Table of Contents - NEPRA | Home DISCOs 2017... · 2020-02-25 · Performance Evaluation Report of Distribution Companies 2017-18 2 SAIFI and SAIDI: The data reported by the distribution

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1-3

1. Introduction 4

2. Analysis of data of distribution companies 2017-18 5

2.1 Transmission & Distribution Losses (%) 5-6

2.1.1 Financial Impact due to breach of losses target 6

2.2 Recovery (%) 7

2.2.1 Financial Impact due to breach of recovery target 7

2.3 System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI – No.) 8

2.4 System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI - Min) 9

2.5 Time Frame for New Connections (%) 10

2.6 Load Shedding (Hrs) 11

2.7 Nominal Voltage 12

2.8 Consumer Service Complaints 13

2.9 Safety (No. of Fatalities for both Employees & General Public) 14

2.10 Fault Rate 15

3. Comparison of Data for the year 2017-18 with last four years (2013-14, 2014-15,

2015-16 and 2016-17) 16

3.1 Transmission and Distribution Losses 16

3.2 Recovery 16-17

3.3 System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI) 17

3.4 System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI) 18

3.5 Time Frame for New Connection 18-19

3.6 Load Shedding 19

3.7 Nominal Voltage 20

3.8 Consumer Service Complaints 20-21

3.9 Safety 21

3.10 Fault Rate 22

Performance Evaluation Report of Distribution Companies 2017-18

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) regulates the power sector in Pakistan

and protects the interests of consumers and companies providing electric power services. As

such, apart from monitoring the performance of generation and transmission licensees, NEPRA

also monitors the performance of distribution licensees.

NEPRA framed Performance Standards (Distribution) Rules (“PSDR”) back in 2005. Under

PSDR 2005, each distribution company is required to submit to NEPRA an Annual Performance

Report (APR) in a prescribed format. The APRs for the FY 2017-18, submitted by the

distribution licensees, were reviewed on the basis of parameters namely, Transmission and

Distribution (T&D) losses, Recovery, System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI),

System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI), Time Frame for New Connections, Load

Shedding, Nominal Voltage, Consumer Complaints, Safety, and Fault Rate.

The primary objective of this Performance Evaluation Report (PER) is to depict performance

level of distribution companies under PSDR 2005. The report provides the trend analysis of data

submitted by the distribution companies for the year 2017-18 along with comparison of last four

years i.e. 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17.

Taking a holistic view of DISCO’s performance, it is noted that no remarkable improvement in

the performance of distribution companies particularly PESCO, SEPCO, HESCO and QESCO

has been observed. The fact remains that they have some inherent problems such as geographical

issues, dilapidated distribution system, law & order situation, and political factors etc. which are

the causes of their unsatisfactory performance. Similarly, the issue of data authenticity is still a

major concern of NEPRA as reported in previous Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs), and

therefore, NEPRA has already initiated strict actions in form of imposing penalties against such

incorrect reporting by the distribution companies. NEPRA is endeavoring to make all

distribution companies compliant with PSDR 2005.

From the data submitted by the distribution companies for the FY 2017-18, following has been

noted:

T&D Losses & Recovery: It is noted with concern that during the period under report, DISCOs

contributed the loss of more than Rs. 45 billion on account of T&D losses, whereas, they failed

to make recovery of Rs. 78 billion against bills charged. Examination of T&D losses has

revealed that none of the DISCO except IESCO could meet Regulator’s expectations. It is

relevant to state here that the T&D losses of PESCO were 38.1% against 27.62% as allowed by

NEPRA.

In the field of recovery of bills, MEPCO & IESCO have shown better performance, whereas,

QESCO with a recovery of 46.1% stood lowest among all the DISCOs during FY 2017-18.


2

SAIFI and SAIDI: The data reported by the distribution companies related to SAIFI in FY

2017-18 was compared with the targets set by NEPRA and it is observed that IESCO, PESCO,

FESCO, LESCO, QESCO and K-Electric have shown some improvements. Whereas, GEPCO,

MEPCO, SEPCO and HESCO have not been able to achieve the targets. As regard to SAIDI, all

the DISCOs have failed to achieve NEPRA targets except IESCO, FESCO and PESCO. This

analysis is based on the data/information provided by the DISCOs whose accuracy could not be

ascertained.

Time Frame for New Connection: IESCO has submitted that it has provided 100% connections

to the eligible consumers within the time prescribed in PSDR 2005, whereas, PESCO, QESCO,

SEPCO and K-Electric stated that they could provide 95% connections to the consumers who

applied for new connection during FY 2017-18.

It is pertinent to mention here that NEPRA team during its site visits to various DISCOs found

that 100-400 connections per sub-division were pending for more than last six months. This fact

is contrary to the above statements made by DISCOs.

Load Shedding: NEPRA has serious reservations over the authenticity of data regarding load

shedding being carried out by distribution companies in their service territories. The data

provided by DISCOs except GEPCO & QESCO shows that duration of load shedding remained

from 1.26 to 3.25 hours daily. In our opinion, this is not a realistic figure and the duration of load

shedding must be for longer periods. Further, it is a matter of concern that distribution companies

are not following the order of load shedding according to different categories of consumers as

provided in PSDR 2005. This becomes worst, when consumers who were affected due to

technical faults/breakdowns have also to bear forced load shedding. Therefore, efforts should be

made to compensate such consumers.

Consumer Complaints: The data provided by the distribution companies shows that except

GEPCO, LESCO and K-Electric, all other DISCOs have not received even 2 complaints on

average per complaint center per day. Further, the analysis of number of complaints received by

DISCOs with respect to their total number of consumers reveals that except GEPCO, LESCO

and K-Electric, all other DISCOs have received the number of complaints ranging from 0.839%

to 11.889% during FY 2017-18. This is not rationalized as the same was verified by NEPRA

team during visits of different DISCOs. Further, it is also observed that the redressal process of

complaints in the DISCOs is too slow as compared to the number of complaints being received

by them. NEPRA being a Regulator vigilantly observes the interests of consumers, therefore,

distribution companies are being persistently advised to improve their complaint handling

mechanism and provide relief to their consumers expeditiously.

Safety: Safety of the workmen is considered of paramount importance by NEPRA. From the

previous history, it is evident that more than 100 fatal accidents occurred annually. As regards

the year under report i.e. FY 2017-18, 152 fatal accidents were reported of employees and


3

public, which is 3.4% higher than previous year i.e. 2016-17. This indicates that there is a need

of change of mind set towards safety in distribution companies and development of safety culture

in almost all their areas/segments. NEPRA has been continuously pushing the distribution

companies to perform better in this regard.

It is noted with concern that no remarkable improvement in the performance was observed

during the year 2017-18 especially in the areas of SAIFI, SAIDI, quality of supply (voltage &

frequency), time frame for new connection, load shedding and consumer service complaints.


4

1. INTRODUCTION

As per rule 7 of Performance Standards (Distribution) Rules (PSDR) 2005, each

distribution company has to submit to the Authority an Annual Performance Report every

year, before 31st of August of the succeeding year in the prescribed format.

The Annual Performance Reports should include at least the following information:-

(a) System Performance Reports

(b) Consumer Service Performance Reports

(c) Distribution Companies Written Report on Performance and Plans for Improvement

Rule 7(2) of PSDR states that the Annual Performance Report should also contain all

relevant information with respect to compliance with these Rules during the year,

including a comparison with the compliance report to Authority for the previous year.

This report contains analysis of performance parameters through descriptive & graphical

representation based on the data reported by each distribution company for last five years.

The analysis is based on the following parameters:-

- Transmission & Distribution Losses,

- Recovery in percentage,

- System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI),

- System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI),

- Percentage consumers who were not given new connection in permitted time period,

- Total number of consumers who made complaints about Voltage,

- Average duration of load shedding (hrs.),

- Total Consumer Service Complaints received by DISCO during the year,

- Fault Rate (faults/km) of distribution system,

- Electrical incident resulting in death or permanent serious injury/disability to the

member of staff or public.


5

0

10

20

30

40

T&D Losses

Reported Losses Allowed in Tariff

2. ANALYSIS OF ANNAUAL PERFORMANCE REPORTS (2017-18)

The Annual Performance Reports submitted by distribution companies have been

evaluated in light of the PSDR 2005. The detail is given hereunder;

2.1 TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION (T&D) LOSSES (%)

The difference in the generated energy and distributed energy is known as Transmission

& Distribution (T&D) loss. Power System losses can be divided into two categories i.e.

technical & non-technical/administrative losses. Technical losses are naturally occurring

losses, whereas, non-technical/administrative losses are caused by the actions external to

the power system.

Table 1

The data provided by distribution companies for the year 2017-18 shows that except

IESCO, all DISCOs have breached the targets set by NEPRA. Furthermore, GEPCO,

FESCO and K-Electric are also near to achieve the targets set by NEPRA. Whereas,

performance of PESCO is worst in this regard along with HESCO, SEPCO, and QESCO.

Reduction of these losses is very critical for sound financial health of distribution

companies.

Name of

DISCO

Reported

Figures (%)

Average Allowed In

Tariff (%)

Breach of

Target (%)

(1) (2) (3) 4 = (2-3)

IESCO 9.13 9.22 -0.09

PESCO 38.1 27.62 +10.48

GEPCO 10.01 9.99 +0.02

FESCO 10.5 9.72 +0.78

LESCO 13.8 11.75 +2.05

MEPCO 16.6 15.00 +1.6

QESCO 22.4 17.50 +4.9

SEPCO 36.7 28.18 +8.52

HESCO 29.8 21.17 +8.63

K-Electric 20.4 19.80 +0.60

Table 1

Table 1 indicates the

figures of T&D losses as

reported by distribution

companies and the

targets set by NEPRA

through their respective

tariff determinations.

Here, it is pertinent to

mention that targets have

been considered on an

average basis, as the

target figures for 1st 9

months of 2017-18 are

different from remaining

3 months. For example:

The target value of

PESCO for the period

from July, 2017 to

March, 2018 was 26%,

whereas, it is 31.95% for

the period from April to

June, 2018. Figure 1


6

The main reasons of technical losses are lengthy distribution lines, inadequate size of

conductors and installation of distribution transformers away from load centers, etc. due

to which these companies have failed to achieve the targets. Since T&D losses remain a

major concern of NEPRA, therefore, this parameter has been given a high importance in

performance ranking of distribution companies.

2.1.1 Financial Impact due to breach of T&D Losses Target:

T&D losses have serious financial implications for the respective DISCOs as well as the

whole power industry. As already mentioned that all distribution companies except

IESCO, have breached the targets of losses given by NEPRA in tariff determinations,

therefore, an impact of such breach has been calculated in financial terms. The same is

given in Table 2 below:

Name of

DISCO

Breach of

Target

(%)

Energy

Purchased by

DISCOs from CPPA for the

months of

July, 2017 to March, 2018

(M. kWh)

Energy Lost

for nine

months (July, 2017 to

March, 2018)

(M. kWh)

Financial Loss

for nine months

(July, 2017 to March, 2018)

(Million Rs.)

Energy

Purchased by

DISCOs from CPPA for the

months of April,

2018 to June, 2018 (M. kWh)

Energy Lost

for three

months (April, 2018 to June,

2018)

(M. kWh)

Financial Loss

for three months

(April, 2018 to June, 2018)

(Million Rs.)

Total Energy

Lost

(M. kWh)

Total

Financial Loss

(Million Rs.)

1 2 3 4=(2/100)*3 5=4*(N.T-FPA) 6 7=(2/100)*6 8=7*(N.T-FPA) 9=4+7 10=5+8

IESCO -0.09 8368.27 (7.531) (64.45) 3303.98 (2.974) (33.987) (10.505) (98.437)

PESCO +10.48 10345.46 1084.204 13422.882 3863.88 404.935 6211.130 1489.139 19634.012

GEPCO +0.02 7757.67 1.552 17.868 3229.47 0.646 6.526 2.198 24.394

FESCO +0.78 10149.42 79.165 680.981 4296.86 33.516 376.822 112.681 1057.803

LESCO +2.05 16751.05 343.397 3056.126 6980.19 143.094 1592.835 486.491 4648.961

MEPCO +1.6 13065.44 209.05 1907.346 5940.67 95.05 1194.394 304.10 3101.74

QESCO +4.9 4614.36 226.10 2912.453 1724.17 84.48 1010.451 310.58 3922.904

SEPCO +8.52 3266.83 278.334 3411.316 1411.96 120.298 2092.072 398.632 5503.388

HESCO +8.63 3907.50 337.217 3634.831 1835.49 158.403 2856.049 495.62 6490.88

K-Electric +0.60 12188 73.13 933.914 5230 31.38 400.471 104.51 1334.385

Total 3,693.446 45,620.03

Table 2

From Table 2, it is noted that national exchequer suffered a loss of more than Rs. 45

billion in 2017-18 due to the inefficiency of distribution companies. Such losses are

playing primary role in creation of circular debt.

Note: Above financial impact is calculated by considering average notified rate of each DISCO for the year

2014-15 by keeping in view the average fuel price adjustment for the year 2017-18 for first nine months

(July, 2017 – March, 2018). Similarly, for remaining three months (April – June, 2018), the financial

impact is calculated by considering the average notified rate of each DISCO for the year 2015-16 by

keeping in view the average fuel price adjustment for the year 2017-18. For K-Electric, the financial impact

is based on the rate determined w.e.f.1st July, 2016, although, the same has not yet been notified.

N.T = Notified Tariff

FPA = Fuel Price Adjustment


7

0

40

80

120

Recovery

Atual Recovery Target

2.2 RECOVERY (%)

Increase in revenue can improve fiscal deficit and provide investable funds for the

expansion of these public utilities. Recovery plays a key role in the financial health of

distribution companies. Considering its importance, NEPRA has made this parameter an

essential component of DISCO’s performance criteria and DISCOs are encouraged to

achieve the rate of 100% recovery.

Name of

DISCO

Actual

Recovery

(%)

Target

(%)

Breach of

Target

(%)

(1) (2) (3) 4=(2-3)

IESCO 99.1 100 -0.90

PESCO 89.5 100 -10.5

GEPCO 97.0 100 -3.0

FESCO 97.93 100 -2.07

LESCO 97.8 100 -2.2

MEPCO 99.68 100 -0.32

QESCO 46.1 100 -53.9

SEPCO 60.1 100 -39.9

HESCO 76.7 100 -23.3

K-Electric 91.04 100 -8.96

Table 3

Name of

DISCO

Billing

(Million

Rs.)

Collection

(Million

Rs.)

Loss

(Million

Rs.)

(1) (2) (3) 4=(2-3)

IESCO 129,638 128,473 1,165

PESCO 109,271.14 97,851.56 11,419.58

GEPCO 122,229 118,885 3,344

FESCO 162,538.53 159,167.69 3,370.84

LESCO 272,552 266,552 6,000

MEPCO 176,024.05 175,458.55 565.5

QESCO 6,792.3 3,129.1 3,663.2

SEPCO 41,500 24,900 16,600

HESCO 52,674.9 40,427.6 12,247.3

K-Electric 222,148 202,255 19,893

Table 4

Taking a closer look of Table 3,

MEPCO has shown highest recovery

followed by IESCO among all other

DISCOs and almost has touched the

target of 100%. Further, GEPCO,

FESCO and LESCO have also

shown good performance in this

regard and achieved more than 97%

recoveries. Rest of the DISCOs,

however are lagging behind the

target of 100% which will definitely

impact their services to the

consumers.

Particularly, HESCO & SEPCO have

performed poorly. QESCO’s

performance is exceptionally bad in

terms of recovery rates in 2017-18

which stands at 46.1%.

2.2.1 Financial Impact due to

breach of Recovery targets

Table 4 illustrates the loss of revenue

which was not recovered by the

DISCOs and KE due to their poor

management. The loss to the national

exchequer accumulates to more than

78 billion rupees. It is also observed

that MEPCO & IESCO have

incurred very small loss as compared

to other DISCOs under this head

during the year 2017-18. Whereas,

K-Electric has incurred highest loss.

Figure 2


8

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

SAIFI - Number

Reported Figures of SAIFI Target set by NEPRA

2.3 SYSTEM AVERAGE INTERRUPTION FREQUENCY INDEX (SAIFI-No.)

On the other hand, it is a serious concern that the data submitted by the distribution

companies in their Annual Performance Reports is not based on facts, which was verified

by the NEPRA team during visits of different DISCOs and subsequent actions have also

been taken. Further, the data itself indicates surprising results which are hard to believe.

For Example: IESCO has reported its SAIFI as 0.04, this means that an individual

customer of IESCO experienced 0.04 interruption on average during the year 2017-18

which is beyond the factual position.

Name of

DISCO

Reported

Figures of

SAIFI

Target

set by

NEPRA

Breach of

Target

(1) (2) (3) 4=(2-3)

IESCO 0.04 13 0

PESCO 170 284.09 0

GEPCO 30.97 13 +17.97

FESCO 38.87 41.75 0

LESCO 32.92 47.39 0

MEPCO 316.22 159.77 +156.45

QESCO 95.18 98.55 0

SEPCO 568.59 126.20 +442.39

HESCO 180.74 146.96 +33.78

K-Electric 17.55 19.43 0

Table 5

System Average Interruption

Frequency Index (SAIFI) is the

average number of times that a

consumer experiences an outage

during a year. It is pertinent to

mention that the targets of 2016-17

are considered for comparison

purpose as the development of new

targets for upcoming years is under

process.

The data reported by the distribution

companies related to SAIFI in 2017-

18 is compared with the targets set

by NEPRA and observed that

IESCO, PESCO, FESCO, LESCO,

QESCO and K-Electric have shown

good performance in this regard.

Whereas, GEPCO, MEPCO, SEPCO

and HESCO have not been able to

achieve the targets.

Figure 3


9

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

SAIDI - Minutes

Reported Figures of SAIDI Target set by NEPRA

2.4 SYSTEM AVERAGE INTERRUPTION DURATION INDEX (SAIDI-Min.)

This index indicates the average time a customer has an interruption during the period of

one year. It is usually specified in minutes. As already stated that development of targets

for SAIFI and SAIDI parameters is under process, therefore, the targets of 2016-17 have

been considered for the sake of comparison/analysis of figures of SAIDI as reported by

DISCOs. Table 6 represents figures of SAIDI in 2017-18 vis-à-vis set targets of 2016-17

and subsequent breach of target. Except IESCO, PESCO and FESCO, all the other

DISCOs have breached NEPRA’s targets. The reporting of dubious data under this

parameter still remains a source of concern.

Name of

DISCO

Reported

Figures of

SAIDI

Target

set by

NEPRA

Breach of

Target

(1) (2) (3) 4=(2-3)

IESCO 0.73 14 0

PESCO 16222.79 22492.3 0

GEPCO 53.67 14 +39.67

FESCO 1951.38 1959.2 0

LESCO 4338.23 1275.3 +3062.93

MEPCO 26822.35 12586.1 +14236.25

QESCO 8287.90 5318.6 +2969.3

SEPCO 4397.44 1004.9 +3392.54

HESCO 12292.57 7537.8 +4754.77

K-Electric 1451.42 1004.4 +447.02

Table 6

Notwithstanding that, IESCO has

submitted that the average duration

of each interruption faced by its

consumers is 0.73 min (even less

than 1) in 2017-18 which is far away

from ground realities. Similarly,

GEPCO has reported average 53 min

duration of each interruption

experienced by its consumers in

2017-18 which is also not based on

reality.

Regarding submission of incorrect

data by the distribution companies,

NEPRA took serious actions and

imposed fines on DISCOs after

completing all due legal process.

Authenticity of data is very

important for making any decision in

regulation of power sector. For this

purpose, NEPRA regularly

monitors/verify the data submitted by

distribution companies. Figure 4


10

0

5

10

15

20

Time Frame for New Connection

%age of eligible consumers who were not provided newconnections

Target set by NEPRA

2.5 TIME FRAME FOR NEW CONNECTIONS (%):

It is pertinent to highlight that the data submitted by companies particularly those who

have claimed 100% achievement of target of applied connections seems not based on

ground realities as NEPRA team physically verified such data during the year 2016-17.

NEPRA has vigorously pursued the compliance of this parameter and directed the

distribution companies to provide the reasons of non-provision of connections as per

requirement of PSDR 2011 (amendment). In addition, NEPRA has also issued strict

instructions to clear all pendency of ripe connections, failing which, matter shall be

treated in accordance with law.

Name of

DISCO

%age of eligible

consumers who

were not

provided

new connections

Target

set by

NEPRA

(%)

Breach

of

Target

(%)

(1) (2) (3) 4=(2-3)

IESCO 0 5 0

PESCO 2.23 5 0

GEPCO 18.79 5 +13.79

FESCO 15.94 5 +10.94

LESCO 5.23 5 +0.23

MEPCO 5.28 5 +0.28

QESCO 1.31 5 0

SEPCO 4.3 5 0

HESCO 0.03 5 0

K-Electric 4.0 5 0

Table 7

Figure 5

According to Rule 4 (c) of NEPRA

Performance Standards (Distribution)

Rules 2005, a distribution company

shall provide electric power service

to at least 95% of its new eligible

applications as specified in the

Consumer Eligibility Criteria laid

down by the Authority.

Table 7 indicates the percentage of

eligible consumers who were not

provided connections within the time

as prescribed in Performance

Standards (Distribution) Rules 2005.

This is observed that IESCO,

PESCO, QESCO, SEPCO, HESCO

and K-Electric have provided more

than 95% connections to eligible

consumers in 2017-18. However,

GEPCO’s performance is worst in

this regard followed by FESCO.

Further, slight breach of targets has

also been made by LESCO &

MEPCO.


11

0

5

10

15

Load Shedding (Hrs)

2.6 LOAD SHEDDING (HRS):

According to Rule 4 (f) of Performance Standards (Distribution) Rules 2005, a

distribution company shall have plans and schedules available to shed up to 30% of its

connected load at any time upon instructions of NTDC. When instructed by NTDC, the

distribution company shall shed the load in the following order:

According to Rule 4 (f) of Performance

NEPRA team, during visit of different distribution companies observed load shedding of

8 to 10 hours in urban and 10 to 12 hours in rural areas on certain feeders. In addition to

above, it has also been observed that distribution companies are not following the order

of load shedding according to different categories of consumers as provided in PSDR

2005.

Name of

DISCO

Reported Figures of Load

Shedding (Hours) on Daily Basis

IESCO 3.125

PESCO 3.25

GEPCO 11

FESCO 0.74

LESCO 1.7

MEPCO 1.30

QESCO 5.8

SEPCO 2.25

HESCO 3.75

K-Electric 1.26

Table 8

1) Supply to consumers in rural

areas; and residential consumers

in urban areas where separate

feeders exist;

2) Supply to consumers other than

industrial, in urban areas.

3) Supply to agriculture consumers

where there is dedicated power

supply.

4) Supply to industrial consumers

5) Supply to schools & hospitals.

6) Supply to defense and strategic

installations

1) Table 8 illustrates the average

duration of load shedding carried out

by the DISCOs on daily basis in

2017-18. DISCOs except GEPCO &

QESCO reported the figures of load

shedding in the range of 1.26 to 3.25

hours which is contrary to the ground

realities. For instance, FESCO has

submitted only 0.74 hours load

shedding in its territory in 2017-18

on daily basis. Similarly, KE has

reported that it carried out averagely

1.26 hours load shedding on daily

basis, which is not a factual position.

Figure 6


12

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Voltage Complaints

%age of consumers who made complaints about voltage

Allowed limit in PSDR 2005

2.7 NOMINAL VOLTAGE:

According to Rule 4 (d) of PSDR 2005, a distribution company shall supply power to at

least 95% of its consumers within the range of ±5% of the nominal voltage. Following

are the nominal voltages for the distribution system:

Similarly, all other DISCOs have also provided power supply within the limits of

nominal voltages to more than 99% consumers, which is also not correct. It is pertinent to

highlight that NEPRA team during visits of different grid stations of DISCOs physically

monitored the voltage levels and found them mostly below the permissible limits.

Moreover, NEPRA also ensures the end consumer voltage levels by conducting consumer

surveys.

Name of

DISCO

No. of

consumers

who made

complaints

about

voltage

Total no.

of

consumers

in DISCO

% age of

complainants

w.r.t total

no. of

consumers

Allowed

% in

PSDR

2005

(1) (2) (3) 4=(2÷3)×100 (5)

IESCO 6,352 2,819,581 0.23 5

PESCO 6,812 3,060,089 0.22 5

GEPCO 5,485 3,256,154 0.17 5

FESCO 4,572 3,908,172 0.12 5

LESCO 3,303 4,598,788 0.07 5

MEPCO 0 5,765,733 0 5

QESCO 4,541 587,446 0.77 5

SEPCO 1,734 745,342 0.23 5

HESCO 212 1,080,766 0.02 5

K-Electric 628 2,798,378 0.02 5

(a) 400/230V

(b) 11kV

(c) 33kV

(d) 66kV

(e) 132kV

Table 9 shows the comparison

between percent of consumers

who made complaints regarding

voltage variations/fluctuation

with respect to percent allowed in

PSDR 2005. While analyzing the

data submitted by DISCOs &

KE, it is noted that all

distribution companies have

provided quality power supply to

more than 95% of its consumers

which is not true. Further, it is

surprisingly noted that there is no

single complaint in MEPCO

regarding voltage variation.

Figure 7

Table 9


13

2.8 CONSUMER COMPLAINTS:

Table 10 contains the analysis of average number of complaints per day per complaint

center based on the reported figures of complaints by distribution companies. Keeping in

view the worked out results, it is commented that the data submitted by DISCOs is not

based on reality. Particularly in case of IESCO and MEPCO, these companies have

received less than one complaint per day in whole year of 2017-18 in any of its complaint

center which is very surprising given the millions of consumers. Further, PESCO,

QESCO, SEPCO and HESCO have also reported 1 to 2 average number of complaints

per day per complaint center which does not make sense.

It is important to mention here that NEPRA team visited a number of complaint centers in

different DISCOs in 2016, 2017 & 2018 and found average per day complaints 20 to 30

in each of the visited complaint centers. Hence, it can be concluded that the data

submitted by DISCOs is not based on facts.

Name of

DISCO

Reported

Figures of

complaints

Total no. of

complaints

centers in

DISCO

No. of

complaints

per complaint

center

Average number

of complaints

per day per

complaint center

(1) (2) (3) 4=(2/3) 5=4/365

IESCO 43,504 124 350.84 0.96

PESCO 99,729 174 573.16 1.57

GEPCO 820,260 146 5618.20 15.39

FESCO 464,662 376 1235.80 3.39

LESCO 6,231,274 233 26743.67 73.27

MEPCO 48,425 217 223.16 0.61

QESCO 68,876 75 918.35 2.52

SEPCO 28,900 78 370.51 1.02

HESCO 62,269 88 707.60 1.94

K-Electric 1,966,269 30 65,542.3 179.56

Sr.

No.

Name of

DISCO

Total no. of

Consumers

Total no. of

complaints

%age of complaints

w.r.t no. of

consumers

1 IESCO 2,819,581 43,504 1.54 2 PESCO 3,060,089 99,729 3.26 3 GEPCO 3,256,154 820,260 25.19 4 FESCO 3,908,172 464,662 11.89 5 LESCO 4,598,788 6,231,274 135.5 6 MEPCO 5,765,733 48,425 0.84 7 QESCO 587,446 68,876 11.72 8 SEPCO 745,342 28,900 3.88 9 HESCO 1,080,766 62,269 5.76

10 K-Electric 2,798,378 1,966,269 70.26

An analysis regarding

% of complaints with

respect to total

number of consumers

being served by

respective DISCO has

also been carried out

as given in Table 11.

The analysis reveals

that LESCO has

received higher of

number of complaints

even more than 100%

of its consumers

followed by K-

Electric and GEPCO.

The percentage of

complaints of IESCO

and MEPCO with

respect to its

consumers seems

away from ground

realities.

Table 10

Table 11


14

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

SAFETY

Reported figures of fatalities

2.9 SAFETY (No. of fatalities for both employees & general public)

According to Rule 4 (g) of PSDR 2005, a distribution company shall implement suitable,

necessary and appropriate rules, regulations and working practices as outlined in its

Individually, it is noted that all DISCOs have reported more than five fatal accidents. The

highest number of fatal accidents took place in GEPCO. The number of fatal accidents

illustrates that distribution companies have failed to implement Safety Standards as

prescribed in Performance Standards and Distribution Code.

DISCOs are required to conduct detailed survey and identify all points of safety hazards

and take immediate steps to remove such safety hazards so that safety incidents can be

avoided. NEPRA being a Regulator persistently advises the DISCOs to develop safety

culture and to ensure the protection of employees and as well as general public by

implementing Performance Standards and Distribution Code.

Name of

DISCO

No. of Fatal

Accidents

for

Employees

No. of

Fatal

Accidents

for Public

Total Reported

number of

Fatal

Accidents

(1) (2) (3) 4=(2+3)

IESCO 07 13 20

PESCO 09 01 10

GEPCO 10 19 29

FESCO 06 01 07

LESCO 08 13 21

MEPCO 11 06 17

QESCO 04 02 06

SEPCO 08 09 17

HESCO 08 07 15

K-Electric 01 09 10

Total 72 80 152

Table 12

Distribution Code or applicable

documents to ensure the safety of

its staff and general public.

In this regard, distribution

utilities have submitted the

information related to number of

fatal accidents for both

employees and general public for

the year 2017-18 as per

prescribed format (Form 9 of

PSDR 2005).

While reviewing the data, it is

observed that a total of one

hundred and fifty two (152)

fatalities occurred in all

distribution companies in 2017-

18. The breakup of data reveals

that 72 of these were employees

and 80 were general public.

Figure 8


15

2.10 FAULT RATE

Fault rate basically measures the system performance of distribution companies by

keeping in view the number of faults with respect to length of distribution network. In

this regard, the data submitted by DISCOs has been reviewed and following analysis has

been carried out as indicated in Table 12.

It is noted that distribution systems of PESCO, QESCO, HESCO and KE seem very

healthy as they have reported less than one fault per kilometer, which is far away from

factual position as NEPRA team during visit found deteriorated condition of their

distribution networks.

Name of

DISCO

Total length of

distribution

system (km)

Total no.

of faults

Fault Rate

(No. of

Fault/km)

(1) (2) (3) 4=3/2

IESCO 55,479.14 472,952 8.52

PESCO 91,217.16 40,913 0.45

GEPCO 44,190 134,363 3.04

FESCO 74,339 82,519 1.11

LESCO 47,000.7 277,715 5.91

MEPCO 49,670.6 288,979 5.82

QESCO 61,375.48 29,734 0.48

SEPCO 41,502 103,290 2.49

HESCO 46,295.74 38,662 0.84

K-Electric 28,647 24,349 0.85

Table 13

Table 12 illustrates the figures of

fault rate derived from the data

pertaining to number of faults and

length of distribution network as

submitted by DISCOs for the

year 2017-18. The reduction in

number of faults with increasing

length of distribution network

actually demonstrates the health

of system and degree of

reliability of power supply.


16

0

10

20

30

40

T&D Losses

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

COMPARISON OF DATA FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 WITH LAST FIVE

YEARS (2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17)

3.1 TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION (T&D) LOSSES (%)

3.2 RECOVERY (%)

Name of

DISCO 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

IESCO 9.46 9.41 9.10 9.02 9.13

PESCO 33.5 34.8 33.8 32.6 38.1

GEPCO 10.97 10.72 10.58 10.24 10.01

FESCO 11.3 11 10.2 10.6 10.5

LESCO 13.4 14.1 13.9 13.8 13.8

MEPCO 17.5 16.7 16.4 16.9 16.6

QESCO 28.3 24.4 23.8 23.1 22.4

SEPCO 38.56 38.29 37.72 37.8 36.7

HESCO 26.46 27.1 26.5 30.8 29.8

K-Electric 25.30 23.69 22.24 21.71 20.4

Table 14

Figure 9

Name of

DISCO 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

IESCO 120 99.8 99.3 100.37 99.1

PESCO 86.3 88.0 88.6 89.1 89.5

GEPCO 96 97 99.6 98 97.0

FESCO 100.05 100.06 100.06 97.21 97.93

LESCO 97.87 95.88 99.65 100.45 97.8

MEPCO 96.04 102.33 99.99 96.21 99.68

QESCO 42.2 32.6 71.6 43.5 46.1

SEPCO 58.60 57.81 55.2 110.8 60.1

HESCO 79.2 78.2 72.4 95.2 76.7

K-Electric 91.22 90.37 87.63 90.04 91.04

Above Table and Figure

indicate the trend of

recoveries over the last five

years i.e. from 2013-14 to

2017-18. The trend shows the

inconsistent recovery rates for

some of the DISCOs. Apart

from that, if the recoveries of

2017-18 are compared with

2016-17, it can be commented

Table and Figure illustrate the

reported figures of T&D

losses of DISCOs over the

period of last five years

starting from 2013-14. Over

the time, most of the DISCOs

have made gradual

improvement except PESCO,

FESCO and HESCO.

Particularly, if the values of

losses in 2017-18 are

compared with the values of

2016-17, it has been observed

that all have shown

improvement except IESCO

and PESCO. They can further

be reduced by adopting the

Automated Metering

Infrastructure and can

develop a reliable metering

system.

Table 15


17

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Recovery

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

0

200

400

600

800

SAIFI

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

that all have improved except IESCO, GEPCO, LESCO, SEPCO and HESCO. The

different trends in recovery

3.3 SYSTEM AVERAGE INTERRUPTION FREQUENCY INDEX (SAIFI-No.)

inconsistency in data, which indicates that there is no proper mechanism to record the

interruptions and to calculate the SAIFI.

Name of

DISCO 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

IESCO 0.05 0.036 0.03 0.029 0.04

PESCO 316.5 315.40 261.65 160.60 170

GEPCO 10.52 10.41 35.44 3.26 30.97

FESCO 35.40 46.54 32.41 39.99 38.87

LESCO 78.04 52.49 45.79 37.44 32.92

MEPCO 201.5 177.61 203 235 316.22

QESCO 144.95 112.58 107 96.92 95.18

SEPCO 251.5 227.96 216.71 601.37 568.59

HESCO 229.9 202.3 184 188.40 180.74

K-Electric 24.71 22.21 20.52 19.6 17.55

rates of DISCOs over time

actually demonstrates their

poor efficiency. The same can

be made consistent by

applying good governance

and management techniques.

Figure 10

It is pertinent to highlight that

the data given in above table

and Figure is not based on

reality as the same was

verified by the NEPRA

professionals during

monitoring of different

DISCOs. Further, while

comparing the data of SAIFI

for the year 2017-18 with

2016-17, it has been noted

that except PESCO, MEPCO

and GEPCO all other

DISCOs have shown

reduction. This means that

these three distribution

companies (PESCO, MEPCO

and GEPCO) failed to

provide reliable power supply

in 2017-18 as compared to

2016-17. Overall, the trend of

last five years shows the

Table 16

Figure 11


18

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

SAIDI

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

3.4 SYSTEM AVERAGE INTERRUPTION DURATION INDEX (SAIDI-Min.)

3.5 TIME FRAME FOR NEW CONNECTIONS (%)

improvement. Whereas, IESCO has shown zero pendency of new connections same as in

last year, which is far away from ground realities. NEPRA team during visit of different

distribution companies noted with serious concerns that on average 100 to 200

connections were found pending per sub-division.

Name of

DISCO 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

IESCO 1.66 0.995 0.82 0.79 0.73

PESCO 27,946.6 27934.98 24927.12 14643 16222.79

GEPCO 13.14 13.20 59.49 55.03 53.67

FESCO 1137 2682.58 1714 1532.04 1951.38

LESCO 4,759.6 3010.29 2926.29 5595.63 4338.23

MEPCO 17704.6 15677.65 17592 20411.32 26822.35

QESCO 11868.1 7506.81 7290 8310.4 8287.90

SEPCO 2442.73 2141.36 1879.37 5666.01 4397.44

HESCO 16,678.6 10642.7 12623 12799.12 12292.57

K-Electric 1495.25 1330.30 1210 1142.5 1451.42

Table 17

Name of

DISCO 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

IESCO 0 0 0 0 0

PESCO 9.57 3.2 3.6 4.2 2.23

GEPCO 15.24 8.60 8.6 12.35 18.79

FESCO 27.7 25.3 19.8 34.7 15.94

LESCO 13 5.24 9.95 5.77 5.23

MEPCO 15.8 9.15 5.7 5.14 5.28

QESCO 1.08 12.5 20.3 20.4 1.31

SEPCO 9.0 13.8 1.23 1.27 4.3

HESCO 11.86 3.3 0 0 0.03

K-Electric 13.2 4.8 1.9 8.0 4.0

Similarly just like SAIFI,

the data related to SAIDI

does not reflect reality and

is based on huge variations.

Reliable power can be

supplied to the end users by

improving SAIFI & SAIDI,

which is possible by

regular maintenance of

distribution system.

Moreover, there is a sheer

need for proper data base

system regarding recording

of interruptions and its

duration.

While reviewing the data, it

is observed that most of the

DISCOs have shown

inconsistent performance

over the period of last five

years. Further, if data for the

year 2017-18 is compared

with 2016-17, PESCO,

FESCO, LESCO QESCO

and K-Electric have shown Table 18

Figure 12


19

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Load Shedding

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

3.6 LOAD SHEDDING (HRS):

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Time Frame For New Connection

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Name of

DISCO 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

IESCO 5 4 3.43 3.33 3.125

PESCO 4.8 2.5 2.3 3.2 3.25

GEPCO 3.2 4 4 3.25 11

FESCO 7.25 4.33 3.5 3.23 0.74

LESCO 3.5 2.33 1.67 2 1.7

MEPCO 10 4.25 3.2 3.35 1.30

QESCO 10.5 3.4 2.83 3.875 5.8

SEPCO 2 1 1 2.25 2.25

HESCO 3.75 4 3.33 4.5 3.75

K-Electric 2.3 1.1 1.33 2.5 1.26

Table 19

Table 13

Table and Figure illustrate

the data of average daily

load shedding hours carried

out by DISCOs in last five

years, but the data is far

away from factual positions

as reflected in media

reports and physical

verification.

Figure 14


20

010,00020,00030,00040,00050,000

Nominal Voltage

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

3.7 NOMINAL VOLTAGE

3.8 CONSUMER SERVICE COMPLAINTS

Further, LESCO, QESCO, SEPCO, HESCO and K-Electric received more number of

complaints in 2017-18 as compared to 2016-17. The lower number of complaints and

minimum time for disposal of the same are the actual indicators of customer satisfaction.

Name of

DISCO 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

IESCO 6,457 5,710 6,508 6,890 6,352

PESCO 43,787 37,704 38,635 19,564 6,812

GEPCO 3,325 3,744 3,906 5,071 5,485

FESCO 9,169 9,223 10,488 4,127 4,572

LESCO 25,504 8,363 17,631 10,887 3,303

MEPCO 0 0 0 0 0

QESCO 4,022 144 4,273 4,355 4,541

SEPCO 0 0 0 1,033 1,734

HESCO 1,743 681 186 201 212

K-Electric 19,408 258 253 293 628

Table 20

Figure 15

Name of

DISCO 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

IESCO 66,739 62.167 63,831 46,587 43,504

PESCO 104,812 102,859 103,983 441,951 99,729

GEPCO 1,123,731 841,178 826,226 824,816 820,260

FESCO 248,241 392,399 353,019 496,176 464,662

LESCO 1,163,927 227,596 1,548,464 1,245,699 6,231,274

MEPCO 93,198 91,373 73,296 74,869 48,425

QESCO 50,811 41,952 5,198 52,211 68,876

SEPCO 12,051 8,857 8,516 9,085 28,900

HESCO 45,794 5,696 56,602 61,925 62,269

K-Electric 509,510 457,486 481,061 675,268 1,966,269

The above data shows

number of consumers who

made complaints about

voltage levels in FY 2017-18.

However, the data seems

unrealistic as the percentages

of consumers who made

complaints are very less as

compared to the total

consumers. The same was

also verified by NEPRA team

during their visits in different

DISCOs and found that

voltages are not provided

within prescribed limits

resulting in damage of home

appliances.

The Table and Figure in

this section show the

number of complaints

received by DISCOs over

the period of last five

years through different

modes. Overall, a mixed

trend has been observed

in form of increasing and

decreasing trends.

Table 21


21

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

Consumer Service Complaints

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

0

10

20

30

40

50

Safety

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

3.9 SAFETY

Name of

DISCO 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

IESCO 12 15 19 15 20

PESCO 20 29 23 20 10

GEPCO 12 15 12 16 29

FESCO 29 29 15 15 07

LESCO 35 24 24 29 21

MEPCO 17 34 20 10 17

QESCO 02 20 5 11 06

SEPCO 45 34 17 20 17

HESCO 14 22 24 3 15

K-Electric 05 04 13 8 10

Table 22

Figure 16

Unfortunately, the number

of fatal accidents in 2017-

18 has been increased as

compared to 2016-17

which is very alarming and

indicates that DISCOs have

failed to adhere the safety

procedures and develop a

safety culture. Distribution

companies shall have to

realize that every human

life is precious, even one

fatal accident matters.

DISCOs are required to

prioritize safety as of losses

and recovery. Overall, the

trend specifies an

unpredictable performance

by DISCOs in this regard.

Figure 17


22

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Fault Rate

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

3.10 FAULT RATE

Name of

DISCO 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

IESCO 4.65 2.62 7.2 1.41 8.52

PESCO 0.88 0.78 0.93 0.86 0.45

GEPCO 21.58 3.12 2.97 3.04 3.04

FESCO 2.20 1.78 1.99 1.64 1.11

LESCO 50.6 7.79 10.48 2.99 5.91

MEPCO 2.81 2.72 3.35 4.06 5.82

QESCO 0.835 0.59 0.53 0.49 0.48

SEPCO 2.1 2.004 1.58 3.12 2.49

HESCO 1.92 0.78 0.89 1.696 0.84

K-Electric 1.96 1.546 1.39 0.95 0.85

Table 23

While comparing the data

pertaining to Fault Rate for

the year 2017-18 with

2016-17, it is observed that

except IESCO, LESCO and

MEPCO all have shown

reduction, whereas, the

fault rate of these four

companies has increased.

Table and Figure illustrate

the trend of last five years

and found that the results

of this parameter are not

even, which means that the

data submitted by DISCOs

is not true.

Figure 18

Documents

Table of Contents - NEPRA | Home DISCOs 2017... · 2020-02-25 · Performance Evaluation Report of Distribution Companies 2017-18 2 SAIFI and SAIDI: The data reported by the distribution