78.57

73.29

-

-

-

73.38<= /p>

Jul

To= tal Complaints

14

869

2314

3638

2220

9055

Re= ctified within Time Frame

11

631

2314

2651

1261

6868

Percentage (%)

78.57

72.61

100.00<= /p>

72.87

56.80

75.85<= /p>

Aug

To= tal Complaints

-

753

2605

4960

2539

10857

Re= ctified within Time Frame

-

611

2605

3892

1274

8382

Percentage (%)

-

81.14

100.00<= /p>

78.47

50.18

77.20<= /p>

Sep

To= tal Complaints

-

4749

577

7732

2344

15402

Re= ctified within Time Frame

-

3198

576

911

1402

6087

Percentage (%)

-

67.34

99.83

11.78

59.81

39.52<= /p>

Oct

To= tal Complaints

-

7116

607

9986

2090

19799

Re= ctified within Time Frame

-

4515

310

4353

1413

10591

Percentage (%)

-

63.45

51.07

43.59

67.61

53.49<= /p>

Nov

To= tal Complaints

579

-

347

9655

1917

12498

Re= ctified within Time Frame

474

-

331

6229

1038

8072

Percentage (%)

81.87

-

95.39

64.52

54.15

64.59<= /p>

Dec

To= tal Complaints

9

134

460

9175

789

10567

Re= ctified within Time Frame

9

134

420

5589

606

6758

Percentage (%)

100.00<= /p>

100.00<= /p>

91.30

60.92

76.81

63.95<= /p>

Jan

To= tal Complaints

502

205

897

9219

1460

12283

Re= ctified within Time Frame

406

203

797

6163

1033

8602

Percentage (%)

80.88

99.02

88.85

66.85

70.75

70.03<= /p>

Feb

To= tal Complaints

704

-

37

8024

1472

10237

Re= ctified within Time Frame

643

-

37

5193

444

6317

Percentage (%)

91.34

-

100.00<= /p>

64.72

30.16

61.71<= /p>

Mar

To= tal Complaints

1044

10504

1136

12020

1566

26270

Re= ctified within Time Frame

964

3627

1108

8707

476

14882

Percentage (%)

92.34

34.53

97.54

72.44

30.40

56.65<= /p>

 

NPDCL

Name of the Circle

Month

Item

ABD

Karim

NZM

Total

Nov

To= tal Complaints

17

-

2937

2954

Re= ctified within Time Frame

17

-

564

581

Percentage (%)

100.00<= /p>

-

19.20

19.67

Dec

To= tal Complaints

-

19

1291

1310

Re= ctified within Time Frame

-

19

442

461

Percentage (%)

-

100.00<= /p>

34.24

35.19

Jan

To= tal Complaints

2821

-

1664

4485

Re= ctified within Time Frame

332

-

760

1092

Percentage (%)

11.77

-

45.67

24.35

Feb

To= tal Complaints

-

-

1664

1664

Re= ctified within Time Frame

-

-

760

760

Percentage (%)

-

-

45.67

45.67

Mar

To= tal Complaints

2013

-

11005

13018

Re= ctified within Time Frame

678

-

362

1040

Percentage (%)

33.68

-

3.29

7.99

No reports from April’05 to Oct’05 and no reports from Khammam Circle and Warangal Circle.

 

 

 

 

SPDCL

Name of the Circle (Total Num= ber of Sections)

Month

Item

GNT

KDP

NLR

OGL

TPT

VJA

Total

Apr

To= tal Complaints

1636

693

1

-

-

-

2330

Re= ctified within Time Frame

666

693

1

-

-

-

1360

Percentage (%)

40.71

100.00<= /p>

100.00<= /p>

-

-

-

58.37

May

To= tal Complaints

1425

706

101

-

1791

3775

7798

Re= ctified within Time Frame

631

706

70

-

1785

2518

5710

Percentage (%)

44.28

100.00<= /p>

69.31

-

99.66

66.70

73.22

Jun

To= tal Complaints

1421

-

160

-

-

-

1581

Re= ctified within Time Frame

596

-

76

-

-

-

672

Percentage (%)

41.94

-

47.50

-

-

-

42.50

Jul

To= tal Complaints

772

37

215

2245

1658

3987

8914

Re= ctified within Time Frame

585

37

150

2245

1658

3531

8206

Percentage (%)

75.78

100.00<= /p>

69.77

100.00<= /p>

100.00<= /p>

88.56

92.06

Aug

To= tal Complaints

1122

11

328

2871

2036

3346

9714

Re= ctified within Time Frame

473

11

176

2871

2034

2299

7864

Percentage (%)

42.16

100.00<= /p>

53.66

100.00<= /p>

99.90

68.71

80.96

Sep

To= tal Complaints

1222

6

404

3528

2472

3210

10842

Re= ctified within Time Frame

610

6

240

3528

2472

2298

9154

Percentage (%)

49.92

100.00<= /p>

59.41

100.00<= /p>

100.00<= /p>

71.59

84.43

Oct

To= tal Complaints

15

-

228

-

2032

4409

6684

Re= ctified within Time Frame

15

-

152

-

2032

2746

4945

Percentage (%)

100.00<= /p>

-

66.67

-

100.00<= /p>

62.28

73.98

Jan

To= tal Complaints

2934

1652

5796

1340

3275

3123

18120

Re= ctified within Time Frame

2521

1577

5268

1340

1608

2039

14353

Percentage (%)

85.92

95.46

90.89

100.00<= /p>

49.10

65.29

79.21

Feb

To= tal Complaints

2934

1630

4630

1716

4253

3666

18829

Re= ctified within Time Frame

2516

1595

3686

1716

3261

3442

16216

Percentage (%)

85.75

97.85

79.61

100.00<= /p>

76.68

93.89

86.12

Mar

To= tal Complaints

2682

1557

4249

1582

2461

1744

14275

Re= ctified within Time Frame

2343

1553

3588

1582

1731

1589

12386

Percentage (%)

87.36

99.74

84.44

100.00<= /p>

70.34

91.11

86.77

No reports from DISCOM for November’05 and December’05.

 <= /p>

 

(V) All DISCOMs<= o:p>

 

Level of Rectification of Complaints= : As per the data available, the DISCOM - Month= -wise, percentage complaints rectified within the time frame are as follows:<= /o:p>

 

% Complaints Rectified in Timeframe

Month

CPD= CL

EPD= CL

NPD= CL

SPD= CL

Apr'05

89.= 20

96.= 00

-

58.= 37

May'05

75.= 45

90.= 55

-

73.= 22

Jun'05

79.= 84

73.= 38

-

42.= 50

Jul'05

81.= 58

75.= 85

-

92.= 06

Aug'05

83.= 08

77.= 20

-

80.= 96

Sept'05

100= .00

39.= 52

-

84.= 43

Oct'05

-

53.= 49

-

73.= 98

Nov'05

49.= 98

64.= 59

19.= 67

-

Dec'05

60.= 63

63.= 95

35.= 19

-

Jan'06

53.= 58

70.= 03

24.= 35

79.= 21

Feb'06

55.= 40

61.= 71

45.= 67

86.= 12

Mar'06

68.= 23

56.= 65

7.9= 9

86.= 77

Ave= rage for 2005-06

72.= 45

68.= 58

26.= 57

75.= 76

 

It may be seen that the percentage complaints rectified within time frame ranges from 100% in September’05 to 49.98= % in November’05 for CPDCL, from 96% in April’05 to 39.52% in September’05 for EPDCL, from 45.67% in February’06 to 7.99% in March’06 for NPDCL and from 92.06% in July’05 to 42.5% in June’o5 for SPDCL.  

=  

The highest overall level of rectification for 2005-06 is reported in SPDCL with 75.76% and the lowest is reported in NPDCL with 26.57%. 

 

 <= /o:p>

(VI) The above analysis reveals the following features:

=  

= (c)   &= nbsp;    Reg= ulatory

 

(i)          &nb= sp;      The performance of three DISCOMs, namely CPDCL, EPD= CL and SPDCL is above average with rectification of aro= und 70% complaints within the specified time frame.   The performance of NPDCL is = far behind with average rectification of complaints around 26.57%.  Though the overall standard is not specified, the 70% achievement is not enough and the D= ISCOMs have to achieve at least 90% level in future.

=  

(ii)          &n= bsp;            = ;   The DISCOMs are required to separately report on monthly = basis, the no. of cases in which compensation was paid, and the aggregate amount of compensation as per clause 5 (1) (b) of Regulation No. 7 of 2004.  Details of compensation paid in re= spect of cases attended beyond time frame has not been furnished by any of the DISCOMS.  

=  

(d)  <= span class=3DSpellE>Organisational:

=  

(i)   &= nbsp;           &nbs= p; The perfor= mance in sending the monthly reports and the coverage of sections in the reports = sent, is not satisfactory for all the DISCOMs.  The overall coverage by all DISCOMs in the year works out to 24.7% and the covera= ge in case of NPDCL is poorest at 3.7%, which requires to be improved with all required efforts.

 

 

(ii)   =             The huge l= evel of meter related complaints in certain Circles/DISCOMs= gives an impression that the faulty meters data is adopted in this report instead of complaints actually received from the aggrieved consumers.  The DISCOMs have to report only the data on the complaints received from consumers in t= his area of service.

 

  &nb= sp;            =                  &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;  SECRETARY

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

REGULA= TORY INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

QUALIT= Y OF SERVICE

&= nbsp;

ANALYS= IS OF THE REPORT ON

‘= ;BILLING MISTAKES’

 

(I)   &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;  Stan= dard: <= o:p>

            The Licensee shall maintain the percentage of b= ills requiring modifications following complaints to the total number of bills issued, at a value not greater than 0.1%.

 

(II)   =              Data Availability: <= /span>

            Data furnished by the DISCOMs is not consistent for = all the months in terms of circles covered and also data furnished does not cov= er all the EROs.&= nbsp; Circle-wise, month-wise data availability is furnished hereunder:

 

  &nb= sp;         (i) CPDCL

Name of the Circle (Total Nu= mber of EROs)

Month<= /p>

ATP
(17)

HYD-C
(4)

HYD-N
(5)

HYD-S
(3)

Kurnoo= l
(11)

MBNR
(17)

MDK
(5)

NLG
(15)

RR (N)
(4)

RR (S)
(4)

Total
(85)

% EROs<= /span> covered

A= pr'05

-

 

3

-

-

-

-

15

4

-

22

25.88

M= ay'05

-

 

3

-

-

-

-

15

4

-

22

25.88

J= un'05

-

 

3

-

-

-

-

15

3

-

21

24.71

J= ul'05

-

2

3

-

-

-

-

15

4

-

24

28.24

A= ug'05

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

15

-

-

15

17.65

S= ept'05

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

15

-

-

15

17.65

O= ct'05

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 

-

-

0

0.00

N= ov'05

-

-

1

3

-

-

-

-

3

4

11

12.94

D= ec'05

4

2

1

3

-

-

-

-

4

4

18

21.18

J= an'06

11

2

1

3

-

-

-

-

3

4

24

28.24

F= eb'06

12

2

1

3

-

-

-

-

4

4

26

30.59

M= ar'06

-

-

1

2

-

-

-

-

 

4

7

8.24

Average for 2005-06

2

1

1

1

0

0

0

8

2

2

17

 

13.2%<= /p>

16.7%<= /p>

28.3%<= /p>

38.9%<= /p>

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

50.0%<= /p>

60.4%<= /p>

41.7%<= /p>

20.1%<= /p>

 

 

·        No reports= from Kurnool, Mahaboob Nagar and Medak = Circles.

·        The highest level of reporting is from RR (N) Circle, at 60.4%.

·        No report = from the DISCOM in Oct’05.

·        The overall coverage of EROs is only 20%, which is unsatisfactory.

 

 

 

(ii) EPDCL = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp; (iii) NPDCL

Name of the Circle (Total Nu= mber of EROs)

 =

Name of the Circle (Total Nu= mber of EROs)

Month<= /p>

Eluru
(7)

RJY
(8)

SKLM
(4)

VSP
(5)

VZM
(3)

Total
(27)

% EROs<= /span> covered

 =

ABD
(5)

Karim
(10)

KHAM
(8)

NZM
(8)

WGL
(13)

Total
(44)

% EROs<= /span> covered

Apr'05

7

8

4

4

3

26

96.30

 

-

-

-

8

-

8

18.18

May'05

7

8

4

5

3

27

100.00

 

-

-

-

8

-

8

18.18

Jun'05

7

8

4

5

3

27

100.00

 

-

-

-

8

-

8

18.18

Jul'05

7

8

4

5

3

27

100.00

 

-

-

7

-

-

7

15.91

Aug'05

7

8

4

5

3

27

100.00

 

-

-

7

-

-

7

15.91

Sept'05

7

8

4

5

3

27

100.00

 

-

-

6

-

-

6

13.64

Oct'05

7

8

4

5

3

27

100.00

 

-

-

7

-

-

7

15.91

Nov'05

1

-

4

5

3

13

48.15

 

1

9

-

8

-

18

40.91

Dec'05

1

1

4

4

3

13

48.15

 

-

9

7

-

-

16

36.36

Jan'06

-

1

4

5

3

13

48.15

 

5

9

7

-

-

21

47.73

Feb'06

1

-

4

5

3

13

48.15

 

-

9

7

-

7

23

52.27

Mar'06

4

7

4

5

3

23

85.19

 

3

8

8

-

11

30

68.18

Average for

2005-06

5

5

4

5

3

22

 

 

1

4

5

3

2

13

 

66.7%<= /p>

67.7%<= /p>

100.0%=

96.7%<= /p>

100.0%=

81.2%<= /p>

 

 

15.0%<= /p>

36.7%<= /p>

58.3%<= /p>

33.3%<= /p>

11.5%<= /p>

30.1%<= /p>

 
  • The overall coverage of EROs for the DISCOM = is 81.2% which is satisfactory.
  • It is observed that the coverage has drastically reduced to 48.15% from 100% from October’05 onwards and picked up in March’06 w= ith 85.19%.

<= o:p> 
  • The overall coverage of EROs for the DISCOM = is 30.1%, which is not satisfactory.
  • It is observed that the coverage improved from November’05 onwards and reached 68.18% by March, 06.

 

(iv) SPDCL

Name of the Circle (Total Nu= mber of EROs)

 =

Month<= /p>

GNT
(15)

KDP
(14)

NLR (15)

OGL
(12)

TPT
(15)

VJA
(16)

Total
(87)

% EROs<= /span> covered

A= pr'05

5

10

6

10

3

10

44

50.57

M= ay'05

6

10

6

10

5

10

47

54.02

J= un'05

7

10

6

10

-

10

43

49.43

J= ul'05

5

10

6

10

-

9

40

45.98

A= ug'05

3

10

6

10

-

10

39

44.83

S= ept'05

3

10

6

10

-

10

39

44.83

O= ct'05

5

10

6

10

-

10

41

47.13

N= ov'05

-

-

-

-

-

-

0

0.00

D= ec'05

-

-

-

-

-

-

0

0.00

J= an'06

6

9

6

10

10

10

51

58.62

F= eb'06

6

9

9

10

9

10

53

60.92

M= ar'06

6

10

9

10

9

9

53

60.92

Average for 2005-06

4

8

6

8

3

8

38

 =

28.9%<= /p>

58.3%<= /p>

36.7%<= /p>

69.4%<= /p>

20.0%<= /p>

51.0%<= /p>

43.1%<= /p>

 =

 

·        There are = no reports from the DISCOM in November’05 and December’05.

·        The overall coverage of EROs is only 43.1% which is not satisfactory.

 

(v) All DIS= COMs:

=       As against the total number of 243 EROs in the fours DISCOMs= , the data for EROs furnished by the DISCOMs month-wise are as follows:

 

Month

CPDCL<= /p>

EPDCL<= /p>

NPDCL<= /p>

SPDCL<= /p>

Total<= /p>

EROs covered in percentage<= /o:p>

(Total-85)=

(Total-27)=

(Total-44)=

(Total-87)=

(Total-243)

A= pr'05

22

26

8

44

100

41.15

M= ay'05

22

27

8

47

104

42.80

J= un'05

21

27

8

43

99

40.74

J= ul'05

24

27

7

40

98

40.33

A= ug'05

15

27

7

39

88

36.21

S= ept'05

15

27

6

39

87

35.80

O= ct'05

0

27

7

41

75

30.86

N= ov'05

11

13

18

0

42

17.28

D= ec'05

18

13

16

0

47

19.34

J= an'06

24

13

21

51

109

44.86

F= eb'06

26

13

23

53

115

47.33

M= ar'06

7

23

30

53

113

46.50

Average of 2005-06

17

22

13

38

90

 

20.1%<= /p>

81.2%<= /p>

30.1%<= /p>

43.1%<= /p>

36.9%<= /p>

 

 

  &nb= sp;         The performance of EPDCL in respect of coverage of EROs is highest at 81.2% and that of CPDCL is lowest at 20.1%.   A maximum of 47.33% EROs covered in the month of February 06 and a minimu= m of 17.2% EROs covered in November 05 across all DISCOMs.

 

(III). &nb= sp;    Level of Billing Mistakes:  <= /b>As per the data available, the DISCOM-Wise perc= entage billing mistakes is as follows:

 

Month

CPDCL<= /p>

EPDCL<= /p>

NPDCL<= /p>

SPDCL<= /p>

Percentage of Billing Mistak= es

A= pr'05

0.07

0.15

0.09

0.46

M= ay'05

0.07

0.12

0.08

0.42

J= un'05

0.05

0.07

0.07

0.45

J= ul'05

0.09

0.08

0.02

0.48

A= ug'05

0.00

0.08

0.02

0.46

S= ept'05

0.00

0.08

0.02

0.46

O= ct'05

--

0.09

0.03

0.43

N= ov'05

0.16

0.17

0.04

--

D= ec'05

0.13

0.19

0.02

--

J= an'06

0.21

0.32

0.03

0.37

F= eb'06

0.14

0.25

0.02

0.32

M= ar'06

0.13

0.20

0.06

0.39

Average of 2005-06

0.12

0.13

0.04

0.41

 

  &nb= sp;         It may be seen that percentage of billing mistakes is highest in SPDCL with 0.= 41% and it is slightly more than the specified limit of 0.1% in case of CPDCL a= nd EPDCL.  The percentage of bill= ing mistakes is lowest in NPDCL at 0.04%, well below the specified limit of 0.1%

 

(IV). &nbs= p;   For the following EROs= , the percentage of Billing Mistakes is high:

DI= SCOM

ER= O

% Billing Mistakes

CPDCL

Dh= armavaram

0.= 945

Ta= dipatri (= Rural)

0.= 545

Ta= dipatri

0.= 410

Go= oty

0.= 408

An= antapur R= ural (West)

0.= 393

Ra= yadurg

0.= 347

EPDCL

<= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Visakhapatnam W= est

0.= 494

Te= kkali

0.= 474

= Eluru = Town

0.= 304

Sr= ikakulum <= o:p>

0.= 256

Ga= juwaka

0.= 230

NPDCL

Bh= ainsa

0.= 564

Ma= habubabad

0.= 406

Ye= llareddy

0.= 267

Ba= nswada

0.= 226

SPDCL

La= kkireddypalli

4.= 571

Ra= yachoti

3.= 249

Pu= livendula

2.= 000

Ye= rragunta

1.= 566

Ra= jampet

1.= 555

Ka= dapa

1.= 479

Na= rsaraopet <= o:p>

1.= 432

16 EROs in CPDCL, 6= EROs in NPDCL and 1 ERO in EPDCL reported ‘zero‘ billing mistakes<= /p>

 

(V).  = ;    Certain Abnormal Cases:

 

  &nb= sp;         The following abnormal cases noticed in the reports.

&n= bsp;

(a).   &= nbsp;   Sainikpuri ERO in CPDCL (June, 05) – Bills issu= ed and billing mistakes shown as 2, resulting in 100% billing mistakes.

(b).      Tandur= ERO in CPDCL (February, 06) – Bills issued and billing mistakes shown as = 9, resulting in 100% billing mistakes.

(c).       Bheemga= l ERO in NPDCL (November, 05) – Bills issued and billing mistakes shown= as 2, resulting in 100% billing mistakes.

(d).      Visakhapatnam (East) ERO in EPDCL (March, 06) – 74 billing mistakes as against 641 Bills issued, resulting in 11.54% billing mistakes.

(e). &nbs= p;    Anantapur Rural (West) ERO in CPDCL (December, 05) &#= 8211; 100 billing mistakes as against 1000 Bills issued, resulting in 10% billing mistakes.

 

(VI). &nbs= p;   The above analysis reveals the following features:=

 = ;

(a).      Regulatory: 

        &= nbsp;   Lowest level of billing mistakes is reported by NPDCL at 0.04%.  Though this is well within the sta= ndard of 0.1%, this performance can not be treated as good since the coverage of = EROs in the year is only 30%.  The performance of CPDCL (0.12%) a= lso can not be treated as satisfactory for the same reason with overall coverage being poorest at 20%.  The performance of EPDCL (0.13%) is satisfactory with highest coverage of EROs at 81%. The performance of SPDCL is not upto the mark with the level of billing mistakes at 0= .41%, which is much higher than the specified limit of 0.1%

(b).  = ;    Organisational:

(i). &nbs= p;      The coverage of EROs is ve= ry poor in three DISCOMs and varies from 8.24% to 30.59= % in CPDCL, 13.64% to 68.18% in NPDCL and 44.83% to 60.92% in SPDCL.  These three D= ISCOMs have to streamline the date collection / reporting system from all EROs and show perceptible improvement in 2006-07.

(ii).       The highest coverage of EROs is reported in EPDCL, = which varies from 48.15% to 100%. EPDCL is much ahead of other DISCOMS in the mat= ter of reporting and has substantially succeeded in streamlining the reporting system. 

 

 

  &nb= sp;            =          SECRETARY

------=_NextPart_01C72F36.1BB3DBE0 Content-Location: file:///C:/E08BA2B3/Review_FaultyMeters_files/header.htm Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

PAGE=  

 

   &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;    

PAGE=  

 

21

 

------=_NextPart_01C72F36.1BB3DBE0 Content-Location: file:///C:/E08BA2B3/Review_FaultyMeters_files/filelist.xml Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/xml; charset="utf-8" ------=_NextPart_01C72F36.1BB3DBE0--