High Voltage stories from God’s own Country - II

Power Sector Fraud for Dummies

Here’s a HOW-TO guide on conducting a fraud in Indian power sector based on an actual story. The people who committed the same are still at large and do not share the fate of our former telecom minister. That means the process is still a good option and worth trying. 

To commit this fraud, you either need to be the Power Minister of some state or a consultant. In any case, both need to coordinate their actions and there is no room for individual heroics here. Only a Minister can handle the accusations, allegations and possible legal complications. Only a Consultant will be able to twist the technical and economic details to make the project look innocent. This story is regarding a project done by SNC-Lavalin (a leading Consultancy firm in Canada) in Kerala for three hydroelectric projects owned by Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB).

Step 1: Forget CEA, Just choose a convenient project

The Hydro Electric Power Stations of the Board at Pallivasal (37.5 MW), Sengulam (48 MW) and Panniar (30 MW) were installed during the period 1940-64.  In 1992 when Kerala was ruled by CPI(M),  KSEB decided to go for a full renovation of all these power stations on the ground that the generators in the Power Stations had outlived their life. Initially they sought approval from the Central Electricity Authority (CEA) for the renovation of Pallivasal project. CEA recommended (in 1992) that immediate replacement of the generating units of Pallivasal Power Station was not necessary, since the plant was in fairly good condition and suggested a new scheme of 60 MW as an augmentation of the existing scheme. Panniar Augmentation scheme and Sengulam Augmentation Schemes for additional power generation was also under the consideration of the Board at the same time. All the above augmentation schemes necessitated uprating of capacity of generators rather than renovation.

Step 2: Forget feasibility study and tenders, Just give the project to a ‘convenient’ Consultant

By 1995, Government changed in Kerala and was then under Congress rule. The projects which were earlier shelved due to opposition from CEA again came back into life. SNC-Lavalin was chosen as the consultant for the project without any global tender. In August 1995, an MoU was signed between KSEB and SNC Lavalin “for establishing a joint venture association for carrying out rehabilitation of existing facilities, identifying the three Hydro Electric Projects at Pallivasal, Sengulam and Panniar for the first batch of renovation. As per the MOU, finance for the renovation was to be arranged by SNC Lavalin from Export Development Corporation (EDC), Canada and Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA).”

It was only after signing the MoU that the board decided to go for a feasibility study. The Board undertook a feasibility study on the proposal only in September 1995, by a retired Chief Engineer of the KSEB. And most importantly, the same person later became a consultant to SNC Lavalin. Based on the consultant’s report and further discussions, contracts were signed in February 1996 with SNC Lavalin for providing technical services for management, EPC supervision to ensure completion of the projects within three years. The agreement was just for consultancy and does not include the purchase of machineries and the total amount to be paid to SNC Lavalin was just Rs. 24 crores.

Step 3: Forget OEMs, Confuse the Common Man

In May 1996, Kerala again turned left and came under CPI(M) rule. This is where the villain (or hero depending on your intentions) of the story comes in. The Power portfolio goes to Pinarayi Vijayan of CPI(M). He goes for a long trip to Canada, from Oct 12, 1996 to Oct 23, 1996. Just after the tour, the Government started to contemplate about giving the purchase orders for equipment also to SNC Lavalin even when they are not the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) and there were no restrictions in directly procuring the equipment from OEMs. The proposed new contract will cost more than Rs. 300 crore which was a steep price. But to avoid opposition and allegations, an innovative proposal (in the whole history of Indian power sector) was mooted – “In return for the project, SNC-Lavalin and Canadian Government will provide grants to the tune of Rs. 100 crore to set up a Cancer hospital in Kerala.” No one, even the newspapers at the time didn’t care to ask what the relation is between a Power project and a hospital! 

Step 4: Supress Opposition, Get the Proposal Stamped

It is surprising to note that the biggest opposition to the project came not from the opposition parties but from within the party. On September 1996, Govt of Kerala has constituted a committee under comrade E Balanandan to find ways to improve the electricity scenario in Kerala. On 02 February 1997, the committee presented its report which opposed the SNC Lavalin deal. It supported CEA’s viewpoint that efforts should be on uprating of generators, not renovation. It also wondered why Kerala has to purchase equipment through SNC Lavalin when they can directly buy the same from the OEMs – Alstom and Hitachi. Ignoring the findings of committee and suggestions of CEA, KSEB went forward with the deal and on 10 February 1997 they signed a new MoU with SNC Lavalin changing the consultancy contract to a fixed price contract. The price for equipment quoted by SNC Lavalin was accepted without any negotiations. 

To get support for the deal, Pinarayi Vijayan took one more trip to Canada, this time taking the Chief Minister E K Nayanar along with him. What happened next was best illustrated in the CAG report – “The final contract for supply of equipment and engineering services was finalized by the Ministerial delegation directly with the consultant who was acting as an intermediary and was not the manufacturer. The supply of goods and services were actually made by other firms at much higher cost leading to extra avoidable payments. Eight months after signing of the contracts, the Board sought post facto justification of the contract price through the entrustment of a study to National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Limited (NHPC).  It was seen from NHPC’s report that the technical specifications of the equipment required for price comparison purposes were not made available to them.  It was also seen that NHPC had not certified the reasonableness of the prices but had only stated that keeping in view of the soft loan with grant element, the purchase for Canadian equipment and accessories could be considered favourably.  As the grant was not received there was hardly any justification as per NHPC’s report. 

Step 5: Tell a Lie a Hundred times, Some may Believe it at the End

According to the draft agreement for the project, the grant of Rs. 100 crore for setting up a cancer hospital was not a mandatory one. But Govt. kept on justifying the high cost of deal by pointing to the grant. When this was communicated in written by the KSEB Secretary to Power Secretary, GoK in January 1998, the Power Minister Pinarayi Vijayan made the now notorious file noting – “KSEB Secretary’s head should be examined.”! On July 6, 1998 the final agreement was signed with SNC Lavalin. The actual grant given to Cancer hospital was Rs. 10 crores. The rest didn’t materialise. SNC Lavalin got the full payment of over Rs. 300 crore for the project from Govt. of Kerala.

As if all this were not enough, here comes the icing on the cake. After spending over Rs. 300 crore on renovation, the actual production in all the three plants didn’t increase but actually DECREASE which means all the investment has gone wasted. And there were no penalty clauses in the agreement thereby closing the option of legal recourse against SNC Lavalin. 

Step 6: Use Political Might

The Comptroller and Auditor General’s report on 2005 came down heavily against the deal. Here are the conclusions – 

• There were deviations from prescribed procedures in selection of these projects for renovation and in the award of contract to SNC Lavalin; 
• Absence of due professional care in negotiating the foreign loan proved to be detrimental to the financial interests of the Board; 
• The expenditure of Rs.374.50 crore incurred for renovation did not yield commensurate gains;
• The equipment supplied by the SNC had various defects and certain equipment received could not be utilised; and
• The very objective of improvement in efficiency of machines could not be achieved as there was no improvement in the generation of power.

On 16 January 2007, Kerala High Court ordered a CBI enquiry into the scandal. On 21 January 2009, the CBI filed a progress report on the investigation in the Kerala High Court. Pinarayi Vijayan had been named as the 9th accused in the case. The CBI stated that Vijayan along with the other accused had, 'fraudulently with dishonest intention' of showing undue favour to SNC Lavalin, entered into only a 'non-binding' memorandum of understanding for Malabar Cancer Center instead of a legally valid memorandum of agreement which facilitated SNC-Lavalin to back out from the commitment later, thereby 'cheating the government'. CBI requested for permission from Governor of the State for prosecuting Vijayan in 2009. Governor asked the opinion of the State Government on the matter. But the state Government was again in the hands of CPI(M) and Vijayan is now the CPI(M) State Secretary and a Politburo member. The Cabinet turned down the proposal for prosecution.

On 06 June 2009, the Governor turned down the cabinet proposal and gave the CBI permission to start the prosecution of Pinarayi Vijayan. Unsurprisingly, the Government appealed against this decision of Governor in Supreme Court. On 31 March 2011, the Supreme Court turned down the appeal. But the wheels of justice are still running very slow and the prosecution may take years to complete.

Conclusion

Now that you know how it is done it is all a matter of just how you adapt the lessons from this story to suit the circumstances. But if things didn’t end up well, you may find yourself in the same prison as that of a former union telecom minister or hopefully a state power minister. (And there is one more former Power Minister of Kerala now in prison for corruption. But then that is another long story.) The author only hopes that whatever financial gains anyone makes with the knowledge and inspiration from this article, a small royalty from those gains are paid to him.

References

1. Comptroller and Auditor General of India (2005), Overview, Retrieved on December 2010 from http://saiindia.gov.in/cag/sites/default/files/cag_reports/kerala/rep_2005/com_overview.pdf
2. Comptroller and Auditor General of India (2005), Transaction Audit Observations, Retrieved on December 2010 from www.cag.gov.in/html/cag_reports/kerala/rep_2004/comm_chap3.pdf
3. Comptroller and Auditor General of India (2005), Review Relating to Statutory Corporation, Retrieved on December 2010 from http://saiindia.gov.in/cag/sites/default/
   files/cag_reports/kerala/rep_2005/com_chapter_3.pdf
4. SNC-Lavalin (2009), SNC-Lavalin in Kerala State, Retrieved on December 2010 from http://www.snclavalin.com/news_kerala.php?lang=en
5. SNC Monitor (2009), SNC Lavalin Scandal – The Broad Picture, Retrieved on December 2010 from http://snclavalin.blogspot.com/2009/01/introduction-to-snc-lavalin-scandal.html

High Voltage stories from God’s own Country - I

One Step Forward, Two Steps Backwards

Note: This is the first part of the series of articles I will be writing about the power sector in Kerala. The high literacy level, high level of electrification and the dubious distinction of being the one of the last states which are resisting SEB unbundling – all these factors offer interesting perspectives which we will be discussing in these articles. Some of the matters being discussed in these article are sub judice and some of them are of political nature and hence the author has tried his best to maintain neutrality.

Introduction

“Ministry of defence: The ministry that defends India against its greatest enemy: not Pakistan, not China, but corruption. No decision, no corruption.” – From ‘A dictionary of our times’ by Pratabh Bhanu Mehta, Indian Express on 27 January 2011

The defence ministry is well known for its strictness and swiftness in acting against corruption ever since the Bofors scandal. But the strict procedures ensure that tenders and procurement processes get postponed/cancelled sometimes even due to vague allegations thereby delaying the modernisation of armed forces. According to rules, if it is found that bribe was paid in a defence deal, howsoever insignificant the amount of bribe is, the deal will have to be cancelled. In an ethical and legal viewpoint, this rule is valid and necessary. But from the perspective of National security, if it is found that bribes haven’t influenced the technical qualifications shouldn’t we have punished the official who accepted the bribe and gone forward with the deal? Each delay in defence projects are exposing more and more of our Nation to future vulnerabilities. For example, in 2009 the Defence Ministry cancelled a 155mm artillery gun tender after Bofors emerged as the frontrunner, since it was embroiled in a corruption case in the 1980s. If being involved in an old corruption scandal acts against winning a new bid, why did the Govt. initially allowed Bofors to participate in the process, thereby delaying the process by months.

But then we are here to discuss about power sector, not defence. When it comes to power sector, even though figures involved are large, the processes are more transparent than the defence ministry. In power sector, high level corruption allegations are not as rampant as that in Defence (ofcourse there are exceptions like Enron) and mostly such issues doesn’t threaten the overall project executions. Eventhough there still exists room in the rules and regulations for manipulations and corruption, the process is transparent and easily verifiable. In those circumstances, won’t it be strange if an Electricity Minister cancels a contract because the leader of opposition made some charges against the contract!!

The Contract

The Government of India had in 2008 announced the Restructured Accelerated Power Development and Reforms Programme (RAPDRP) for strengthening the distribution of State Power utilities and bringing down the Aggregate Technical and Commercial (AT&C) losses to 15% by the end of the project period. On July 2010 the first phase (worth Rs.240 Crores) of the program was awarded to Korea Electric Power Data Company - KEPCO Data Network (KDN), which is claimed to be a global leader in smart grid and is owned by the South Korean government. The major projects proposed for implementation are as follows

• Establishment of Wide Area Network for KSEB – For connecting all the major offices
• Establishment of Data Centre – For hosting all the Server systems of Software Applications
• Energy Auditing
• GIS based consumer indexing and asset mapping
• Centralised customer care and web services

In addition, SCADA/DMS project is also included in RAPDRP for which three towns have been qualified as per PFC guidelines. The scheme was unique because the State would not have to repay the loan provided by Central Government through Power Finance Corporation (PFC) if it was successfully implemented within three years, failing which it would have to repay the amount along with the interest. The State would also be eligible for Rs.1000 crore in the second phase of the project, of which 50 per cent would be Central aid. Accordingly KDN was expected to finish the work in November 2011. 

The Allegations

On October 2010, Leader of the Opposition alleged that KSEB gave the project to KDN even when another company – Omni Agate Systems quoted a price which was lower by Rs. 51 crore. He also said that manipulation of tender specifications at the onset had prompted most bidders to back out. The Korean company KEPCO Data Network (KDN)'s bank guarantee, a crucial mechanism to protect the KSEB's financial interest, was drawn in favour of a non-existent entity and instead of disqualifying the company, the KSEB permitted it to change the bank guarantee. A former Electricity minister alleged that the use of free software was mandated to keep Indian IT majors like Infosys and Wipro out of the race.

The Clarifications

In response to the allegations, KSEB came out with three press releases in September 2010, October 2010 and in December 2010 the salient points of which are listed below.

1. Tender process and evaluation was done under the guidelines and supervision of PFC which is a central sector utility. So there is no scope for state Government to go against the rules.
2. In most states only 2-3 companies participated in bids for Phase 1 of APDRP while in the case of Kerala about 8 companies participated which disproves the theory of tender conditions being restricted and biased.
3. KDN has submitted Bank Guarantee DD in favour of Chief Manager instead of Chief Engineer. The mistake happened because in most utilities, DD needs to be drawn in favour of Chief Manager and KSEB is one of the rare exceptions. This was pointed out to KDN and they promptly corrected it. Such corrections are allowed as per the existing rules.
4. Even though Omni Agate Systems may have quoted a lower bid than KDN, they got only 33 points in technical evaluation while the qualification requirement was 35 and subsequently they were eliminated from the process without even opening their financial bid as per the conditions and rules stipulated by PFC. The software used for doing technical evaluation was also approved by PFC. Omni Agate Systems was also disqualified in technical evaluation of J&K Government for their RAPDRP projects.
5. There was a Company – MIC which quoted a lower bid than KDN and passed the technical evaluation. But they have failed to include some items in the bid and when KSEB recalculated the bid adding those items too, their total bid amount became more than that quoted by KDN.
6. Use of free software was mentioned as preferred but was not a mandatory condition.

Let us Retreat!!

Eventhough KSEB put up a brave front, the Government developed cold feet by the fear of the deal being equated with SNC-Lavalin scam (one of the biggest scams in Indian power sector which I will be covering in a later issue). The problem was aggravated by the fact that state elections are scheduled to be conducted on 2011 May.

The Kerala cabinet on 15 December 2010 decided to cancel the contract between KSEB and KDN and retender the work at the insistence of Chief Minister. But the Government couldn’t give any proof on any irregularity committed by either KDN or KSEB. The actual reason was that the Government feared that people may equate this deal with the previous SNC-Lavalin scam which also happened in the previous Government of the same political dispensation. Kerala’s Electricity Minister didn’t try to hide the fact and accepted it publicly -

“Soon, the opposition leader came up with a statement equating it with the SNC-Lavalin. Then came a letter from our own chief minister which left us with no option but to go for a re-tender,” he said. “Those who oppose these projects are giving great disservice to our state.”

Impact

KDN approached Kerala High Court against the decision of state Government. On 4 January 2011 the High Court granted a stay for two months on the state government’s directive on annulling the contract with KDN. 

Now even if the Government goes for retendering after the expiry of stay order, there are only slim chances of the project meeting the deadline of November 2011. This means that the Government will lose Rs.214 crore grant and will also have to pay interest at the rate of 11%. Thus the total financial loss will be Rs.237 crore. There may be further expenses if court accepts KDN’s demand for financial compensation. 

The delay in first phase implementation will also lead to the stalling of the second-phase assistance of RAPRDP, which is to the tune of Rs.5 billion. Thus KSEB will continue with the present AT&C losses thereby further increasing the potential losses.

Looking into the Future

It was not just a project that was blocked; the developmental aspirations and initiatives of a state were blocked. It is natural for people to cry foul after every major deal is signed. It is also in the interest of the Nation that such allegations of foul play be investigated to find if there is any truth in the allegations. But when the policy of court is to not let even a single innocent person get punished even if that means leaving a thousand guilty men free, won’t the policy apply equally in the case of such projects which were time consuming and capital intensive? Just like a person is not pronounced guilty till the Judge delivers the verdict, shouldn’t a project be also viewed as legally valid till a court declares it to be invalid or illegal? Sectors like Defence and Electricity are vital to the strategic interests of the Nation. It is true that we shouldn’t allow corruption in these sectors. But shouldn’t the corruption charges be fought with brain instead of heart and shouldn’t the rulers keep in mind of the next generation instead of next election while taking decisions?  

 

References 

• http://www.kseb.in/general/rapdrp-projects-in-kseb.html 
• http://www.kseb.in/news/government-scraps-kseb-rapdrp-tender.html 
• http://www.thehindu.com/2010/10/09/stories/2010100960360400.htm 
• http://expressbuzz.com/cities/thiruvananthapuram/deal-with-korean-firm-scrapped-due-to-pressure/236452.html

An Inconvenient Renewable Truth

First they came for the Nuclear power plants,
and I didn't speak out because I didn’t run a Nuclear power plant.

Then they came for the Coal power plants,
and I didn't speak out because I didn’t run a Coal power plant.

Then they came for the Hydro power plants,
and I didn't speak out because I didn’t run a Hydro power plant.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me
and there were no lights that were glowing in the land.

(Adaptation of ‘First They came...’ by Pastor Martin Niemoller)

We are now living in a world where ‘Renewable’ has become the ‘in’ thing, a widely accepted one indeed. From well-known and acclaimed researchers and professors to the self-proclaimed crusaders for environment, all agree on the need of switching to renewable sources of energy for our sustenance. They will ask, “Why is the Govt. still going on building Ultra Mega Power Projects and Nuclear plants? Why do we mine the bellies of earth for coal when we can meet our future energy requirements with wind and solar power plants?”

In Germany, they said, “Believe in Nazism. Ask no questions.”
In Soviet Union, they said, “Question communism and you get an accommodation in Siberia or a bullet.”
And then there are some religious leaders who profess, “Believe only in our God. Worship any other one and you will rot in hell.”

Seeing the one sided discussions in various media, hearing the passionate speeches of some NGO activists I fear that ‘renewable’ is slowly becoming a political propaganda or a strict religion. And the proponents of the new religion shun those who question and mock at the non-believers. I don’t know if I am a believer of this new religion or not. I don’t know the same about the person who is reading this article. All I can do is to share some perspectives and concerns in my mind regarding the renewable energy sector.

Who needs a bulb that can glow only in daytime?

Technically there are two types of renewables – Firm and Non-firm. Firm renewables are those which can continuously deliver power irrespective of natural phenomenon. Non-firm renewables are those which are at the mercy of the decisions of nature. For example, biomass based power plants are firm renewable. As long as you deliver the fuel, you will get the power. The same goes with a hydro power plant, assuming your reservoir has enough water. But do we hear cries for building hydro power plants or biomass power plants or geothermal power plants? Surprisingly, NO. The clarion calls are for solar and wind power plants. Needless to say, solar power plants deliver power only at day time. Wind farms deliver power only when the wind is blowing, and that too stops when the wind speed increases beyond a point.

If only we had a way of efficiently storing such large amounts of energy, most of our problems would have ceased to exist. But out energy storage technology hasn’t found a way to economically save such huge amounts of electricity. So whatever that is generated needs to be fed to the grid instantaneously for consumption. Our prediction technologies are also not matured enough to predict exactly what time and with what speed the wind will blow, or exactly what time the clouds will block the sun during rainy season. This prevents you from scheduling the power from non-firm renewable energy. In other words, they are ‘non-trustworthy’ and you need to have stable alternatives to deliver reliable power. You may ditch your coal, nuclear, gas and large hydro power plants if you can suffer the minor discomfort of waiting for wind to blow or sun to rise so that you can switch on the bulbs in your home.

In the name of a dead Prime Minister

When you have a project that lacks credibility or has some suspicious purpose, the best way to protect it is by naming it on behalf of a great personality. Thus, when it became evident that a significant portion of NREGA allocations is flowing to the pockets of unworthy people due to corruption, father of the Nation’s name was dragged along and docked with the project. In the case of National Solar Mission, they decided not to take a chance, and named it in memory of the first Prime Minister in the initial stage itself – Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission. (Let us forget the fact that he ditched Tibet, lost Kashmir etc…)

The World Bank report ‘Unleashing the Potential of Renewable Energy in India’ finds that there is no possibility of solar power being economical in the next ten years ^[1]. The report maintains that Small hydro plants and biomass power plants will be able to operate economically, delivering power at reliable rate if there is a carbon emission penalty on thermal plants, or carbon credits given for these renewable plants. It cannot be perceived that the people who planned JNNSM where oblivious of this fact. They still decided to invest in a technology that will cost more than Rs. 15/unit of electricity produced! ^[2] And then there is the fact that solar plants require about 6 acre/MW of electricity produced ^[3] while even a thermal power plant will need only less than half of it^[4]. The capital cost is also high for solar power plants ^[5]. So if someone suspects ulterior motives for the Government in JNNSM and argues that the mission was envisaged to favour solar power equipment manufacturers and solar power producers rather than the environment, can that be ignored as an entirely unfounded argument?

What to do with a leaky bucket?

No, I am not talking about the losses in distribution. That is being well taken care of by GoI’s R-APDRP program. I am talking about another villain in the Indian power sector story – We, the consumers. The Government is forced to go for power capacity addition due to the rise in demand. The rise in demand from industries has to be accommodated to facilitate the growth of the Nation. But what about the rise in demand from consumers? Can’t we find ways to reduce our consumption? We can’t reduce the rise in demand. But can’t we reduce the rate of rise in demand?

A middle class person buying a vehicle will go on talking and researching about its efficiency and mileage. But the same person will look at you like an alien if you ask him if he knows the monthly consumption of electricity in his home. For the growth and development of Nation, you can either generate one unit of electricity or save one unit. As an individual, it is difficult to do the first part, but we can always do the latter. A knowledgeable friend of mine even coined a slogan – ‘Save 1 Unit Electricity Equivalent a Day (UEED), Nation will become electricity surplus in a year’. Generating power is always costly. Land availability is also decreasing day by day. And there is huge potential for energy savings and energy conservations. It is a sad thing that Govt. has mainly left it to utilities and consumers to implement Demand Side Management and Energy Conservation practices. We can only hope that the ‘Energy Saving Certificates’ and ‘Perform Achieve Trade’ mechanisms receive the kind of Governmental support that the power generation sector receives.

Last few words…

In ‘overload’ written in 1979 by Arthur Hailey (a work of fiction on the US energy sector), one of the main characters – a top manager of a US power utility says that the opposition to generation companies by environmentalists is also a necessary ingredient for the healthy performance of energy sector and that in the absence of such an opposition, the generation companies may indulge in ruthless exploitation of environment. That is, the environmentalists act as a counterweight against the selfish motives of generation companies ^[6]. The bridge should allow traffic on both ways. Let the apostles of solar and wind power also open up their mind to suggestions and criticisms.

Our great Nation is not Fascist, Communist or Theocratic but Democratic. Let us hear the arguments from both sides and then judge them. Let Govt. and private players go on building a healthy mix of renewable and non-renewable power plants. We need not stop debating nuclear v/s thermal v/s renewable power generation. We need not stop debating Kyoto protocol and carbon emissions. But let us also dedicate some personal time and effort on energy conservation too. Let us switch off those unnecessary lights so that the future generation can live in bright light.

References

1. The World Bank (2010), Unleashing the Potential of Renewable Energy in India, Retrieved on March 2011 from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INDIAEXTN/Resources/Reports-Publications/Unleashing_potential_of_Renewable_Energy_in_India.pdf
   
   
2. Energy Alternatives India, India Solar PV Advisor, Retrieved on April 2011 from http://www.eai.in/ref/reports/solar.html
   
   
3. CERC (2010), Order on Benchmark Capital Cost Norm for Solar Power Projects , Retrieved on April 2011 from http://www.cercind.gov.in/2010/ORDER/February2010/Order_Solar_Capital_Cost_Norm_13-2010%28Suo_muto%29.pdf
   
   
4. CEA (2007), Report on Land Requirement of Thermal Power Stations, Retrieved on April 2011 from http://www.cea.nic.in/reports/articles/thermal/land_requirement.pdf
   
   
5. CERC (2009), CERC (Terms and Conditions for Tariff determination from Renewable Energy Sources) Regulations, 2009., Retrieved on February 2011 from http://www.cercind.gov.in/Regulations/CERC_RE-Tariff-Regualtions_17_sept_09.pdf
   
   
6. Arthur Hailey (1979), ‘Overload’, Rupa & Co.