Megacity Project Report PIP v1.1

Project Implementation Report
PILOT PROJECT: IMPLEMENTING COOPERATIVE AND

TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS TO INCREASE ENERGY EFFI-
CIENCY IN IRRIGATION
Final Project Report
Responsible Authors:
Julian Sagebiel
Christian Kimmich
Malte Mller
Markus Hanisch
Humboldt University Berlin
Vivek Gilani
cBalance Pvt. Ltd.
PARTNERS
Project Initiator
Humboldt Universitt zu Berlin
Indian Partners
Co-operative Electric Supply Society Ltd.

Sircilla
Steinbeis Centre for Technology Transfer

India
cBalance Solutions Hub Pvt. Ltd.
International Institute of Information

Technology Hyderbad
Self Employed Welfare Society
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Partners .................................................................................................................................................... I
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................... II
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ V
List of Figures........................................................................................................................................... V
List of Boxes ............................................................................................................................................. V
Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................................... VI
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................. VIII
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ IX
Structure and Intention of the Report .................................................................................................... X
Part I: Background ................................................................................................................................... 1
1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 2
2. Background on the Project Initiator ................................................................................................ 3
3. Background of the Agricultural Power Supply Situation in Andhra Pradesh .................................. 4
3.1. History of the Power Sector in India ....................................................................................... 4
3.2. Structure of the Power Sector ................................................................................................. 5
3.3. The Agricultural Power Supply .............................................................................................. 11
4. Review of Recent and Ongoing Projects in India........................................................................... 15
5. Discussion on Different Implementation Strategies ..................................................................... 20
5.1. Low Cost vs. High Costs ......................................................................................................... 20
5.2. Institutional vs. Technical ...................................................................................................... 23
6. Technical Background.................................................................................................................... 24
6.1. Technical Parameters ............................................................................................................ 24
6.2. Electricity Infrastructure........................................................................................................ 25
6.3. Motors for Water Pumps ...................................................................................................... 25
6.4. Reasons for Low Quality Supply ............................................................................................ 26
6.5. Impact of Capacitors.............................................................................................................. 27
II
Part II: Pilot Project................................................................................................................................ 29
7. Pilot Project Region ....................................................................................................................... 30
7.1. Description of Region ............................................................................................................ 30
7.2. Reasons for choosing this location ........................................................................................ 30
8. Participating Organizations / Stakeholders ................................................................................... 32
8.1. COOP ..................................................................................................................................... 32
8.2. CESS ....................................................................................................................................... 33
8.3. SEWS ...................................................................................................................................... 33
8.4. IIIT-H ...................................................................................................................................... 33
8.5. SCTI ........................................................................................................................................ 34
8.6. CWS ....................................................................................................................................... 34
8.7. cBalance Solutions Hub ......................................................................................................... 35
8.8. PPEG ...................................................................................................................................... 36
9. Approach to the Project ................................................................................................................ 37
9.1. Stakeholders .......................................................................................................................... 37
9.2. Aims of the Project ................................................................................................................ 38
9.3. Research Aims ....................................................................................................................... 39
9.4. Rationale................................................................................................................................ 39
9.5. Technical Approach ............................................................................................................... 41
9.6. Social Approach ..................................................................................................................... 41
10. Project Steps Details .................................................................................................................. 44
10.1. Preparation Phase ............................................................................................................. 44
10.1.1. Rationale for Choice of Intervention ............................................................................. 44
10.1.2. Selection of Feeders ...................................................................................................... 46
10.1.3. Social Survey .................................................................................................................. 47
10.1.4. Technical Survey ............................................................................................................ 57
10.1.5. Selection of Capacitors .................................................................................................. 57
10.1.6. Farmers Awareness Meetings ....................................................................................... 58
III
10.1.7. Installation of Capacitors ............................................................................................... 59
10.1.8. Establishing Farmer Committees................................................................................... 59
10.1.9. Overall Monitoring and Service Process........................................................................ 60
10.1.10. Cooperation with CESS .............................................................................................. 60
10.2. Implementation Phase II ................................................................................................... 61
10.2.1. Major Issues of phase I .................................................................................................. 61
10.3. Evaluation Phase ............................................................................................................... 62
10.3.1. Technical Evaluation Methods ...................................................................................... 63
10.3.1.1. Incremental Connection of Capacitors ...................................................................... 63
10.3.1.2. Batch-Wise Connection of Capacitors ....................................................................... 65
11. Major Results............................................................................................................................. 67
11.1. Observations from the Field .............................................................................................. 67
11.1.1. Social Implementation................................................................................................... 67
11.1.2. Technical Implementation............................................................................................. 67
11.2. Technical Findings ............................................................................................................. 68
12. Up scaling .................................................................................................................................. 72
12.1. Regional Up Scaling ........................................................................................................... 72
12.2. Technical Up Scaling .......................................................................................................... 72
13. Summary.................................................................................................................................... 72
References ............................................................................................................................................. 75
Appendix I: Technical Questionnaire..................................................................................................... 84
Appendix II: Agreement......................................................................................................................... 86
Appendix III: DTRC Constitution & Minutes of the Meetings................................................................ 87
IV
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Summary statistics for elected survey variables 13
Table 2: Available technologies 22
Table 3: Stakeholders Involved 37
Table 4: The situation at the two feeders 47
Table 5: Social survey statistics (Standard deviation in parenthesis) 49
Table 6: Technical summary feeder-wise 58
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: The electricity supply structure in India from generation to distribution. 6
Figure 2: Energy generation by fuel 1971-2006. 8
Figure 3: Energy requirement and Availability in India from 1990-2006. 8
Figure 4: The project area 30
Figure 5: Organisational chart 42
Figure 6 Sequential vs. Batch-wise comparison 65
Figure 7: Impact of Batch-wise Capacitor Addition on DTR Level Performance KTP I Summary -
Part 1 69
Figure 8: Impact of Batch-wise Capacitor Addition on DTR Level Performance KTP I Summary -
Part 2 69
LIST OF BOXES
Box 1: Efforts to bring solar energy to India 9
Box 2: Some examples of community driven projects 16
Box 3: The core action situation: A coordination problem 40
Box 4: Choice Experiment 51
Box 5: Coordination Game 55
V
ABBREVIATIONS
Ag-DSM Agricultural Demand Side Management
AP Andhra Pradesh
APERC Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission
APFC Automatic Power Factor Correction
BEE Bureau of Energy Efficiency
CE Choice Experiment
CORE Consumer Organization for Regulation of Electricity
CWC Columbia Water Center
DISCOM Distribution Company
DRUM Distribution Reform, Upgrades and Management Project
DTR Distribution Transformer
DSM Demand Side Measures
DTRC Distribution Transformer Committee
ESCO Energy Service Company
FC Feeder Committee
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GENCO Generation Corporation
GW Gigawatt
GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Internationale Zusammenarbeit
HVDS High Voltage Distribution System
INR Indian Rupees
IIIT-H International Institute of Information Technology Hyderabad
IWMI International Water Management Institute
JNNSM Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission
KfW Kreditanstalt fr Wiederaufbau
kWh Kilowatt Hours
VI
MAC Marginal GHG Abatement Cost
MD Managing Director
MNRE Ministry of New and Renewable Energy
MoM Minutes of the Meetings
NABARD National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development
NMEEE National Mission for Enhanced Energy Efficiency
NGO Non-Government Organizations
PF Power Factor
PP Pilot Project
SEB State Electricity Board
SERC State Electricity Regulatory Commission
SH Sustainable Hyderabad Project
SRI System of Rice Intensification
TRANSCO Transmission Corporation
USAID United States Agency for International Development
V Volts/Voltage
W Watt
WENEXA Water & Energy Nexus Activity
XIMB Xavier Institute for Management Bhubaneswar
VII
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The project would not have been possible without continuous support from local partners and stake-
holders. First of all, Philip N Kumar, who supported the project nearly from the beginning, visited the
field regularly, talked with the farmers when no other person was prepared, solved social problems,
and made sure that the project could not stop at any point. Vineet Goyal, Subash and Hari Krishna
from Steinbeis India who made sure that the technical implementation ran smoothly. Rama Mohan
and Sreekumar, who advised the project in different phases, and who were always ready to listen
and comment to the projects progress. Naveen, Tirupati, Illiah and Ranjit, who installed, re installed,
de installed, repaired and maintained about 1200 capacitors. Bashkar, J. Mahesh, Maheshjee,
Vekatesh and Nagrag who formed 40 farmer groups and never went tired going to the villages, solve
problems, organize meetings and make sure the team was always updated on the most recent de-
velopments. Krishna Reddy and Prof T L Sankar from ASCI who supported the project in Phase II with
field visits and long discussions. Amit Jain and his team for their inputs and nightlong preparation of
excel sheets on substations and feeders. Dr. Ramesh Chennamaneni who provided accommodation
in Vemulavada. Lastly, we would like to thank all farmers involved, who patiently listened in various
meetings to the project team, and who gave a lot of trust to the project.
This project has been conducted within the Sustainable Hyderabad project, financed under the
Future Megacities programme of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF).
We gratefully acknowledge the generous financial support.
VIII
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The German Ministry of Education and Research has launched the Future Megacities projects. The
aim was to identify scope for improvement in energy efficiency and mitigation and adaptation strat-
egies for fast growing megacities which will reach a population size of 10 million inhabitants within
the next years. Hyderabad has been selected one of these cities. Humboldt-Universitt zu Berlin,
together with other German and Indian partners led the subproject on Hyderabad. One focus was
dedicated to the challenges of the power sector in Andhra Pradesh. As the agricultural electricity
supply with a consumption of about 30 percent of total consumption in Andhra Pradesh plays a criti-
cal role also for the electricity supply in cities, the project conducted a pilot study on the possibilities
to increase energy efficiency in agriculture. Based on the results of this study, a pilot project was
initiated. The aim of this project was, first, to understand the agricultural electricity supply problems
directly from the practice, and, second, to provide low cost solutions which can be implemented
independent of external funding. The relationship between social, institutional and technical aspects
played a key role in the design of the project. The pilot project installed about 800 shunt capacitors
to the agricultural loads, i.e. the motors of water pumps used for irrigation and formed 30 farmer
committees with all farmers who participated in the project. The results are overall positive. Techni-
cally, an improvement of power factor of about 16 percent has been measured and first field obser-
vations revealed an increased interest of farmers in the technology as well as on other aspects of
irrigation and electricity. However, it turned out that only a technical approach can easily lead to
failures and intensive work with farmers is a strong prerequisite for projects like this. Practically, dur-
ing the installation, severe problems with the capacitors occurred due to various reasons including
wrong maintenance and high voltage fluctuations. This phenomenon tested the project on its ro-
bustness to technical failures and it turned out that in villages where the hold of the project was not
so strong, the project failed. Yet, the other villages, where more social work had taken place, re-
placement of the failed equipment led to increased confidence of the farmers. When considering
upscaling the project, significant improvements can be achieved. Assuming all agricultural loads in AP
will be equipped with a capacitor, overall energy savings could sum up to 3033 gigawatt hours per
year which is equivalent to 2,760,234 tons CO2 emissions
This report will provide a comprehensive overview of the project including all details of the stages of
the project. Before this, Part I of the report gives an overview of the power sector in India and An-
dhra Pradesh with a focus on the special case of agricultural electricity and a discussion of strategies
to improve the situation of the agricultural power supply.
IX
STRUCTURE AND INTENTION OF THE REPORT

The Pilot Project Implementing cooperative and technical solutions to increase energy efficiency in
irrigation (hereafter PP) is part of a bigger project explained in section 2. The overall aim is to find
solutions to partly solve agricultural energy and water problems in Andhra Pradesh (AP). The pro-
jects background lies in climate change adaption and mitigation strategies and the initiatives under-
taken in the PP will keep this focus as a main guideline for implementation.
This report summarizes all aspects of the above mentioned PP and provides a basis for discussion and
implementation. In this section, the report structure will be summarized to give an idea on how to
read and understand the report. Some pieces are incomplete because a final impact survey is due
only in June 2013 in order to allow estimation of long term effects. Hence, this report can be regard-
ed as a Work in Progress report and an updated version will be published after the project has been
completely evaluated. The report is divided into two parts. Part I: Background deals with general
topics that are necessary to understand the rationale of the project. It gives information that are
relevant also for readers who are not interested in the PP itself yet yield an understanding of the
topical issues in agricultural power supply and what can be done to improve the situation. Part II:
Pilot Project assumes the knowledge of the contents of Part I and explains all aspects of the PP in
detail. It involves planning, implementation and evaluation as well as a background to the initiation
of the project.
The next section (section 1) will provide an introduction to the overall topic. It summarizes the report
by giving insights into the problems in the agricultural power supply, and the idea behind the project.
Section 2 provides details on the project initiator, the German Federal Ministry for Education and
Research, and the Sustainable Hyderabad Project. The latter one is a research project which deals
with different aspects of mega urban development and focuses on Hyderabad. Section 3 provides
information on the power sector in Andhra Pradesh with an emphasis on agricultural electricity sup-
ply. Here, the flat rate electricity tariff and its implications for farmers and other stakeholders will be
discussed. Section 4 then summarizes previous and ongoing projects that deal with improvement of
the supply situation for agricultural use. The Bureau for Energy Efficiency (BEE) initiated several large
scale projects which involve replacement of motors and initiation of high voltage distribution systems
(HVDS). Apart from this, there are smaller projects initiated by small Non-Government Organizations
(NGO) or universities that try to focus on farmers involvement of managing the power distribution.
One example is a Lok Satta (NGO) project (DRUM-Distribution Reform and Management, 2006) which
established transformer committees for farmers. Section 5 builds on the previous section and dis-
cusses several options that could improve the farmers supply situation. Here, it is distinguished be-
tween low cost vs. high cost as well as institutional vs. technical solutions. The first comparison group
X
draws a line between projects that aim to replace inefficient equipment, e.g. by replacing motors,
and projects that are planned on a low budget, aiming to improve the system with minor, but (also
for farmers) affordable technologies. The latter group distinguishes between solutions that rely on
technical equipment and solutions that require the social interventions and creation of new rules,
change in social behavior or cooperation strategies. All these aspects are interlinked and a holistic
approach demands the incorporation of technical and institutional solutions, and, often, low cost
improvements perform best if combined with structural grid modernization (as a high cost solution).
Yet, a full understanding of these options is easily accessible if considering this classification. Section
6 will introduce the technical background, explaining the most important parameters and devices in
agricultural power supply. Devices explained include water pumps, motors, distribution transformers
(DTR), substations etc. Relevant parameters are power factor (PF), voltage, power, reactive power
etc. It is important to gain an understanding for the technical part if one wants to overview the whole
project rationale. It is not required to be an electrical engineer to understand this section, as it is
aimed to provide simple explanations reduced to the necessary facts and results. Section 7 is the first
section in Part II of the report and introduces the partners that are involved in different stages of the
project. The partners are differentiated from the stakeholders. Stakeholders are those directly and
indirectly affected by the PP while the partners are organizations that directly support the project
with their expertise. The partners are highly heterogeneous to assure a holistic perspective and to
initiate constructive conflict. It should be ensured, that no aspect or effect is yet to be left un-
touched. Section 9 is the most important section in this report as it comprises all relevant parts to
understand the PP. The stakeholders, the aims, the rationale and the approaches are explained and
discussed. The aims are manifold and hence might be conflicting. Also it might be the case that some
aims will not be achieved or only partly while other ones are fully understood and tackled. As the
project builds on a holistic solution, the technical approach is separately discussed from the institu-
tional or social approach. It is assumed that only a combination of both approaches can lead to an
improvement of the supply situation. Section 10 summarized the different steps in the project in a
chronological order. The project is split into three main phases, the preparation phase, the imple-
mentation phase and the evaluation phase. While the preparation and the implementation phase
have already been over, the evaluation - the most critical part for a research project is partly due
and can only be finalized, after thorough measurement of the results. Section 12 introduces up-
scaling concepts. The ideas presented in this section are yet to be tested and its feasibility highly
depends on the results of the PP, i.e. one can only consider up-scaling seriously after the evaluation
report is published. Still, it is important to keep in mind the different options for up-scaling and al-
ready prepare for a concept. Section 13 summarizes.
XI
PART I: BACKGROUND
1
1. INTRODUCTION
Part I outlines the main concepts of the power sector in India and Andhra Pradesh, provides an overview
of its history and its current status, and explains the situation of farmers in the context of increased de-
pendence on groundwater for irrigation and hence the power supply. It is well known that power supply
for agriculture is a special case, and it plays an important role in political discussions. Politicians continu-
ously promise farmer favorable policies to gain votes and the economics of agricultural power go far
beyond rational behavior and economic principles. Currently, farmers in AP receive electricity for free
and, - as there is no money in the sector - suffer from a neglected grid infrastructure. The incentives to
invest in better equipment are distorted, for the farmers and for the utilities and experts speak of a vi-
cious circle of deteriorating power quality leading to losses of utilities and reduced farm output. Taking
this logic further, adverse effects with regard to food security, groundwater over usage, and urban mi-
gration become obvious. Manifold approaches have been developed to overcome the vicious circle, but
the reality is and seems to remain the same.
In order to fully understand the agricultural power sector, it is first important to interrogate the history
of the power sector in India and the reasons for the still ongoing reform process. To further understand
why it is so difficult to escape the vicious circle, one needs to investigate ongoing projects, approaches
taken by the national and state governments, the failures of foreign donors and the friction of reform
caused by the political and institutional forces. This project aimed at a low cost, easy to implement solu-
tion. To understand why this alternative among others has been chosen, an overview of different possi-
ble solutions is provided later on.
2
2. BACKGROUND ON THE PROJECT INITIATOR

The Pilot Project Implementing cooperative and technical solutions to increase energy efficiency in irri-
gation is part of a bigger research project Sustainable Hyderabad Climate and Energy in a complex
Transition Process towards Sustainable Hyderabad Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies by changing
Institutions, Governance Structures, Lifestyles and Consumption Patterns (SH) on sustainable develop-
ment in future megacities. The SH project is financed by the German Federal Ministry of Education and
Research and comprises different German and Indian research institutions as main partners. These com-
prise Humboldt Universitt zu Berlin, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Georg August Uni-
versitt Gttingen, the Nexus Institute for Cooperation Management and Interdisciplinary Research, and
PTV Traffic Mobility Logistics AG from the German side, and The Energy and Resources Institute, Delhi,
Center for Economic and Social Studies, Hyderabad, Osmania University, Hyderabad and ICRISAT and NIT
Warangal from the Indian side. Additionally, each partner works together with local organizations in Hy-
derabad, including ministries, governmental organizations, NGOs, further scientific institutes and private
consultants.
The SH project was initiated in 2008 with a research phase and in 2011, the implementation phase be-
gan. The focus of the project is on different aspects of sustainable city development including energy,
water, transportation, food, health and pollution. These topics are sub grouped into work packages and
handled by the respective partners. Each partner conducted research in their work packages from 2009
to 2011, including surveys, case studies, expert interviews, theoretical calculations etc. The results have
then been used to initiate pilot projects from 2011 onwards. In total there are eight pilot projects, three
of them in the energy sector. The pilot projects will be completed by the end of 2012 and the overall
project will be completed in 2013 with a Perspective Action Plan, giving policy recommendations to-
wards a more sustainable Hyderabad. A detailed description on the SH Project and additional infor-
mation are available on www.sustainable-Hyderabad.de .
3
3. BACKGROUND OF THE AGRICULTURAL POWER SUPPLY

SITUATION IN ANDHRA PRADESH
3.1.HISTORY OF THE POWER SECTOR IN INDIA
Since independence 1947, the power sector in India has been practically controlled by the Government
of India (GoI). The GoI created State Electricity Boards (SEB) which were responsible for generation,
transmission, and distribution. The reasons, based on the socialist ideology, were straightforward: no
monopoly instincts (profits were reinvested, fair labor policy, no mark-up prices), economics of scale,
control over price structure and interconnection of SEBs to enhance system reliability (Tongia, 2007).
However, the SEBs turned out to be highly unprofitable, inefficient and received immense subsidies from
the GoI and state governments to survive. Until 1991, small reforms of the sector had taken place, none-
theless the major reform process started in 1991 with a new government and an upcoming fiscal crisis.
The state deficit reached eleven percent of the national gross domestic product (GDP), and in order to
maintain a growth rate of eight percent, high infrastructural investments especially in the power sector
was required 1. It was clear that there is hardly any scope for the GoI to invest large amounts itself. Sub-
sequently, with help from the World Bank it started to open the power sector for private and foreign
investment. This, however, did not mean the introduction of a competitive market. Rather, private inves-
tors faced restrictions and were guaranteed a 16 percent rate of return, risk reduction and other benefits
provided by the GoI (Pani et al., 2007). Nonetheless many of the pursued investors stayed away and the
projects that had been established often failed or made even higher losses than the SEBs did before. In
the end, the private investment turned out to be very expensive for the GoI (loc. cit.).
In the mid-1990s, the GoI introduced further structural reforms (second stage of reform process). It al-
lowed the states to independently restructure their power sector. State Electricity Regulation Commis-
sions (SERC) with a high degree of autonomy and responsibilities (set tariffs, resolve disputes, monitor
quality etc.) were established, and the states started to unbundle their SEBs 2. AP did unbundling with
hardly any privatization and is now considered to be the top state in terms of electricity generation and
distribution (Peoples Monitoring Group on Electricity Regulation (PMGER) Hyderabad, 2007).
The third stage of reform was about coordination and consolidation. The GoI published the Electricity Act
2001 and established incentives (e.g. rewards for the most efficient states, rankings, competition among
1
A rule, the GoI knew about, says that for a one percent increase of economic growth a 1.5 percent growth rate in
the power sector is needed.
2
Unbundling in this context means to divide the company, which is responsible for the whole electricity production
and supply in three companies for generation, transmission and distribution respectively.
4
states) for good performances. The focus was directed to the public e.g. media campaigns like power
for all were introduced. Also, the SERCs should introduce full metering and make sure subsidies were
paid back timely. Another focus was put on efficiency. The GoI established the BEE and introduced new
standards for efficiency. Further, private investors were encouraged to invest in a variety of sectors
(Swain, 2007).
3.2.STRUCTURE OF THE POWER SECTOR

The per capita consumption in India is 503 kilowatt hours (kWh) (world average: 2659 kWh) 3. In 2000
around 57 percent of the rural households and 12 percent of the urban households (84 million house-
holds) in India did not have access to electricity (Integrated Energy Policy: Report of Expert Committee,
2006). The electricity is generated by state owned generation corporations (GENCO) and private compa-
nies (share varies across the states). In AP, private generation contributes to 18 percent of total produc-
tion (Peoples Monitoring Group on Electricity Regulation (PMGER) Hyderabad, 2007).
The high voltage transmission is provided by state owned transmission companies (TRANSCO) on a high
tension basis to substations or directly to large electricity consumers like the cement industry (Figure 1).
At the substations the distribution companies reduce the tension and distribute it to distribution trans-
formers which finally forward the electricity to the consumers. In some states the law allows private
companies to conduct the final distribution. In AP this is not yet possible but in some areas of AP big co-
operatives, which are responsible for final distribution and maintenance, had been established. Out of
nine electricity cooperatives, five still exist. The other four had to shut down because member participa-
tion was low or the management failed (DRUM-Distribution Reform and Management, 2006). The major
energy source was and still is coal (Figure 2) which is abundant in India. Often the coal is of low quality
(contains a lot of ash, which makes transport expensive, as one needs more coal for one unit of ener-
gy) and transported through the whole subcontinent, which led some companies to import coal. A new
focus is put on gas, as there are additional sources become viewable and many private investors use gas
as these generation facilities can be established very quickly. Also, hydro energy plays an important role.
Renewable energy is being pushed by the GoI but (still) plays a minor role.
The GoI pays roughly 5 billion US$ (one percent of GDP) per year for the losses of the now unbundled
SEBs. The direct subsidies sum up to 2 billion US$ (Tongia, 2007).
3
www.iea.org
5
Figure 1: The electricity supply structure in India from generation to distribution.
Source: (Sagebiel, 2009)
However there always was and still is strong opposition to reforms because energy is seen as a public
good (which is wrong per definition in economic terms). Tariffs are fixed and discriminate across con-
6
sumers on a cross subsidy basis (private households and agricultural users pay less, sometimes nothing,
and industrial and commercial users pay more). This is one reason for the failure. As industrial and com-
mercial units face high tariffs they substitute to captive power (which is often more costly than power
from the grid and leads to financial problems) while farmers, who often get power for free, use highly
energy-inefficient assets for irrigation (TARU Leading Edge, 2001).
7
Figure 2: Energy generation by fuel 1971-2006.
Source: IEA (2009) iea.org/textbase/stats/pdf_graphs/ INELEC.pdf
Figure 3: Energy requirement and Availability in India from 1990-2006.
Source: (Nair, 2008)
8
The main problem in the power sector is however a continuous energy supply shortage (Figure 3). Thus,
the transmission companies are not able to supply on the normal voltage level and reduce it. The effect
is low quality supply in form of unscheduled outages, load shedding, fluctuating voltage and erratic fre-
quency (Integrated Energy Policy: Report of Expert Committee, 2006). Additionally the low voltage level
also leads to large technical losses and makes electricity theft easier. The total transmission and distribu-
tion (T&D) losses including theft sum up to over 40 percent of generation (loc. cit.).
The problems can be summarized as follows:
Supply shortage leading to outages and low quality electricity

Unsustainable and market distorting cross subsidies
Large-scale theft and non-payment of bills
Inefficient and overstaffed utilities suffering a high degree of corruption
Rural villages without access to energy services
An incentive distorting and not cost-covering tariff system
Box 1: Efforts to bring solar energy to India
EFFORTS TO BRING SOLAR ENERGY TO INDIA

Author: Franziska Kohler / This section is published in (Sagebiel et al., 2013)
In 2010, the Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission (JNNSM) was launched as a part of Indias National
Action Plan of Climate Change. The JNNSM has the goal to develop solar power in India to increase the
installed capacity to 22 giga watt (GW) by 2022. Two GW are planned for off-grid solar installations
predominantly in rural areas. The JNNSM also foresees the installation of 20 million square meters of
solar collectors and the distribution of 20 million solar lighting systems under the remote village electrifi-
cation programme of the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE). Other aims include the facili-
tation of research and development, human capital development in the field of PV, and an expansion of
Indias solar power manufacturing sector. The JNNSM supports the development of the solar off-grid
sector through direct and indirect subsidies which are routed through the National Bank for Agriculture
and Rural Development (NABARD) (Sairam, 2012). Accredited channel partners, can be made up of
banks, microfinance institutions, state agencies, energy service companies, or other intermediaries that
propose off-grid projects to the MNREs Project Appraisal Committee.
For off-grid PV systems of up to 100 W peak capacity per site and mini-grids of a maximum of 250 W
peak capacity, consumers benefit from a 40 percent capital subsidy additional to a subsidised loan cover-
9
ing 50 percent of the capital benchmark costs set at about 266 Indian Rupees (INR)/Wpeak for systems
with batteries and 190 INR/Wpeak for systems without battery installed (Sairam, 2012). A down pay-
ment covers the remaining 20 percent. These subsidies apply for solar lighting systems to be installed in
rural and urban areas and are not applicable in urban areas where direct MNRE subsidies are applicable.
(Gambhir et al., 2010; Harish and Raghavan, 2011) consider the benchmark cost according to which sub-
sidies are calculated discriminative to smaller systems at or below capacities of 40 W. The relative costs
of solar lighting systems tend to decrease with increasing size, since the fixed costs of the internal wiring
of houses, the purchase of CFL bulbs, the costs for installing the systems, etc. are constant regardless of
system size. The subsidy does not restrict suppliers or consumers to a certain model and provides clear
guidelines for financial institutions.
Considering that electrifying the Bottom of the Pyramid is stated as a priority in the JNNSM, it is sur-
prising that up to now merely seven percent of the subsidies have been spent on off-grid solutions for
the poor (Gambhir et al., 2010). Evaluations of the first phase have furthermore shown that larger scale
and on-grid projects have been taking up quite quickly, whereas the development of rural off-grid pro-
jects has been cumbersome. The achievements by today include a Special Incentive Package to pro-
mote domestic PV manufacturers, 1,100 MW of installed grid-connected solar power, and the distribu-
tion of 0.5 million small lighting systems, as well as 0.7 million solar lanterns.
With the goal to unbundle the supply chain, several reforms have been put underway. In 1998, the Indi-
an Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act was passed. The Electricity Act of 2003 allows private and de-
centralised energy generation. However, wheeling charges make only grid-independent use cost-
effective (Hanisch et al., 2010). In 2010, the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) introduced
the trade with so-called Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) on a national level. Distribution system
operators have, furthermore, the possibility to buy RECs in order to fulfill their renewable power pur-
chase obligations. The tariff system of the CERC comprises two core elements the specific definition of
capital costs applied to the generation of various energy carriers and the establishment of long-term
feed-in tariffs. The capital costs determine the feed-in tariffs and are revised regularly in order to adjust
the tariffs. The tariffs for PV are valid for a minimum of 25 years to provide a certain level of security for
investors (Rommel and Sagebiel, 2011).
AP is one of the pioneers in unbundling and privatizing its energy sector. The state has set up APERC to
increase transparency and participation of energy stakeholders. To further unbundle the sector, the gen-
eration company (APGENCO), the transmission company (APTRANSCO), and four DISCOMs were founded
in 1999. Notwithstanding the long way that India still has to go to further privatize and decentralize its
10
energy sector, reforms such as the feed-in tariff launched in 2005 by APERC lead the way. Currently, the
feed-in tariff in AP lies at around 11.9 INR/kWh but is likely to be significantly lower for new projects
(New & Renewable Energy Cooperation of Andhra Pradesh, 2012). The feed-in tariff is combined with a
so-called renewable power purchase obligation that binds the owners of transmission licenses to pur-
chase five percent of gross electricity production from renewable sources. The tariffs offer a possibility
for market entry for private energy producers (Rommel and Sagebiel, 2011).
3.3. THE AGRICULTURAL POWER SUPPLY

A healthy power sector is often regarded as a main requisite for economic growth and Foreign Direct
Investment. Further, full electrification can be a powerful tool to improve the livelihood of the poor and
a means to prevent rural-urban migration. Indias power sector is one of the largest in the world and
since the last twenty years has gone through major reforms. In Andhra Pradesh, the reforms were initi-
ated in 1991 as a reply to the financial crisis. At this time, the State Electricity Board was running losses
of about one percent of the states GDP. In 2003, the Electricity Act was released, which provided major
guidelines for the way forward in the power sector, especially the promotion of renewable energies and
a tariff system based on costs. Additionally, the Ministry of Power established the Bureau of Energy Effi-
ciency and respective State nodal agencies. In 2008, the Government of India released the National Ac-
tion Plan for Climate Change, including the National Mission for Enhanced Energy Efficiency (NMEEE).
Still, not all efforts have materialized and the complete set of consumer groups face tremendous prob-
lems with their electricity supply. The least resilient consumers are the rural population and farmers with
an electricity consumption of more than 30 percent of total consumption in AP. The poor conditions of
the electricity grid lead to high rates of motor burnouts in agricultural pump sets. Unbranded and locally
manufactured pump sets, in combination with unqualified repairs, decrease the energy efficiency and
further deteriorate electricity quality.
With absent marginal costs, free power supply has led to the use of inefficient pump sets and excessive
water pumping. The overuse of groundwater and energy forced the regulator to reduce power supply to
off-peak hours. Often, power is supplied in two phases per day, one in the morning hours, and one in the
night. The night phase has led farmers to use automatic starters or to leave pump sets switched on.
When the current is switched on, most pump-sets start automatically, resulting in a heavy initial load. In
the majority of cases, capacitors are not used, which further increases voltage fluctuations and results in
a low power factor. Voltage fluctuations exist even at the sub-station level, and the three-phase voltage
is heavily imbalanced, which is even more severe than the overall fluctuations.
11
All this has led to a vicious cycle of frequent motor and distribution transformer (DTR) burnouts and in
consequence to increasing costs for the farmers and distribution companies. In response, farmers tend
to use even less efficient, yet fluctuation-resistant pump-sets. The political discussion on free power for
farmers is still ongoing and highly controversial.
There are at least three factors that have enabled a policy change towards subsidizing agricultural elec-
tricity provision in Andhra Pradesh: (1) the high dependence of intensive agriculture on regular water
supply, pushed by land scarcity and the available technology of electricity-driven, groundwater-based
irrigation; (2) the characteristics of the electricity infrastructure, with high transaction costs in rural gov-
ernance, and related subjection to regulation that has allowed for political influence; and (3) the emer-
gence of party competition that led to a political contest for vote banks.
The agricultural electricity subsidisation policy has allowed for more secure food provision and mitigated
food price inflation. Yet, the outcome has been economically inefficient and contributed to a major
change in the governance of electricity infrastructure in the 1990s, triggered through financial burdens
incurred to utilities and the state. Furthermore, chances to increase groundwater and energy-efficient
allocation are heavily intertwined in the electricityirrigation nexus. As Shah points out, the vast num-
ber of pump irrigators has made effective governance of pump irrigation economies through direct in-
struments rules and administrative orders, direct incentives and disincentives, and laws extremely
difficult, if not impossible. The only link between the state and the millions of pump irrigators is electrici-
ty supply, over which the state has control (Shah, 2009). Yet, some recent propositions for institutional
changes in regulation (Dubash and Rao, 2008), pragmatic physical innovations (Shah, 2009) and pilot
projects (Mohan and Sreekumar, 2010) may enable the reconciling of efficient and equitable outcomes.
There is some evidence that pragmatic party competition and a constituency among educated voters for
performance-oriented policies may improve conditions (Wilkinson, 2007), and a reduction of anti-
incumbency voting together with increasing state capacity may bring to the fore a more responsive gov-
ernment (Mehta, 2010), but the specific conditions in electricity infrastructure governance may require a
simultaneous ground-driven approach to eventually resolve the current dilemma.
Given the flat-rate power supply regime, financial incentives to implement demand side measures (DSM)
to improve energy efficiency are mostly absent. Inefficient pumpsets contribute toward deteriorating
power quality, increasing pumpset and transformer damages. Farmers and distribution utilities are incur-
ring high repair costs, discouraging any investment in better equipment (Tongia, 2007). Farmers even
pay partly for repairing transformers, despite transformers being part of the distribution companies
12
property. Some DSM such as the use of standard-approved pumpsets with energy-efficient motors
(ISI-marked by the Bureau of Indian Standards) and the installation of capacitors could simultaneously
reduce equipment damage and energy consumption. A capacitor or condenser is an electric circuit ele-
ment, which can correct the power factor in an electricity grid. It balances the phase between current
and voltage (Dugan, 2003; Meier, 2006) and can thus improve power quality and energy efficiency. If
implemented, farmers and utilities could save on repairs, and fiscal expenditures on subsidies could be
reduced, contributing to the viability of agriculture and benefitting distribution utilities as well as the
overall economy through reduced fiscal burdens. Table 1 provides an overview of the share of adopted
DSM by farmers, including ISI-marked and BEE-rated pumpsets (efficiency-rated by the Bureau of Energy
Efficiency), and capacitors.
Table 1: Summary statistics for elected survey variables
Variable mean sd median min max
Branded pump-set (1=yes) 0,67 0 1
ISI-marked pump-set (1=yes) 0,37 0 1
BEE-rated pump-set (1=yes) 0,06 0 1
Capacitor successfully installed 0,10 0 1

(1=yes)
Motor burn-outs per year 1,86 1,64 2 0 12
Costs for motor repair (INR)1 2693,1 1513,1 2500 200 8500
5 1
Age of the pump-set (years) 7,21 5,94 5 0 30
Transformer burn-outs per year 1,02 1,04 0,70 0 7
Costs for transformer repair 620,58 869,65 400 0 8000

(INR)1
Source: Project data

Soon after its constitution, APERC realised the importance of DSM. In its tariff order (Andhra Pradesh
Electricity Regulatory Commission, 2000), the transmission corporation and the distribution licensees
had committed themselves to distributing transformers and erecting capacitors for agricultural pump-
sets: To improve the power factor, it must be made compulsory for the farmers to use capacitors with
the pumpsets (p. 79). APERC also ordered a sanction of discontinuation of services if capacitors were
not installed (p. 117), and provided specifications for choosing an adequate capacitor (p. 306). Four years
13
later, APERC stated that the DSM measures, especially the capacitor compensation for the inductive
load of the agricultural sector has been the biggest techno operational problem encountered in the
power sector especially in Andhra Pradesh. Past experience appears to indicate that the initiatives taken
earlier did not achieve the results as the consumers have not been made a party to the scheme (Andhra
Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, 2006).
In a public hearing conducted by APERC, a farmers association stated that though Capacitors are pur-
chased by the farmers, the Licensees are reluctant to fix them, citing shortages in staff to do this work.
Interviewed farmers reported that they had been forced to buy capacitors, supported by several large
campaigns to distribute capacitors. Still, only ten percent of the surveyed farmers were using a capacitor
during the research period. Given that these DSM are supposed to be beneficial for power quality and
adoption could be self-enforcing, this seems surprising.
14
4. REVIEW OF RECENT AND ONGOING PROJECTS IN INDIA

There are different opinions on how to improve the overall grid quality. The Bureau of Energy Efficiency
in its Agricultural Demand Side Management (Ag-DSM) program supports large scale projects substitut-
ing old motors and pump sets with new ones as well as to adapt to HVDS. Further, Ag-DSM aims to find
sustainable financial models including private-public partnerships for example through Energy Service
Companies (ESCO). One example is a project in Solapur in the State Maharashtra, where about 2000
pumps sets were replaced with efficient ones. In East Godavari District in AP, NEDCAP initiated a project,
replacing the DTRs with HVDS and the pumps with efficient pumps. In Gujarat, under the Jyoti Gram
scheme, a project was initiated to separate feeders, a measure which is often assumed as a precondition
for stabilization of rural supply.
4.1.FOREIGN DEVELOPMENT AID PROJECTS

Foreign organizations like the Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Internationele Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), the KfW
Development Bank or the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) or International
Water Management Institute (IWMI) also provide several different approaches to improve the electricity
supply in India.
USAID has launched one of the biggest of such projects, the Distribution Reform, Upgrades and Man-
agement Project (DRUM) 4, where about 25,000 engineers, managers and technicians of distribution
companies were trained on technical, management and project development concepts. The project time
frame was from 2004 to 2011 and worked on a budget of totally 13,619306 US$. To follow up the DRUM
Project, USAID initiated the Water & Energy Nexus Activity (WENEXA) project. Here, it was recognized
that agricultural electricity improvements cannot be fully achieved without taking a closer look at the
water sector and the interaction of energy and water. Within WENEXA different pilot projects had been
initiated. These projects included installation of capacitor banks, replacement of motors and pumps and
introduction of HVDS. The total costs of the project sum up to 5.378.756 US$. More information on these
projects is found in (USAID, 2011).
GIZ has initiated various rural electrification projects including solar PV systems and biomass power
plants. KfW focused more on financing large scale projects and together with Indian governmental insti-
tutions. IWMI works on a solution for providing a fixed amount of energy on a metered basis, which
could simultaneously tackle groundwater overexploitation.
4
http://www.coreintl.com/projects/Signature_Projects/DRUM/About_the_DRUM_Project.html
15
4.2.RESEARCH PROJECTS
Often, projects are linked to research from universities or research institutes and fulfill the overall goal to
generate knowledge which shall be used in further projects and make them more effective. The PP from
HUB can be placed in this category. In the following some other projects which fall into this category, will
be briefly described.
The Columbia Water Center (CWC), associated to Columbia University, has launched a project in Gujarat
in 2011 to create incentives to farmers to save water and hence electricity. (Columbia Water Center,
2013; Kapil Narula et al., 2011). The idea is to provide financial benefits to farmers who reduce water
and energy consumption. Together with the local utility and the State Government of Gujarat, about 800
farmers were interviewed and asked to participate in the program. The farmers were provided with a
fixed energy meter at their respective pump sets. Those, who reduced their consumption compared to a
baseline from the interviews received a fixed amount depending on the amount of reduction. Additional-
ly, farmers could participate in various water saving approaches including trainings for better irrigation
techniques and crop diversification strategies.
4.3.PROJECTS OF THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT
4.4.SUMMARY
Ongoing projects work usually with large budgets. The examples above are not exhaustive, yet give an
impression on the current state of the art. The approaches are rather heterogeneous and there are many
starting points, however, the majority of projects work on a large budget, with solutions that cannot be
implemented decentrally or on a local level.
Box 2: Some examples of community driven projects
SOME EXAMPLES OF COMMUNITY DRIVEN PROJECTS

There have been some approaches to improve the electricity supply from the consumer side. The
following presents three different approaches.
1. XIMB Projects
The Xavier Institute for Management Bhubaneswar (XIMB) found a lack of concern from DISCOMs in
rural areas as electrification is unprofitable for them due to fixed tariffs by the ERCs. This puts a high
16
burden on the rural consumers including billing on a load factor basis instead of metering, low quality
supply with a voltage as low as 40 volts, continuous power cuts and weak service provision from the
supplier (Mohanty, 2002). Claims for improvement are regularly ignored by the suppliers. Additional-
ly, the consumers are not united and suffer very low bargaining power. The usual reaction is non-
payment of bills and theft. A preliminary study conducted by XIMB has shown an immense distrust
between suppliers and customers (loc. cit.).
The major finding of the study was that consumer action is urgently required in reading meters,
understanding the bills and detecting thieves.
In order to improve the situation XIMB acted as an external facilitator. XIMB has set up 100 pilot pro-
jects in Orissa, India. They created village committees, which were responsible for reading meters,
collection of bills, complaints from the costumers, decision about new connections and disconnec-
tions and installment agreements (Dash, 2006). A village contact person was elected and responsible
for communication with the supplier. The committees were given a formal status and monthly meet-
ings with the supplier were held.
Mostly the projects proved to be successful. The power supply and metering improved, bills were
paid regularly, theft could be reduced and service delivery improved.
However when the supplier did not act cooperatively or the members of the village committee had
vested interests, improvements were low. Nonetheless XIMB has extended its program to 4,900 vil-
lages.
2. Micro-privatisation
(Swain, 2007) combines the XIMB approach with a concept of Micro-Privatisation, where consumers
cooperate with the electricity suppliers via franchising. The idea is to put a small private company
between the large supplier and the consumer in order to improve communication and enhance trust
and cooperation. Swain argues that this model has the potential to solve major problems in the
sector like accessibility, mismanagement, theft, loss, and lack of transparency and accountability
while providing choice for the users. (Swain 2007 p.5) The XIMB projects often faced problems due
to the unwillingness of the DISCOMs to cooperate and, due to the high costs of electricity supply and
an irrational, not cost covering tariff structure set by the ERC, the incentives for high quality supply
were low.
The franchisee can serve as a hub and, as it is privatized, competes with other franchisees. Swain
puts an emphasis on competition and privatization. The franchisees shall provide retail competition
17
which, as he argues, leads to higher quality supply and cooperation with the local village committees.
It is important that the franchisee acts with a distribution license rather than as an agent for the sup-
plier. Swain also claims that the user committees may form co-operatives, introduce capacity build-
ing and gradually take over the franchisees license. He states that the participation of users can
generate a collective preference for the service at the local level, reducing differences among indi-
vidual users (loc. cit. p.21). This strengthens the bargaining power of the consumers and thus might
lead to improvements in quality and efficiency.
Although the model may be applicable to urban areas like Hyderabad, it is yet not adoptable as dis-
tribution licenses in AP will only be provided to the DISCOMs or big co-operative Societies.
3. Lok Satta
Lok Satta is a political movement and party in AP. It has set up the Consumer Organization for Regu-
lation of Electricity (CORE), which is part of the Consumer Advisory Committee of APERC. The Central
Power Distribution Co. Ltd., which is responsible for the distribution in Central AP including Hydera-
bad, permitted CORE to study three 33/11KV sub-stations in AP. CORE found that maintenance was
absent, technical standards were not maintained, theft was rampant, meters were faulty and voltag-
es were low (Rao, 2006). Therefore Lok Satta with assistance from the Administrative College of India
set up four pilot projects including private franchise. The objectives were:
Improved quality of supply

Metering of agricultural services
Transparency and accountability
Energy balancing
Getting information of agricultural consumption
Suggesting alternative subsidy mechanisms
Replacement of inefficient pump sets by energy efficient ones
Each project (East and West Godavari, Krishna and Guntur) covers the geographical area of an 11KV
feeder and all consumers served by it. A contract between Lok Satta (facilitator), the franchisee and
the DISCOM (principal) gave all authority from the DISCOM, which has lost its credibility with the
farmers, to the franchisee. Consumer representatives held monthly meetings with all contract part-
ners in order to understand each others problems and preferences. The franchisee was responsible
for breakdowns, preparation and collection of bills, monitoring and maintenance of meters, trans-
formers, all agricultural services and low tension lines as well as education of farmers with regard to
18
efficiency and energy saving. Lok Satta recruited and monitored the franchisee, acted as a technical
consultant and coordinated between the franchisee, the consumers and the DISCOM. The DISCOM
provided and repaired broken meters, lines and transformers based on the franchisees monitoring,
supplied the franchisee with data and guaranteed prompt payment to the franchisee. The project
started in 2003. A coordination committee and a monitoring commission were established. These
were meeting regularly and often solved existing problems successfully. Within three months, the
consumers were satisfied with the franchisee, commercial losses could be reduced and the revenue
collection increased. However, some consumers tried to manipulate the system in the name of po-
litical influence but this problem often was solved by the franchisee with Lok Satta support (loc.cit.).
Further the quality increase was not as high as expected.
4. Conclusion
The three examples show that there is need for improvement in the electricity supply and consumer
action can help to enhance the situation. Although there were some difficulties from the consumer
side as well as from the supplier side, experience shows, that with the aid from an external assistant,
the success of consumer participation approaches is possible. Another important finding is that the
issues must be tackled from both the supply and demand side in order to be successful (Dash, 2006).
The question remains in how far consumer participation models are applicable in urban areas. There
are big differences between urban and rural areas. The following thoughts may give some reasons.
While rural people often provide services which need collective action by themselves, similar urban
services are mainly endowed by state organization. Examples are water supply and public transport.
Rural people often use wells, while urban people get water from the tap. Rural people use shared
vehicles to go to other villages, while urban people use the state-provided public transport system.
This may have implications on the (participation) behavior also in other sectors. Urban people are
used to be provided with public services and are subsequently more reluctant to participate in collec-
tive action. Further urban people are more heterogeneous and have manifold activities to pursue,
which reduces the disposable time for collective action.
19
5. DISCUSSION ON DIFFERENT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES

In practice, many different options are available for improvement of the electricity quality. A good start-
ing point is the discussion of main problems described in section 3.3. Often, a solution to one problem
creates a new problem. For example, more efficient water pumping will lead to an increase in groundwa-
ter usage, which will worsen the problem of scarce groundwater availability. Hence, each measure has to
be examined carefully with respect to all effects. In this section, some options will be summarized and
pros and cons elaborated. It will be distinguished between, high cost vs. low cost and institutional vs.
technical. Many other dimensions should be considered however, this categorization already provides a
sufficient overview.
5.1.LOW COST VS. HIGH COSTS

The implementation strategies can be distinguished between low cost and high costs technologies. While
high costs technologies require external financing, low cost technologies could be afforded by the farm-
ers themselves. As mentioned earlier, the current trend goes towards high cost solutions like HDVS or
new highly efficient motors mainly because they have a larger effect than the low cost solutions. Low
cost solutions are for example PF correction systems like capacitors at the DTR level or directly at the
load, or mechanical devises that make motors run smoother like frictionless foot valves or improved
pipes. A characteristic of low cost solutions is that it requires individual action. Each farmer has to adapt
to the technology individually. Most High cost solutions, in contrast, can be installed centrally i.e. no
direct involvement of farmers is required. A technology between low and high costs which also can be
installed centrally is Automatic Power Factor Correction (APFC) Panels. This technology consists of sever-
al capacitors with different ratings, according to the size of the pump-sets connected. An electronic de-
vice measures the current power factor and switches on as many capacitors as are required. Hence the
achievements in PF correction are much higher than with the usage of single capacitors. The main disad-
vantage of the technology is the high maintenance costs. In field testing the system proved not to be
stable and repair costs became very high. Additionally, a APFC panel costs about ten times as much as
individual capacitors per kVA.
Apart from solutions directly at the pump, energy can be saved by better irrigation techniques like drip
irrigation or by using less water intensive seeds. The most prominent example for less water intensive
seeds is the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) which has been introduced in the early 1980s. Estimates
of water savings, which are directly linked to electric energy savings, go up 50 percent compared to tra-
20
ditional methods of rice cultivation. Table 2 gives a brief description of available technologies and their
characteristics:
21
Table 2: Available technologies
Technology Description Main Advantages / Func- Disadvantages Central /

tion Individual
HVDS Replaces all DTRs Reduces Line Losses Central

and lines with Improves Distribution
High Voltage Sys- Reduces theft due to
tems. Only three insolation
to five farmers Reduced burn outs
Very High Costs
are connected to Reduced maintenance

one 25 kV DTR work
Reduces poor tail end
voltages
Efficient Pumps with an Less energy consump- Does not Individual
Pumps energy efficiency tion work with
of about 50 per- More reliable water high voltage
cent or more. pumping fluctuations
Approved by BEE
APFC with Capacitor banks Maintains PF of 95 to High Central
DTR capac- with a device that 99 percent maintenance
itor bank switches on and Reduces line losses costs
off capacitors by Decreases reactive
requirement power
GSM technology al-
lows for direct moni-
High Costs
toring
DTR Capac- PF correction at Improves PF Central
itor banks the DTR level with Reduces line losses
estimated reactive Decreases Reactive
power required power
Capacitors PF correction at Improves PF already Central
at Substa- the Substation at the substation
tion Level
Capacitors Can be installed Improves PF Maintenance Individual
at motor after starter of the Reduces line losses of the
motor. Has an Decreases Reactive farmer is re-
Low Cost
effect only if power quired

neighboring farm-
ers also use the
technology
Frictionless Makes pumps more Individual
22
foot valve efficient

Does not require any
electrical intervention
5.2.INSTITUTIONAL VS. TECHNICAL

Regardless of the technical solution, it is important to keep in mind that institutional (that is the rules in
place) and social factors play an important role. The users have to accept the technology to make it suc-
cessful. This is more important with the low cost solutions where individual action is required. But even
with HVDS farmers need at least to be made aware of the technology and the differences to their famil-
iar system. Hence, more efficient energy use and pumping should go along with agricultural extension
and education services by for example explaining the optimal water requirements for each type of crop.
Also alternate crop patters for best outputs from the agricultural farmlands and types of soil should be
discussed. A good example for an institutional innovation is prepaid electricity. Farmers can buy electrici-
ty in advance. This model requires however installation of meters at the load which again is a technical
challenge
Additionally, it can be of use to form farmers groups. These groups can for example manage the water
usage, open saving groups or maintain their DTRs. In the ideal case, the farmers will collectively decide to
invest commonly into a new technology.
23
6. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
6.1.TECHNICAL PARAMETERS
Voltage (V): Voltage is the force/pressure in the circuit which drives the Electrons. It is measured in
Volts (V). The voltage that we are dealing for pump-sets under Nemiligundapally and Sanugula feed-
ers are 3phase 3wire 440V system.
V=I*R
Where V= Voltage, I= Current, R= Resistance
Current: Current is defined as the rate of flow of Charge. It is measured in Amperes (A). The amount
of current drawn from the source will depend on the connected Load.
Power Factor: Power Factor is defined as the ratio of Real Power to Apparent Power. It is also de-
fined as the Cosine of angle between Voltage and Current. Generally
Power Factor=Real Power (Watts)/ Apparent Power (VA)

Power Factor= Cos (angle between V and I)
Power: Power is defined as the amount of energy used or converted per unit time. It is measured in
Joules/sec (J/s) or Watts (W).
Real Power = V*I*Cos(Q)
Reactive Power (KVAR)= V*I*Sin(Q)

Apparent Power = V*I
Where V= Voltage , I= Current, Q = Angle between V and I
Energy: The capacity to do work is called Energy.

Resistance (R): Resistance is defined as the physical property of the material to oppose current. It is
measured in Ohms ().
R=V/I
R=r L/A
Where L=Length of Conductor, A= Area of cross section of Conductor, r= Resistivity
Resistive Line Losses (W) = 3 x I2 x R x L
WhereI = current per conductor or phase (A)
R = resistance per conductor or phase (/km)
L = length of each segment (km)
24
2 . +2 . + .
Conservation % =
( +2 )
Where,
2 . = 2 ()

2 . = 2 () ,
=1
= ( )
2
= &
Note: , 912.5
Voltage Drop = 3
Where,
L = length of wire (km)

R = conductive resistance (/km) per phase
I = current (amps) per phase
6.2.ELECTRICITY INFRASTRUCTURE
There are three stages of power flow from source to load
Generation
Transmission
Distribution
The power is generated at 11/33KV due to insulation problems, and is stepped up to 132/220KV or high-
er voltages by using power transformers and is transmitted to long distances. These voltages are stepped
down to 33KV at transmission substation and are further stepped down to 11KV/440V/220V at the dis-
tribution substations and are distributed to the consumers. The agricultural pumpsets work on 3phase,
440V System
6.3.MOTORS FOR WATER PUMPS

The four different pump sizes encountered in the system were:
25
3/5/7/7.5 horse power
The two different pump types encountered in the system were:
Centrifugal
Submersible
The two different well types encountered in the system were:
Open well/Shallow well

Bore well
This meant a total of 16 unique combinations of pump size, pump

type and well type were possible. A survey of the existing pump
records available indicated that of these 16 categories, four of the
combination them represented nearly all of the observed pumping
applications. These were classified into the following categories:
Image 1: Shallow well
Pump Rating Well Type Pump Type No. of Pumps Category
3 HP Shallow well Centrifugal 181 A
5 HP Shallow well Centrifugal 70 B
5 HP Bore well Submersible 70 C
7.5 Shallow well Centrifugal 4 D
6.4.REASONS FOR LOW QUALITY SUPPLY

Systemic Issues
The most obvious reasons for low quality are old, wrongly sized or overused equipment. The current
political economy does not set incentives for farmer and utilities to invest in equipment. Hence repair
and replacement works are carried out too late if at all. Farmers use inefficient pumps, which are often
oversized to compensate the electricity shortage. But DTRs are sized for a known rated electrical load
exerted by downstream pumps, the upsizing by a sizeable section of the farmers connected to a single
DTR leads to undesired overloading. The DTR overloading causes frequent DTR burnouts which affects all
downstream farmers by imposing extensive outages lasting for a few days before the DTR is replaced in-
26
situ by the utility and the existing one repaired at a remote service location. Unexpected outages of this
nature can have devastating consequences for water-intensive crops such as cotton and rice (the most
commonly grown crops in the pilot project regions). The most tragic outcome of this is complete crop
failure if outages occur at critical periods in the cropping cycle.
Measurable voltage fluctuations exist at the sub-station level. This in conjunction with the heavily imbal-
anced three-phase voltage percolates downstream to DTR and pump level. Pump motors used for sub-
mersible (positive displacement) and centrifugal pumps is an inductive load which exerts a significant
reactive power load on the electrical grid. A high reactive power load increases the current requirement
for operating a given active power load imposed by the pump motors. The higher energy requirement
not only leads to higher power generation requirements at the power plant (increasing energy efficiency
and associated GHG emissions and environmental impacts of the predominantly thermal power genera-
tion) but also increased line losses (directly proportional to the square of the current) and leads to lower
voltage at the pump that would otherwise be the case. A direct adverse effect of low voltage can be fre-
quent motor burnouts as witnessed in the region. This reactive power impact can be mitigated through
the use of pump level or DTR level capacitors. However, they are not employed and a significant oppor-
tunity for improving system performance is untapped.
The electrical grid in the PP region is characterized by low-voltage transmission lines leading to higher
line current required for operating a given electrical load. This in-turn translates to high line losses i.e.
electrical energy loss, between the electrical substations / associated feeders and the downstream
pumps; the terminal end of the electrical distribution system. The high line losses result in the same det-
rimental impacts as those described above.
6.5.IMPACT OF CAPACITORS
Capacitors essentially store and supply reactive power to an inductive load thereby resulting in a overall
reduction in apparent power required to power a given kW load and reducing the current drawn from
the grid for achieving the same electrical productivity. In some ways, they work like batteries but the
difference is that they store this energy not from the grid but rather store the corresponding component
of the inductive reactive power from the stator of the motor where the magnetic field is induced. The
capacitor acts like an elastic material (or a membrane in a filled pipe where it essentially - in physical
terms - can be thought of as stretching to absorb the energy created by the reactive power - and it gives
this stored energy back to the motor in the next cycle. Thus the reactive energy is only cycling back and
forth from motor to capacitor if the capacitor was not there - the motor would continue to draw this
27
reactive power from the grid since there would be no temporary storage device for this power (i.e. ca-
pacitor) which can give back this energy in alternate cycles
28
PART II: PILOT PROJECT
29
7. PILOT PROJECT REGION

7.1.DESCRIPTION OF REGION
The PP takes place around the towns of Vemulavada and Sircilla in Karimnagar District, AP. The area is
slightly hilly and surrounded by forests. One river, Mula Vagu, runs through Vemulavada, yet is dry dur-
ing most months of the year. The main crops are paddy and cotton and most irrigation is done by electri-
cal pump sets from groundwater. Three tanks have been set up to increase the groundwater level. In
2003, a governmental program, carried out with the local NGO SEWS, improved the tanks by construc-
tion small canals to increase water inflow from the forest areas. Further the tanks have been connected
with each other and with the river in order to avoid tank overflow. Some villages of the intervention area
are also participating in a watershed management program initiated in 2003. By now it is completed by
75 per cent. The watershed program includes also savings groups, employment projects, village commit-
tees, etc.
Figure 4: The project area
Source: Google Earth
7.2.REASONS FOR CHOOSING THIS LOCATION

The area was chosen out of several arguments:
Presence of a Cooperative Society rather than a DISCOM: A similar project on capacitors had
been implemented under DISCOM area. Some difficulties with the communication with the DIS-
30
COM had been reported. Hence, the project consortium decided to choose an area with a small
distributor. The whole area of intervention is supplied by CESS
Presence of Watershed Management activities: Part of the intervention area is subject to a wa-
tershed management program funded by KfW. This has the advantage to separately evaluate the
effect of capacitors in an area with high and low level of groundwater.
Representative cropping pattern: The area is representative for Andhra Pradesh especially the
Telangana Region. The main crops, paddy and cotton are both rather water intensive and water
pumping is highly relevant for a successful harvest.
Lack of alternative water supply: The area is rather dry and there is no alternative to groundwa-
ter irrigation. Hence, the high dependency on good electricity quality makes the region a priority
region for intervention and effects of capacitors are more easy to estimate and confounding with
other irrigation types is ruled out
Proximity to Hyderabad: The
region is close to Hyderabad,
which makes it easier for pro-
ject partners from Hyderabad
to visit the site. Also the rural
urban linkages are more pre-
sent. As the PP is part of a SH
situated in Hyderabad, this
proximity is important for the
broader picture.
Image 2: A paddy field with DTR in background
31
8. PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS / STAKEHOLDERS

The multi stakeholder project was constructed in a way, that several partners with different backgrounds
aggregate their knowledge to cover all relevant aspects of the project. The partners comprise:
The Division of Cooperative Sciences of Humboldt- University Berlin (COOP) as the project leader
and initiator.
The Co-operative Electric Supply Society Sircilla, Ltd. (CESS), the local distribution company
Self Employed Welfare Society, the local NGO, leading a watershed program in the area
The Power Systems Research Center of International Institute for Information Technology, Hy-
derabad (IIIT-H) as the academic partner
Steinbeis Center for Technology and Innovation (SCTI) as the implementer
Center for World Solidarity (CWS) and Prayas Pune Energy Group (PPEG) as advising partners
cBalance Solutions Hub Pvt Ltd as the evaluator
Each partner has a specific and unique role in the project as described below.
8.1.COOP
COOP, the Division of Cooperative Sciences is part of the Faculty of Agriculture and Horticulture the
Humboldt University Berlin. COOP is led by Prof. Markus Hanisch and consists of a team of five PhD stu-
dents and three student assistants. Apart from extensive teaching activities, COOP is involved in several
research areas including new institutional economics, collective action, social capital, microeconomet-
rics, and co-operatives. Its main expertise lies in social coordination and cooperation problems as well as
dilemma situations. Game theory serves as the theoretical basis for the applied research projects, which
are being carried out in several countries including India, Uganda, and Kirgizstan.
COOP leads and coordinates the project and is responsible for the overall implementation and evalua-
tion. The main activities of COOP are:
Coordination of all partners

Establishing a structure of the project and provide details on the implementation
Supporting all partners with their tasks
Documentation of the project
Evaluation of the project
Conduction of social surveys before and after the implementation
Establishing a cooperative for farmers, including extensive training and capacity building
32
8.2.CESS
CESS is one of the oldest initiatives promoted to enhance the reach and effectiveness of rural power
distribution and management. CESS Sircilla was among the first five electricity cooperatives to be estab-
lished in the country. This is located in Karimnagar district of Andhra Pradesh. The state electricity regu-
lator has accorded recognition to CESS Sircilla (CESS-S) as rural electricity supply company (RESCO).
CESS-S has an area of operation that extends over 173 villages, 109 hamlets and also included supply to 9
urban centers. The area of CESS-S operation is coterminous with the entire revenue division. CESS-S cur-
rently has a total of over 1.64 million consumers, of which domestic consumers account for the highest
proportion.
8.3.SEWS
Self Employed Welfare Society (SEWS) is a non-profit organization located at Vemulawada, aims to pro-
vide self employment and welfare of the rural areas in and around Karimnagar District. SEWS has
launched many schemes like watershed program, Pure drinking water scheme, Jeevanopadhi scheme
etc..
The activities of SEWS in this Energy Efficiency project are:
Helps in coordinating and communicating with the farmers.

Arranging and coordinating the meetings with farmers.
Resolving the problems/issues of the farmers.
8.4.IIIT-H
The International Institute of Information Technology Hyderabad (IIIT-H) is an autonomous, self-
supporting institution started in 1998 with seed support from the Government of Andhra Pradesh. IIIT is
a research university, at its core. A major goal of IIIT is to impart a uniquely broad and interdisciplinary IT
education of the highest academic quality. This is achieved through an integrated curriculum that con-
sists of a highly diverse set of IT courses, interdisciplinary IT research projects, day-to-day interaction
with industry, preparation in entrepreneurship and personality development courses. As the Information
Technology expands its horizons, power engineering, like other traditional branches of engineering, is
finding new tools and methods to solve its problems. In view of this, the Power Systems Research Center
was setup in IIIT-H, with an aim of undertaking research in the areas of IT applications to Power and En-
ergy systems. This group in IIIT-H consists of group of 3 faculty members and around 5 research students.
IIIT-H has the following key roles in the PP:
Assist the overall technical approach of the PP
33
Provide technical knowledge in designing the solution

Provide knowledge on technical aspects of feeder selection
Regular field visit and data collection
Reporting of data
Assess technical feasibility of measurement and data collection
8.5.SCTI
Steinbeis Centre for Technology Transfer India (SCTI), an European Energy Centre approved Centre of
Excellence, a National Level Training Organization under JNSSM approved by MNRE, and a Network
Centre of Steinbeis GmbH & Co. KG fr Technologie Transfer Germany. The core business of Steinbeis is
to offer competitive Technology Transfer or concrete Problem Solution as opposed to theoretical / fun-
damental research. The services of SCTI include Technical Consultancy, Research & Development, Out-
sourcing Engineering Services & Engineering Components, Further Training, International Technology
Transfer.
The main activities of SCTI in the PP are:
Project Implementation, monitoring and coordination.

Take care of the technical data of motors before and after connecting capacitors.
Coordinate in conducting regular meetings with the farmers for project awareness.
Steinbeis supplies all the materials that are required for project implementation.
Steinbeis will also take care of the financial estimations incurred during implementation process.
Steinbeis monitors the capacitor Installation process and also provides service.
8.6.CWS
CWS is a civil society organization registered as a Public Trust in India in 1992. CWS originated from Ber-
lin-based Action for World Solidarity (ASW), with its 50 years of working internationally and more partic-
ularly to its more than three decades of experience in India, as a small resource agency, assisting devel-
opment work. The India Office of ASW later became the Centre for World Solidarity. With the Central
Office located in Hyderabad, CWS has its presence spread across the States of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar,
Jharkhand, Orissa and Tamil Nadu through its Resource Centres and works with 24 Networks of Volun-
tary Organisations, more than 200 one-to-one Partner Organisations and 20 Fellows in these five States.
CWS promotes a rights-based, gendered and eco-sustainable approach that will advance people-centred
governance, livelihoods and management of natural resources. This is achieved through partnering, nur-
turing and collaborating with Voluntary Organisations and other stakeholders at all levels. CWS concep-
34
tualized and successfully demonstrated social regulations approach to groundwater management, both
in drinking water supply and irrigation, during 2004-2012 in selected villages in Andhra Pradesh, India. As
a part of this, CWS worked with farmers on collective approaches to address electricity related issues
(such as low voltage at pump-sets; frequent agriculture motor and transformer burn-outs etc.) in
groundwater based agriculture. Drawing from these experiences, CWS provides advisory support to this
project. The role of CWS is more specifically defined as:
Inputs to project design, such as development of implementation plans and review

Review of implementation processes and reports
Capacity building of field partners in operationalizing plans
Inputs to policy intervention processes and events
8.7.CBALANCE SOLUTIONS HUB

cBalance is a knowledge-centric solutions hub that specializes in Tool Building and Strategy Development
for integrating Carbon ERP into institutional processes and enabling organizations to achieve measura-
ble, reportable, and verifiable GHG Emissions, energy, water and waste mitigation. It is a BEE Certified
Energy Auditor, developer of the first India-specific GHG Emission Factor Database, the India-associates
of Best Foot Forward (UK) and an empanelled GHG Inventory Consultant with 'The Green Signal' - India's
first sustainability ecolabelling program.
cBalance was the technical evaluator of the pilot project and its activities encompassed empirical data
collection, analysis and report writing including the following:
Devising a overarching strategy for exhibiting the impact of capacitor addition

Designing a field measurement plan including development of an algorithm to identify a repre-
sentative sample of pumps and transformers that would form the target population for the study
Determining relevant electrical and flow parameters for measurement and demonstration of im-
pact
Field measurement to measure performance impacts of capacitors on a statistically representa-
tive sample of pumps
Data Analysis to quantify and assess the scale of the impact achieved as well as perform rational
projections of the impacts throughout the pilot installation based on the sample results.
35
8.8.PPEG
Prayas Initiatives in Health, Energy and Parenthood - is a non-profit trust registered in Pune in 1994.
Around 100 professionals doctors, engineers and social scientists - working with Prayas are engaged in
policy analysis and advocacy to promote public interest interests of the poor and environment.
Prayas Energy Group (PEG), associated with this project has been active in electricity sector in the areas
of generation & supply, energy efficiency, renewable energy and fuels & resources. In each of these are-
as, PEG undertakes analysis, regulatory & policy interventions, working with civil society and advocacy.
These are aimed to democratize governance and improve policy implementation. PEG has been primarily
active in Maharashtra state and at the national level. In states like Odisha, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pra-
desh, as well as in some developing countries, PEG works with partners. Power supply to agriculture in
terms of accurate consumption estimates, equitable distribution of subsidy, improving quality of supply
and end-use efficiency - has been one of the areas of PEG work. It is with this background that PEG is
associated with this project in an advisory capacity. The scope of work is:
Inputs to project design (work plan, field intervention, evaluation, reporting, policy interven-
tion)
Inputs to capacity building of field partners
Report review comments
Inputs to policy intervention (work shop, regulatory/policy submission)
36
9. APPROACH TO THE PROJECT

9.1.STAKEHOLDERS
The stakeholders of the project are those, who are effected by the implementation of the project. They
can be summarized as in Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden.:
Table 3: Stakeholders Involved
Stakeholder Role Current situation Change in PP Aims relevant
Farmers Use groundwater Suffer from high repair Reduction of burn

for irrigation of costs, low water levels, bad outs, more efficient
farmland electricity supply, limited pumping
quantities, unfavorable
timings
Distribution Distributes elec- Suffer from high costs of Reduced delivery to Energy Effi-
Company tricity agricultural supply, and agriculture Reduced ciency
Maintains distri- from DTR repair costs repair costs (DTR) Electricity
bution grid Supply Quali-
ty
Govern- Subsidizes elec- Suffer from high subsidies, Less subsidies, more
ments: AP, tricity for CESS, high electricity consump- satisfied farmers,
Indian sets tariffs and tion (emissions), economic reduced supply gap
standards disadvantages due to lim-
ited power supply
Electricity Consume elec- High taxes for subsidies, Less power cuts
consumers tricity, pay taxes power cuts, polluted air
in AP
The stakeholders can be differentiated between those directly affected and those indirectly affected.
Obviously, the effects are highest with the farmers. Farmers will immediately realize the (dis-) ad-
vantages of the implementation and here, short term results can be observed. Also the distribution
company, which is supplying the affected farmers, can sense the effects immediately. Less power con-
37
sumption to agriculture and reduced repair costs would prevail in the case of a successful implementa-
tion. The other stakeholders, competing power consumers, the AP and Indian Government and its sub-
ordinate composition, and finally the whole society, are affected indirectly and only in the long term.
Hence, we will focus on only on the main stakeholders and the short term effects.
The interrelations of the stakeholders are summarized in Table 3. The pilot project area is special as the
electricity distribution is carried out by a cooperative society, CESS (see section 8.2) rather than by one of
the four Distribution Companies (DISCOM) operating in AP. Although CESS is fulfilling the same duties as
the DISCOMs do in other areas, some differences are to mention. Most important is the subsidy policy.
CESS buys units from the DISCOMs at a price of currently 0.48 Indian Rupees (INR) and sells it at given
tariffs to the different customers. Thereby, farmers are supplied at no charge per unit, so that CESS is
making losses for each unit delivered to agriculture. In contrast, the DISCOMs receive a direct subsidy
from the Government for their units delivered to agriculture, yet buy units at a higher charge. The incen-
tive structure is therefore different for CESS. The less units CESS has to sell to agriculture, the lesser loss-
es are there. A high incentive for improved energy efficiency is there. Additionally, CESS is responsible for
maintenance of DTRs. Low electricity quality on agricultural feeders lead to an increased number of DTR
burnouts. A reduction of DTR burnouts would thus be in line with the incentive structure of CESS. The
farmers in the region are mostly cotton and paddy farmers and have an average farm size of 3.68 acres.
As in other regions in the AP, farmers suffer from less water availability and due to the high dependence
on groundwater, from unreliable electricity supply. They appreciate mostly an improvement in quality as
the highest burden comes from repair costs. As there is no charge for electricity and water, both energy
efficiency and reduced electricity consumption play a minor or indirect role for farmers. In the long term,
the intervention will lead to an increased availability of power, which could be brought back to the farm-
ers in terms of increased hours of supply. However, the many institutional, political and technical hur-
dles, which imply a new regulation, make this aim unrealistic from the farmers perspective.
9.2.AIMS OF THE PROJECT

The projects aims can be divided into four parts. The idea behind this is to maximize benefits by creating
win-win situations on a decentralized, low-cost level. Four variables serve as the target functions to be
maximized. These are:
Saving energy
Improving electricity quality
Reducing losses
38
Capacity building and awareness creation of farmers
These aims will benefit all stakeholders, if fulfilled. The farmers profit from improved electricity quality in
terms of monetary savings and, from improved irrigation and higher yields, more reliability for planning
activities, reduced repair costs of motors and DTRs. Further, the organization of farmers in groups will
lead to more voice of the farmers. The utility, here CESS, will be able to reduce the units sold to agri-
culture. These can be sold to profit generating consumers like industries. Further, better electricity quali-
ty reduces maintenance and repair costs. Less line losses and increased PF are important for the annual
administrative reports and serve the targets set by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commis-
sion (APERC). The society benefits from a higher availability of power when agricultural consumptions go
down and line losses are reduced. Further there can is a reduction of CO2 emissions, if less electricity is
required.
9.3.RESEARCH AIMS
Considering the fact that the SH project is a research project, one important aim is to provide scientific
evidence for some of the often considered but outcome-wise ambiguous technical and social solutions to
improve the power supply situation in the agricultural sector in India. A certain amount of work will be
invested into deriving precise and comparable results. This will be done on the one hand by estimating
the technical changes e.g. change in power factor, voltage, energy consumption, and on the other hand
on the measurement of crucial long term effects, which also include social factors. For example, it has
been observed in the past that farmers perceived adverse effects when using capacitors. Hence, the long
term effects depend on the farmers behavior. In the pilot project, different implementation strategies
will be tested and, based on scientific standards, compared with each other and control groups. The
method allows us to draw representative conclusions on what works and what does not work. With this,
we expect to contribute to the current discussion on farmer issues as well as on the technical perfor-
mance of different (rather low cost) technologies. A detailed description of the evaluation method is
described in section 10.3
9.4.RATIONALE
The project can be divided into two parts, the technical intervention and the social intervention. Both are
assumed to be required for successful intervention. The technical intervention is the installation of shunt
capacitors at the load. It is a cheap solution which the farmers can easily afford and which provides ben-
efits to both the farmers and the utility. It is hoped that the improvement in PF, which will be achieved
by capacitors lead also to better voltage and hence reduced motor and DTR burn outs. The social inter-
vention accompanies the technical intervention. Here, farmers shall be organized in groups of different
39
group sizes. These committees shall form a basis to assure that the technical intervention goes smooth,
give voice to the farmers and increase awareness and knowledge on electricity and its external effects as
well as provide a ground for further interventions.
Box 3: The core action situation: A coordination problem
THE CORE ACTION SITUATION: A COORDINATION PROBLEM
Power quality is a shared resource within the nested hierarchical structure of the electric power dis-
tribution grid. Sub-stations transform power to an 11 kV level, covering several villages and distribu-
tion transformers. Depending on a transformers capacity, on average 17 pumpsets are connected.
Each pumpset can subtract from power quality, especially if of low standards, while exclusion is diffi-
cult. The choice of one farmer affects all other farmers connected to the same transformer. If all
farmers choose to install a low-quality pumpset, the utilization of a standard-approved pumpset by
only one farmer increases equipment damages. If all farmers install a standard-approved pumpset,
repair costs are drastically reduced, and all farmers are better off. The use of a capacitor to balance
out voltage fluctuations is subject to a similar coordination problem, as the equipment installed to
increase the productivity is also often the equipment that suffers the most from common power
disruptions. And the equipment is sometimes the source of additional power quality problems
(Dugan, 2003).
Unlike in a dilemma situation, no farmer has an incentive to deviate from the Pareto-superior equi-
librium, once reached, as a standard-approved pumpset and capacitor reduce equipment damages
and improve pumping efficiency. A simplified bi-matrix model of the coordination problem highlights
the two Nash equilibria in pure strategies in bold print (Tab). The equal payoff for the strategy not to
invest ~I, and the loss incurred by the one not coordinating, makes this model type an assurance
problem.
F2
I ~I
I 2, 2 0, 1
F1
~I 1, 0 1, 1
Table: The two farmers (F1; F2) have the choices to invest (I) or not to invest (~I) into measures to improve power quality. Outcomes are
ordinal ranks. Investing (I) carries costs, but reduces equipment damage. If both F1 and F2 invest, the payoff is Pareto-optimal, if only
one farmer invests, he carries the costs without improvements in power quality.
40
An econometric analysis of AS1 revealed that, under the given conditions, the rational strategy is not
to adopt any DSM (Kimmich, forthcoming). This is the low Nash equilibrium of the underlying coordi-
nation problem, predicting no adoption at all. Yet, despite their negative impact on the frequency of
equipment damages, a significant share of the surveyed farmers has adopted DSM, due to the legal
order to make the use of DSM compulsory and related campaigns and partial enforcement when
capacitors were distributed.
Interviews with farmers indicated that the functioning of the electricity system is only rarely under-
stood. The underlying assurance problem cannot be conceived, let alone the outcome of a payoff-
dominant strategy. Some farmers reported that the capacitor prevented their motor from starting,
due to low voltage. In other cases, either the motor or the capacitor had been burnt out shortly after
installation. Almost no farmer was aware that a simultaneous installation of capacitors is required.
9.5.TECHNICAL APPROACH
One relatively cheap way to increase the power quality is to connect capacitors in parallel to the load,
which improves the PF. The connection of capacitor banks at the Sub Station side and capacitors at the
individual loads is the best way to maintain the PF around 0.8 to 0.9 where the inductive loads are more
prevalent. However, the PP aims to enable farmers to provide the solution themselves and hence larger
solutions are not possible. Capacitors are a simple and widely available device, affordable for almost all
farmers, and have positive effects for both farmers and utility. However, the capacitors should serve as
an entry point to more investment to such kind of devices.
Capacitors have one further characteristic (see box 3). The effect of a single capacitor is minimal. The
effect only is rentable if a certain amount of farmers per DTR use capacitors. This fact implies that the
non-use of capacitors is not only based on technical issues, yet also on institutional and social character-
istics. Some coordination of the farmers is required and often coordination failures have been observed.
Conclusively, having a project with capacitors does not only inherit technical challenges. The linkages to
the social side of agriculture increase the tasks for implementation. This challenge is one reason for the
choice of capacitors in the PP. A technical explanation of capacitors is found in Section 6.5.
9.6.SOCIAL APPROACH
The social intervention consists mainly of works within the farmers committees. The organization of the
farmers shall take place after the capacitors are installed. The concept is as follows. As most interaction
of farmers occurs within one DTR, the smallest unit of a committee is the DTR committee (DTRC). All
41
farmers who are connected to the DTR shall be members of one DTRC. The DTRCs shall then be connect-
ed through a Feeder Committee (FC).
Figure 5: Organisational chart
VEMULAWADA
FEDERATION
Feeder Level Organisation
DTR DTR DTR DTR

Source: Own design
Only selected representatives of the DTRCs which are connected to the respective feeder shall be mem-
ber of the FC. In the PP, there will be two FCs. The FCs main purpose is to solve the issues that cannot be
solved on the DTRC level. Further they may initiate larger interventions that go beyond the usual scope
of the PP. The FCs shall again be brought together in the Pilot Project Committee (PPC). The PPC is the
head organization which shall communicate with CESS concerning issues with the electricity supply, solve
internal issues and take important and superior decisions.
42
Each committee will have a constitution and select

representatives. These are a president, a secretary, a
treasurer and in case of DTRCs a technical assistant.
The DTRCs shall open a bank account for regular and
unexpected expenses and savings. There shall be regu-
lar meetings with a clear agenda. Technical and social
problems shall be discussed, some variables of the mo-
tors, capacitors and DTRs shall be documented. The
DTRCs shall meet monthly while the FC and PPC shall
meet every four months. The representatives will also
keep contact to CESS officials and help its members to
solve problems. The technical assistants receive ad-
vanced training on different aspects of irrigation and
electricity and shall help the other farmers in case of
occurring problems. A detailed description of the commit- Image 3: One committee in front of the DTR
tees and its tasks is found in Appendix III: DTRC Constitution
& Minutes of the Meetings.
In general, the social intervention facilitates to solve farmers problems bottom up and collectively, avoid
conflicts and misunderstandings between farmers, CESS and the project team, serve as a platform for
capacity building and trainings, and assist the interaction between CESS and the farmers. In the long run,
the committees can be used as an institutional show case of collective action. It can also serve as a plat-
form for further interventions. The committee model can be transferred to other areas like water man-
agement groups, village electricity committees, and also be used when new technologies like solar pho-
tovoltaic water pumps are introduced.
43
10. PROJECT STEPS DETAILS

This section is the core of Part II: Pilot Project as it details all steps in the project. The project time frame
was from September 2011 to February 2013 while the evaluation requires more time in order to capture
long term effects after project completion.
10.1. PREPARATION PHASE

The Preparation Phase included all steps required to begin the implementation. The Preparation Phase
was finished after:
The area for intervention was decided on

All partners were fully aware of the project
The intervention method was agreed on
The technical feasibility was investigated
The local actors were included in the project
The project consortium agreed to the implementation strategy
The official initiation of the Preparation Phase was in October 2012 and two workshops had been con-
ducted to choose the intervention type and area.
10.1.1. RATIONALE FOR CHOICE OF INTERVENTION

As mentioned in the above sections, the project partners decided on capacitors at the pump set level to
improve the PF (see section 6 for technical details) of the agricultural motors as the main intervention
strategy. This choice is the result of intensive discussions with project partners as well as with outside
experts (see section 5 for a discussion of different implementation strategies). Several constraints con-
tributed to this decision. First, the project works on a limited budget which ruled out large scale inter-
ventions like replacing motors or DTRs. Hence the choice was reduced to small, low cost, technical solu-
tions. Second, a focus was put on farmers participation. It was intentionally searched for a solution
where the contribution of DISCOMS and APERC was not required. The project should be resistant to po-
litical variation and regulatory delays. Further, farmers and NGOs should be able to up-scale this inter-
vention without the involvement of large players. Third, the solution should be rather simple and easy to
understand for the stakeholders, esp. farmers. Fourth, the solution should not require much mainte-
nance and technical know-how. Fifth, in order to strengthening farmers, the solution should have scope
for collective action and participation. Considering these points, there is still a large scope of possible
solutions, e.g. dry run preventers (see section 5.1 for low cost solutions). The project partners decided to
44
use capacitors as a first step, while it was agreed on that the main achievement would be an organized
farmers cooperative that is self-sustaining and has the capacities to negotiate with the DISCOMs and
implement innovative, small-scale improvements without outside help. Capacitors are regarded as one
out of many small scale solutions. Taking into account the background of the project initiator as a social
science disciple and the aims of the SH project, justifies a rather institutional, social approach. Capacitors
were chosen because of the following reasons. First, there has been a successful project with capacitors
(see {Mohan 2010 #114} for details). The authors of this article are part of the project team (see section
8.6and 8.7) and hence brought in some experience on the topic. It turned out that capacitors remained
installed for several years, and were highly appreciated by the farmers (a site visit of the project team on
December 23rd 2011 confirmed this). This pretesting increases the likelihood of a technical sound and
robust implementation. Other solutions would have required additional pretesting which would be out-
side the projects scope. Second, the solution was recommended within the project team, especially
electrical engineers confirmed the anticipated positive effects of capacitors. Third, capacitors are familiar
to most farmers, yet not always in a positive way. Fourth, CESS was comfortable with this solution and
assured its support. Fifth, capacitors are highly recommended by the Government and standard in many
regions in AP and India, as well as standard in many other electrical appliances. Sixth, a capacitor is a
simple electrical device, which has existed since several decades, without relying on modern technology.
Seventh, investment and maintenance costs of capacitors are relatively low.
However, there are also disadvantages of capacitors. Many farmers are reluctant towards capacitors
usage, as a Government program in 2005 led to wrong installation of capacitors which resulted in ad-
verse effects on pump efficiency and reliability (see details in e.g. (Kimmich, 2013a)). Hence, social inter-
vention and capacity building is necessary. Trust has to be built between farmers and implementers,
several trainings need to be conducted explaining the working of a capacitor, and farmers need to un-
derstand how to properly maintain a capacitor and what maintenance is required to achieve positive
effects. Another obstacle is the synergy effects created by a capacitor. As described by Kimmich (2010),
capacitors will only function properly in concerted action. If only one farmer connected to a feeder uses
a capacitor, the effect is rather small. The full potential of capacitors is only achieved when all farmers
connected to a feeder have installed a capacitor. This insight is crucial for implementation. It is hence the
task (and major challenge) of the implementer, especially the local NGO, to achieve full coverage at least
at one feeder. This requires sophisticated groundwork and capacity building.
During the preparation phase, there was always another alternative in discussion. APFC in combination
with capacitors at the DTR level are a more expensive solution yet inheriting two significant characteris-
tics, which are not there with individual capacitors. First, APFCs allow for easy and low cost monitoring
45
due to GSM connections to the substation. Second, APFC does not need any involvement of farmers. Yet,
these advantages are in contradiction to one of the above mentioned constraints, not to be dependent
on the regulatory process. DTR level interventions need approval from APERC. Apart from this disad-
vantage, the cost factor (APFC is not cost efficient) ruled finally out this option. However, it should be
considered for subsequent projects.
10.1.2. SELECTION OF FEEDERS

Due to budget reasons, two feeders are to be selected. All feeders within the area of CESS were exam-
ined. Several criteria guided the decision making process:
Approval of local partners, SEWS and CESS

Within area of SEWS
Maximum share of agricultural connections
Minimum illegal connections
Minimum number of agricultural connections
One watershed and one non-watershed feeder
Feeders should be similar
Representative cropping pattern
Lines should be in acceptable conditions
No plans for renewal or replacement of feeder or substation
All technical parameters should be available
A detailed technical analysis had been carried out by IIIT-H and SCTI after a pre-selection by SEWS and
CESS. The pre-selection by CESS was based on their internal preferences based on which feeder needs
the intervention most as well as which feeder is technically adequate. SEWS preferred a feeder in an
area where it had already been working in order to have better access to the farmers and hence an easi-
er and faster implementation phase. The technical analysis was accompanied by several field visits and
collection of technical parameters. Lastly, a ranking of attributes let to the choice of the feeder s
Namiligundupally at Vattemula Substation, and Sangula Feeder at Sangula Substation. January 2012, the
month of selection the two feeders were characterized by the following attributes:
46
Table 4: The situation at the two feeders
Feeder Namiligundupally Sangula
No of Domestic Loads(total load in 188 (56.4) 512 (153,6)

KW)
No DTRs 14 21
No Loads connected 346 355
Total HP for Agriculture 1207.5 1330
Watershed Program Yes No

Source: Own data
During the field work, many characteristics changed and the load at the Namiligundupally feeder was
heavily reduced because another feeder from the substation replaced the distribution.
10.1.3. SOCIAL SURVEY

Before initiating the implementation phase it was desired to gain information on different attitudes,
knowledge, socio-demographic variables, cropping patterns, field sizes, technical aspects like using a
capacitor, and the groundwater perception of the farmers. In order to meet these aims a social survey
was carried out before the farmers were aware of the upcoming project but after selection of the feed-
ers. The field phase was from 4th to 7th of February 2012. The sample consisted of 234 farmers from the
intervention feeders and from a control group in the surrounding areas. Totally, eight villages had been
covered. A training of 1,5 days with 16 field investigators prepended the survey. Additionally, a choice
experiment to elicit preferences for different alternatives of capacitor types and implementation
schemes was included in the questionnaire (see box 4). The results of the social questionnaire are pre-
sented in table 6. In order to show whether our sample is representative for the AP area, the dataset is
contrasted with a similar dataset from 2010 (Kimmich, 2013b). Part A of the table represents socio-
economic variables of both datasets. It is apparent that the data from our sample is quite similar to the
data from (Kimmich, 2013b). Differences only occur regarding membership in a farmers` association and
the average years of education. These differences may be explained by alterations in questioning. Most
worth mentioning in this part is the average farm size in the eight villages covered, that lies at 3.68 acres
per farmer, with a range from 0.08 to 21.5 acres, and a standard deviation of 2.85, indicating some de-
gree of heterogeneity among the questioned farmers. Part B of table 6 reports variables on the distribu-
tion transformer level. Surprisingly the number of DTR-burnouts is quite high in our dataset and probably
47
misreported. Furthermore the average number of farmers connected to one DTR is interestingly quite
low regarding the data from 2010. This also reflects clearly in the higher share of head-position farmers
at the DTR. The number of farmers owning the DTR was only surveyed in 2010 and is expectedly low
(three percent). Lastly part C displays pumpset variables. Most striking is the average of yearly around
two motor burnouts per pumpset. Combined with an average single repair cost of 4,147.5 INR or
2,693.15 INR (2010) it illustrates once again the high burden of inappropriate technologies and low ener-
gy quality born by farmers. Astonishingly the number of motor burnouts is not quite significantly differ-
ent, as one might expect looking at the large difference between the average ages of the pumpset in the
two samples (16.19 in the 2012 data versus 7.21 in 2010). As already mentioned previously in this report,
some farmers already have installed successfully a capacitor into their pumpset. In the area we surveyed
9.76 percent of the farmers had installed a capacitor in one of their pumpsets, similar to ten percent in
2010. This confirms an already preexistent awareness for capacitors and willingness to take action by
farmers. However the capacitor share is still quite low.
48
Table 5: Social survey statistics (Standard deviation in parenthesis)
2012 2010 2012 2010

(KIMMICH, 2013)
A. FARM/HOUSEHOLD VARIABLES MEAN/ MEAN/ MIN. MAX. MIN. MAX.
PROB. PROB.
Acres irrigated in kharif season 3.68 3.66 0.08 21.5 0 56,5
(2.85) (4.45)
Additional household income (total and share in %) 8249.85 65,00% 0 150,000
(15370.48)
Participation in agric. training (share in %) 32,70% 33,00%
Participation in the Gram Sabha (share in %) 60,36% 54,00%
Member of a farmers` association (share in %) 52,89% 22,00%
Education (Years) 7.81 3.80 1 17 0 18
(3.44) (5.06)
Age (Years) 47.34 44.34 20 78 19 83
(13.05) (13.58)
Gender (share of male farmers in %) 85,00% 81,00%
Caste (share of SC/ST farmers in %)7 30,96% 35,00%
Household size 5.14 5.55 2 16 2 19
(2.27) (2.71)
B. DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMER (DTR) VARIABLES MEAN/ MEAN/ MIN. MAX. MIN. MAX.
PROB. PROB.
DTR burnouts per year 5.66 1.02 1 16 0 7
(4.04) (1.04)
Costs for DTR repair for the farmer (Rs.) 642.41 620.58 30 10,000 0 8,000
(1540.12) (869.65)
Number of farmers connected to the DTR 9.30 17.30 1 18 1 50
(4.92) (8.12)
Costs for authorization of connection (Rs.) 9209.61 7,180.11 250 1,000,000 0 100,000
(8430.64) (8,742.22)
49
Bribes paid for receiving connection (Rs.) 1988.75 946.60 50 300,000 0 10,000
(2909.87) (1,456.48)
Farmers with DTR head position (share in %) 27,78% 69,00%
Farmers owning the DTR (share in %) 3,00%
C. PUMPSET VARIABLES MEAN/ MEAN/ MIN. MAX. MIN. MAX.
PROB. PROB.
Motor burnouts per year 2.03 1.86 0 20 0 12

(2.19) (1.64)
Costs for motor repair (Rs.) 4,147.5 2,693.15 800 30,000 200 8,500
(3,216.54) (1,513.11)
Age of the pumpset (years) 16.19 7.21 0 42 0 30
(9.90) (5.94)
Branded pumpset (share in %) 53.00%
ISI-marked pumpset (share in %) 63.30% 37.00%
BEE-rated pumpset (share in %) 6.00%
Capacitor successfully installed (share in %) 9.76% 10.00%
Automatic starter installed (share in %) 40.27% 85,00%
Investment costs for the pumpset (Rs.) 14,499.51 22,342.90 1500 56,000 2,000 72,000
(7945.12) (8,998.48)
Maintenance costs for the pumpset (Rs./year) 690.16 468.11 0 12,000 50 3,000
(997.26) (375.09)
Depth of the well (feet) 24.67 166.79 4.57 200 13 400
(26.21) (69.82)
Investment costs for the well (Rs.) 23,324.51 1,000 150,000
(18,647.77)
Months without water 4.91 0 7
(1.60)
Well runs dry in summer (share in %) 83.98% 95.00%
Source: Project data and (Kimmich, 2013b)
50
Box 4: Choice Experiment
Using Choice Experiments to calibrate Pilot Project Interven-

tion
Choice Experiments (CE) have been extensively used to evaluate goods, services or policies in trans-
portation-, environmental-, and health economics as well as in marketing. In development econom-
ics, the method has been applied to elicit preferences of the poor in sectors like food, water or farm-
ing to provide stakeholder coherent policy recommendations. The widespread use of CEs is due to its
rather simple yet general application format in combination with robust underlying economic theory.
A CE is a survey based, stated preferences method in which respondents are asked to repeatedly
choose between alternatives. Each alternative is described by attributes, which vary from choice task
to choice task. One advantage of this method, compared to other stated preferences methods, is its
capability to evaluate the attributes of a good or policy rather than the good or policy itself. For ex-
ample, a policy maker is about to implement a sustainable wetland management policy. He knows
that there are different - maybe equally expensive - variants of the policy (e.g. degree of biodiversity,
size of open water surface area) yet is unaware of the preferences from the public. Further, he might
be interested in quantifying the perceived value of the different variants to compare it to the related
costs. Using CEs, it is possible to identify the socially optimal policy by adjusting the implementa-
tion to public preferences. This example (Birol et al., 2006) is one of many such experiments that
have been conducted to guide policy makers in environmental policy questions.
For energy and water related issues in the Sustainable Hyderabad project, we have conducted stated
preferences methods with a similar motivation. Our findings are incorporated in policy briefs and will
enter the Perspective Action Plan. However, we recently applied a CE for a very different purpose.
Here, we wanted to identify preferences of beneficiaries (i.e. a small subset of people who are direct-
ly affected) to adjust the implementation procedure of small pilot projects or development coopera-
tion projects. The main difference lies in the target group and the generalization of the results. In the
classical applications - usually relevant for large groups or the whole population (e.g. marketing a
new product, constructing a new highway, preserving a natural habitat, setting up a new health in-
surance scheme) - it is aimed to attain general conclusions whereas our proposal is restricted to a
specific and unique intervention. In general, the rationale is as follows: Whenever new ideas are to
be tested in the field, some fine tuning is necessary. The fine tuning varies from case to case. When
fine tuning is not conducted a priori, trial and error costs are higher than necessary. Gathering a pri-
ori information might be much cheaper and pitfalls can be avoided. While many such a priori meth-
ods exist and are frequently applied, CEs might inherit some outstanding benefits: First of all, a max-
51
imum of realism is provided as different scenarios are presented to the respondents. Second, the
comparative nature of CE tasks makes decisions easier for respondents, compared to surveys where
direct statements are required. Third, the method is efficient in a way that very precise and quantifi-
able findings can be collected in a relatively comprised format. Fourth, with a good sample selection
and proper statistical design, estimates are reliable as it is easy to cover large shares of the target
population. Fifth, the CE task is more compelling to respondents than answering simple, maybe bor-
ing questions.
In order to illustrate the idea, the following paragraph will provide some background of Pilot Project
5 Implementing cooperative and technical solutions to increase energy efficiency in irrigation to
then exemplify the motivation and the conduction of a CE to inform project implementation.
Farmers, who use electric water pumps, suffer from bad electricity quality in terms of voltage fluctu-
ations and restricted power supply. To overcome these issues, COOP together with the project part-
ners decided to provide capacitors (a small and inexpensive technical equipment that can reduce
motor burn-outs and increase energy efficiency) to the farmers. Additionally, assistance to set up a
water pump cooperative for self-help, better internal organization and more negotiation power
against the distribution company is provided. Even after interviewing several farmers and experts,
the project implementation team still lacked precise and representative information on the farmers
preferences for different capacitor attributes, especially non-technical ones like warranty and capaci-
tor costs. Further it needed to be determined whether farmers would be willing to join the coopera-
tive. In the end, it all depends on the willingness of the stakeholders to participate. If the stakehold-
ers are not willing to adopt the proposed changes, the project is likely to fail. Sometimes, even small
deviances from the preferred application can prevent a successful implementation. In order to make
sure that one will not fall into this trap, it is helpful to find out
whether farmers are at all willing to install capacitors.

whether farmers are willing to pay a price to attain a capacitor.
whether farmers would be interested in joining the cooperative.
to what extend warranty is appreciated by the farmers.
how warranty, price and the cooperative are traded off and interact.
An answer to these questions can guide the implementation; especially predict what works and
what fails. For example, if one finds out that farmers are willing to pay to attain capacitors only
when it comes with warranty, it would be fatal to provide capacitors at a charge but without warran-
ty. Further, it is useful to investigate how farmers trade off the price and warranty, i.e. how much a
farmer would pay additionally for one year of warranty.
As implied above, COOP applied a CE to answer these questions and eventually to help calibrating
the intervention to maximize farmers benefits. The idea was put into practice in a survey with 234
52
farmers from the intervention villages and from neighboring control group villages in February
2012. The CE consisted of three alternatives no capacitor, only capacitor and capacitor and co-
operative. The latter two alternatives comprised two attributes with each two levels. The attribute
levels appeared in different combinations between choice situations. The attributes were years of
warranty (level 1: no warranty / level 2: five years warranty) and investment costs for capacitor
(level 1: no costs / level 2: 300 Indian Rupees). Figure 1 presents one out of the 16 choice situations
which were used in the survey. Each respondent answered eight choice situations after a detailed
explanation of the alternatives and attributes. The results shed light on the questions raised above.
First, simple decision heuristics can be detected. That is, a respondent chooses always the same al-
ternative regardless of the levels of the attributes or he chooses always the alternative where one
specific attribute is better. From table 1 one can see that only one respondent always opted against
capacitors. 15 respondents always chose the alternative capacitor and cooperative. 26 respondents
always chose the alternative that was cheaper and 39 respondents always opted for longer warranty.
Another 43 respondents chose either based on the cost or the warranty attribute (It was not possible
to identify which of the attributes was dominant due to design issues). Basically, there is no general
resistance towards capacitors, even when it costs and comes without warranty. Further, more re-
spondents were keen on longer warranty than on free capacitors. The data can further be analyzed
with microeconometric methods. Applying a conditional logit model, it is possible to calculate choice
probabilities, marginal effects and willingness to pay values (tradeoff between the attributes) for the
attributes. The model estimates in terms of willingness to pay are presented in table 2. The sampled
farmers are more likely to choose the alternative with a cooperative and - not surprisingly - prefer
lower costs and longer warranty. They are on average willing to pay 325 INR additionally for joining
the cooperative and 117 INR additionally for one more year of warranty. Although the analysis can be
widely extended, e.g. by investigating preference heterogeneity or correlating the choices with socio-
demographic variables, already important insights are obvious and can be directly used for project
implementation.
Apparently this example is limited to only three attributes. There might be other, more relevant fea-
tures that have not been included. If there is little a priori information available, it is useful to con-
duct focus group discussions and expert interviews to optimize attribute choice.
The advantages of precise and extended analysis come at the cost of extra effort. A CE should only be
used if the additionally generated information, e.g. compared to focus group discussions, is really
required for implementation. Arguments against the use of CEs are as follows. First, CEs involve a lot
of preparation and are cost intensive. Like most quantitative methods, a relatively large sample size
is required to get statistically sound estimates and field investigators need to be hired and trained at
least for one full day. Second, falsely selected or omitted attributes or a bad experimental design can
53
bias the results and lead to wrong implications. Third, due to the hypothetical nature of the method,
respondents might not answer in the same manner they would actually behave in real decision situa-
tions (hypothetical bias).
Always choose Freq. Percent
alternative no capacitor 1 0.43 %
alternative only capacitor 2 0.85 %
alternative capacitor and cooperative 15 6.41 %
the cheaper alternative 26 11.11 %

the alternative with longer warranty 39 16.67 %
either cheaper price or longer warranty 43 18.38 %
not to any pattern 108 46.15 %

Table 1: Simple choices
Willingness to 95% confidence intervall

Attributes pay in INR Lower bound Upper bound
Alternative cooperative 324.9*** 243.9 405.9
One year Warranty 117.4*** 89.7 145.1
Costs -1*** -1 -1
Number Observations 3550
Number Respondents 233
Count R2 0.735
Table 2: Conditional logit regression results expressed in Willingness to pay conditional on those
choosing an alternative with capacitor
Figures
A sample Choice Situation from the Survey: Each farmer was asked to answer eight of these choice
sets, after a detailed explanation of the attributes was provided.
54
Partially the observed low number of installed capacitors may be attributed to a coordination failure
that disincentives individuals to install capacitors into the grid. This core coordination has already
been explained theoretically in box 3. Box 5 shows in addition an experiment that was carried out in
the pilot project region to study the coordination problem.
Box 5: Coordination Game
APPLYING A COORDINATION GAME TO STUDY THE RELUCTANCE OF FARM-

ERS TO INSTALL CAPACITORS
One way to reduce voltage fluctuations, to save energy, and to reduce the probability of motor burn-
outs, is to install capacitors into the electric grids at the pump level. In the past, interventions to fos-
ter the installation of these small technical devices have often failed. In part, this may be explained
by the underlying coordination problem (see also box 3) and contextual factors such as the number
of farmers connected to one distribution transformer, the negligence of lead farmers guiding the
decisions of fellow farmers, or socio-demographic heterogeneity. In the following, we present first
results from a framed field experiment which explores the role of group size and leadership in adop-
tion of this energy-saving technology in irrigation.
The farmers coordination problem and empirical approach

In a typical village of our study region, between 10 and 30 farmers are connected to one distribution
transformer from which they access electricity. In this small sub-grid voltage fluctuations can be sub-
stantially reduced if farmers install capacitors. Yet, the s-shaped production function of electricity
quality (see figure below) creates a coordination problem for farmers: it is individually rational to
install a capacitor only when the slope of the production function is very steep (area 2), whereas one
should stay away from buying a capacitor when the slope is flat (areas 1 and 3; cf. (Kimmich, 2013a).
Decisions in the game depend on the expectations on the behavior of others and multiple unstable
equilibria exist.
To study the decisive factors which may help to overcome the involved coordination dilemma, we
have developed a simple framed field experiment where two factors group size and leadership
are varied on two levels in four different treatments of a full factorial experimental design. In each
round, participants can decide to buy or not to buy a capacitor. Subjects play in groups of n = 5 and n
= 10 farmers for t = 12 rounds. In six rounds they make their decisions in parallel; in six rounds a ran-
domly selected participant the leader moves first. Pay-offs as used in the game are displayed in
the last two columns of the figure below. We test the following hypotheses:
H1: In smaller groups coordination is enhanced and participants achieve higher pay-offs.
H2: In the sequential game, the presence of a lead farmer enhances coordination which results in
55
higher pay-offs.
In February 2013, the game was played with 115 farmers in four sessions in different villages of
Vemulavada district, approximately 150 km North-East of the Andhra Pradeshs capital Hyderabad.
After the game, participants filled a short survey and selected farmers participated in group discus-
sions. On average farmers earned 245.02 Rupees ( = 23.07) which is equal to about 4.50 US-Dollars
or a daily income of a farmer in this region.
First results and outlook
Our initial results show that participants in the small groups (with n = 5) choose to buy a capacitor
more often (in 60.95 percent of the cases) as compared to the large groups (58.44 percent). Howev-
er, this difference is statistically not significant (Two-sample test of proportions; z = 0.8747; p =
0.3817). This difference in choices is also reflected in the pay-offs per round. Participants in the small
groups earn more ( = 2.15; = 4.01) in contrast to the large groups
Figure: Schematic representation of the coordination problem and game pay-offs
Source: Adapted from (Kimmich, 2013b)
( = 2.06; = 3.90). The difference is statistically not significant at the five percent level (Mann-
Whitney U-test; z = 1.217; p = 0.2236). Participants choose a capacitor in 60.72 percent of the cases
when there is no leader and in 57.68 percent of the cases when there is a leader. We test the differ-
ence between rounds t = 6 and t = 7 and find that the difference is statistically not significant
(McNemars test; = 0.58; p = 0.4458). Comparing the aggregated payoffs shows that earnings are
substantially lower in the leadership condition ( = 10.79; = 13.93) as compared to the parallel
game ( = 14.23; = 11.65). This difference is statistically highly significant (Wilcoxon signed-rank
56
test; z = 3.287; p = 0.0010). To sum up, pay-offs are only slightly higher in the game in smaller groups.
Thus, we do not find sufficient support for our first hypothesis. With regard to H2, even the opposite
is true, i.e. having a lead farmer reduces the number of capacitors and has a fairly large and statisti-
cally significant negative effect on payoffs in the game.
10.1.4. TECHNICAL SURVEY

The technical survey included sample capacitors and readings taken after connecting the capacitors
to the motor circuits. In the sample technical survey all the parameters before and after connecting
capacitors were compared. PF and power consumption were compared for five randomly selected
pump sets. The average observed improvement in PF reached 14 to 15 percent. This testing helped
to select the right type of capacitors and to get a first indication of the effects to be expected. In or-
der to prepare the purchase of capacitors, a census of all pump sets under Namiligundupally and
Sangula feeder was carried out. Four local ITI electricians were employed to measure relevant pa-
rameters and document the types of motors, pump sets and their condition. The field staff had been
trained by SCTI experts and was equipped with meters, respective tools and safety gears. For meas-
urement at the DTRs, linemen from CESS were included in the process to assure safety standards.
The technical survey continued during the installation of the capacitors and after finalization of the
installation phase 60 more measurements were taken. Implementation Phase
10.1.5. SELECTION OF CAPACITORS

For the selection of capacitor type and make, different companies like Havells Capacitors, Ikon Ca-
pacitors, Neptune Ducati Capacitors, Shreem Capacitors, CAPCO Capacitors were approached and
compared
The capacitor make was chosen based on the following factors:
Possibility of earthing at site

Brand of the company
Efficiency and reliability
Companys service and expertise in the field
Cost of the capacitor
Warranty
Size and ease of fitting
Whether company can provide technical assistance or not
Testing capacitors at site
57
Finally, the basic model of CAPCO Capacitors was chosen as it seemed to be the most appropriate
product with respect to the above criteria (here a picture of the capacitor). Table x shows the exact
numbers of required capacitors and its costs
Table 6: Technical summary feeder-wise
S.No Motor Total no KVAR to Cost per KVAR in 10% Additional Overall
Cost
Capacity of Mo- be Con- Rupees incl. Vat 5% Capacitors for Mo-
tors nected tors
Sanugula Feeder
1 3 HP 334 1 KVAR 85.05 33.4 31213.35
2 5HP 211 2KVAR 78.75 21.1 36540
3 7.5 HP 1 3 KVAR 78.75 1 708.75
4 10 HP 4 4 KVAR 78.75 1 1890
5 15 HP 3 5 KVAR 78.75 1 1968.75
553 57.5 72320.85
Nemiligundapalli Feeder
1 3 HP 288 1 KVAR 85.05 28.8 26960.85
2 5HP 58 2KVAR 78.75 5.8 10080
3 7.5 HP 1 3 KVAR 78.75 1 472.5
4 10 HP 1 4 KVAR 78.75 1 393.75
5 15 HP 1 5 KVAR 78.75 1 787.5
349 37.6 38694.6
Source: Project data
10.1.6. FARMERS AWARENESS MEETINGS

For ensuring a smooth installation process, it is strongly recommended to make the farmers aware of
the program before any capacitors will be brought to the farmers. Therefore, SCTI and SEWS con-
ducted several meetings with respective farmers in the villages. Topics included project awareness,
and the importance of the capacitor installation, its advantages to the farmers and how to maintain
them. For the easy understanding of the farmers, pamphlets were printed in their local language
Telugu and are distributed within the villages. CESS officials are also made aware of the program.
The farmers response was mostly positive, although some doubts were mentioned. For example did
some farmers state former capacitor projects where the capacitors hindered the starting of a motor.
However, this did not create any harm to the installation process. The meetings took place from Feb-
ruary 2012 onwards and continued on a regular basis, even during the installation.
58
10.1.7. INSTALLATION OF CAPACITORS

The installation of the capacitors was carried out by the ITI electricians, who were also involved in the
technical survey and monitored by the technical staff of SCTI. The
capacitor installation was first done in Namiligundupally feeder as
the access to the farmers was easier due to the watershed program.
After the first feeder was finalized, Sangula was covered. Ten per-
cent of spare capacitors were stored locally to be used for replace-
ment of damaged capacitors and for the case that new pump sets
were connected to the feeder. The capacitors were fixed to the
wooden or metal panels/ enclosures. The three phase wires of the
capacitor were fitted in parallel to the secondary of the starter. The
installation began in August 2012 and was completed in November
Image 4: Capacitor installation 2012. During the process, several problems in the field occurred
which led to a delay of one month. The reasons included difficult
access to the starter boxes, weather conditions during the monsoon phase, uncooperative behavior
of some farmers, wrong rating of the motors due to rewinding and continuous changes in motor
rating due to replacement.
10.1.8. ESTABLISHING FARMER COMMITTEES

One main aspect of the project was to establish an institutional structure where the farmers are or-
ganized and have the possibility to act collectively or in a group. Therefore, establishing such groups
was one major task of the implementation phase. The formation of groups started in December 2012
after all capacitors had been installed. First, DTRCs were established. A team of three social mobi-
lizers and a supervisor were trained and a detailed work plan was established. The formation of one
DTRC took approximately three days. The first two days were used to mobilize and prepare the farm-
ers and on the third day, the DTRC was established. To do so, all farmers of the DTRC had to sign an
agreement where some important points were mentioned. For example, the farmers had to agree to
invest 2 hours per week of voluntary work and contribute a monthly fee to cover expenses for meet-
ings etc. After the signatures, the supervisor explained the contents of the constitution to the farm-
ers and the first meeting according to the Minutes of the Meetings (MoM) log book. The MoM con-
sists of the constitution and seven plans for the meeting, providing a structure of the meeting and
some space to record the major points of discussion and a section to collect some statistics like num-
ber of burned motors at the DTR.
At the end of December, all DTRCs were established. The next two months were used to form the FCs
and to conduct further DTRC meetings. Additionally, further activities were conducted. A large meet-
ing with the CESS MD and an exposure visit to a village in a different district where capacitors have
59
been used for a longer time are the two main examples. The farmers further were motivated to write
letters to CESS with their main problems and the social mobilizers helped the farmers with a correct
structure of the letter. The farmers were motivated to conduct further meetings, even after the pro-
ject. At the end of the project the MoM log books were handed out to the farmers.
10.1.9. OVERALL MONITORING AND SERVICE PROCESS

ITI electricians collected and recorded the technical data of the motors and DTRs with the help of
linemen from CESS before and after connecting capacitors. The technical staff of SCTI supervised the
electricians and ensured timely processes. The information was then shared with all project partners.
Further, SCTI made sure that the process runs smoothly, all technical equipment is available, that
employed staff receives salaries on time and solves unforeseen problems e.g. with unsatisfied farm-
ers.
10.1.10. COOPERATION WITH CESS

CESS was aware of all processes of the project and assisted SCTI and SEWS with local and technical
requirements. Further, the project team aimed to bring farmers and CESS together on a working level
which consists of mutual cooperation and understanding. Hence, apart from regular meetings with
the CESS Managing Director (MD), field visits were carried out. Here, the MD and his assistants visit-
ed the site, took measurements at the motors and discussed their problems with the farmers. The
first visit took place in Namiligundupally on 6th of November 2012 and resulted in long discussions
between CESS and the farmers. The farmers discussed different problems they faced with their elec-
tricity supply and the CESS MD assured that it will be taken care of. After this meeting, the project
encouraged farmers to write up letters to CESS with the problems of the DTRCs. Here, a template
was provided to the farmers and during meetings of DTRCs, the farmers compiled the letters. The
project team collected the letters and brought it to the CESS Office in Sircilla.
The second meeting took place on 18th of February 2013. The meeting also served as the initiation of
the Implementation Phase II (see next section). Again the meeting took place in Namiligundupally.
Together with the capacitor manufacturer, CAPCO, the new capacitors were introduced.
Apart from the interactions with farmers, CESS and the project agreed to work towards a contract
between CESS and farmers which are organized in DTRCs. It is aimed that CESS gives a discount of the
monthly fees of 30 INR the farmers regularly pay and an improvement of services from CESS, if farm-
ers maintain capacitors and take better care of the overall grid from the DTR onwards. This includes
for example tree cutting, better maintenance of motors etc. To realize this, the training sessions
should help. It was agreed to have this
60
Image 5: Metering at the starter box together with CESS MD
10.2. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE II

10.2.1. MAJOR ISSUES OF PHASE I
It has to be mentioned that the capacitors installed had some
drawbacks. It occurred that the voltages from the DTRs were too
high or too low which led to a heating up of the capacitors.
When this happens regularly, the capacitor might catch fire and
destroy the whole starter box. As soon as it was discovered that
this phenomenon happened more frequently, farmers started to
disconnect the capacitors. The project team then decided to
replace all capacitors with a better version. The manufacturer
CAPCO agreed to replace all capacitors with the Gold version
and the PP team designed a new box where the capacitors
should be placed. The box included an Miniature Circuit Breaker
and three indicator lights for each phase to signal the health of
Image 6: A burned starter panel
the capacitor. Due to budget reasons, it was decided to continue
with the project only in Namiligundupally feeder, where farmers were more cooperative and the grid
quality was better that at the other feeder. Subsequently, a new effort had to be made and the pro-
ject duration was extended to May 2013. All partners continued their work to complete the task. Also
the evaluation team did another round of measurements with the new capacitors to make sure that
the effects are still present. The installation begun in March 2013 and was completed by end of April
2013. During this time, the social mobilizers continued their efforts with DTRC meetings and FC meet-
61
ings and in order to compensate the farmers further, a new team of professional trainers were em-
ployed to give training sessions to interested farmers. The whole process received positive feedback
from the farmers.
Image 7: Capacitor box with MCB used in Phase II
10.3. EVALUATION PHASE

The evaluation phase started parallel to the implementation phase. cBalance started to prepare for
measurements by the end of November 2012 and initiated measurements in December 2012. The
first round of measurements with the old capacitors was completed end of January 2013. The second
round with the new capacitors started in March 2013 and was completed in April 2013. The same
measurement approach was used in both rounds.
A team of two researchers from cBalance and the local ITI guys measured performances of capaci-
tors, water flow rate and the effects at the motors and the DTRs.
Specifically, the study focused on studying the following impacts of the installation of capacitors on
overall electrical system performance associated with agricultural pump sets:
Impact on PF at the Pump and DTR Level

Impact on reactive power at the pump and DTR level
Impact of voltage level and imbalance at the pump and DTR level
Impact of total apparent power at pump and DTR level
Impact on current (amps) required to operate a given active power load
Impact on flow rate delivered by pumps under identical conditions of power drawn from the
grid.
The above were inputs into a comprehensive analytical study which sought to ascertain the follow-
ing:
62
Energy efficiency and energy conservation impacts of the capacitors

Economic benefits of the achieved energy efficiency for the utility
Mitigation of climate change impacts of agricultural energy consumption through reduced GHG emis-
sions stemming from improved specific energy consumption per unit of water pumping service deliv-
ered by the pumps.
The technical data sheets of motors (Voltage, current, PF, KVA, KW etc.) before and after connecting
the capacitor are compared and one can observe the improvement in voltage and PF. The reduction
in KVA of the motor implies reduced load on the DTR. The percentage change in KVA are calculated
as follows
(KVA1-KVA2)*100/KVA1
Where KVA1= KVA before connecting Capacitor
KVA2= KVA after connecting Capacitor
10.3.1. TECHNICAL EVALUATION METHODS
There are two primary options for studying the relative impact of capacitors on improving energy
performance (higher voltage, lower reactive power, higher power factor) at the pump level:
1. Comparing energy performance parameters across a control group of pumps & motors with
no capacitors installed and a similar population of intervention pumps & motors with capac-
itors installed.
2. Measuring the energy performance parameters of pumps in the intervention group across a
chronological series of events where capacitors are successively connected in a pre-
determined order across the network and improving energy performance is measured across
the network to establish the incremental impact of capacitors
The latter option enables measurement of overall system improvement as well as incremental im-
pact of a single capacitor on improvement of the power factor at a single pump motor.
10.3.1.1. INCREMENTAL CONNECTION OF CAPACITORS
Sequential Connection of Capacitors

It was hypothesized that Capacitors connected on a single transformer network exhibit a incremen-
tal benefit effect which means that when we add a capacitor in a single pump motor it not only ef-
fects the energy performance parameters of that pump motor but also effects the energy perfor-
mance parameters of the other motors and pumps connected in the network. Furthermore, with the
successive addition of more capacitors the effect of capacitors on other pump motors energy per-
formance increases. Validating the hypothesis and measuring the incremental effect of the capaci-
63
tors was the central emphasis of this evaluation method termed as Sequential Connection of Capaci-
tors. Sequential Connection of Capacitors is a method of evaluation in which capacitors are added
sequentially in the network in predetermined order and measurement of the energy performance
parameter at successive pump motors is conducted in a chronological manner to measure the effect
of the capacitors in the given network. The essential condition for this evaluation method is that all
pump motors in the DTR network should be running unimpeded during the entire time span of
measurements. The measurements are taken at both pump level and DTR Level in this evaluation
method. The Measurement plans at both levels are given below.
DTR level Measurement Plan

Energy performance parameters of the Low Voltage Transmission lines at the DTR level were record-
ed simultaneously with the readings at the Pump Motor. Readings at the DTR level were taken after
every half hour to measure the effect of a single capacitor on the overall system performance (con-
sidering that performance of a pump motor was observed to take approximately 30 minutes to stabi-
lize following connection of a capacitor and restarting of the pump motor).
Method for Pump Level Measurement
The readings at pump level were conducted in following way:
1. Connect the power meter appropriately in the starter

box.
2. Turn on the pump and wait for 10 minutes for system
to get stable.
3. Take the readings of all the 3 phases
4. Turn of the pump and disconnect the capacitor
5. Turn on the pump and wait for ten minutes for sys-
tem to get stable.
6. Take readings after interval of five minutes.
7. Repeat the previous step two times
Readings were taken both with and without capacitor to

evaluate the change in energy performance parameters that
Image 8: DTR with 3 phase fixed energy
have occurred due to the installation of capacitors. This eval- meter Alpha T+
uation method enabled the determination of:
1. The overall improvement in the energy performance parameters of the system by measuring
the change in the parameters between when no capacitors were installed in the network and
when all the capacitor where installed in the network.
2. The incremental effect of capacitors stemming from successive addition of capacitors in the
system by measuring the change in the energy performance parameters of a single motor
pump.
3. The effect of a single capacitor and the incremental effect of capacitors on the overall system
performance by measuring the energy performance parameters simultaneously at the DTR
and pump level.
64
10.3.1.2. BATCH-WISE CONNECTION OF CAPACITORS

The Batch-wise Connection of Capacitors is an evaluation method that measures the aggregated
impact of all capacitors on the overall performance of the DTR. In the Before condition, multiple
measurements are taken at DTR level with all the capacitors disconnected from their associated
pump motors, subsequently in the After condition, multiple readings at DTR level are taken when all
capacitors are connected to the pump motors. Only measurements at the DTR level are taken while
ensuring that all the pump motors are working during the measurement time frame.
The chronological order of events in this evaluation method is:-
1. Day 1:- Disconnection of all capacitors associated with pump motor in a given DTR Network.
Multiple Readings after 10 minutes at the DTR level.
2. Day 2:- Connection of all capacitors with the pump motors in a given DTR network. Multiple
Readings after 10 minutes at the DTR level.
The major advantage is of this method of evaluation is that the data collection process is not time
consuming as only DTR level data is required and the ensuring that all pumps are working at same
time for small time is easy to execute. However, assessing the incremental effect of capacitor on the
system and incremental effect of capacitors on the other pump motors connected to the same DTR is
not possible through this method. The relative advantages of the two methods of evaluation are
presented below.
Figure 6 Sequential vs. Batch-wise comparison
Sequential Batch
Pump Level and DTR level Only DTR Level

Measurements are taken Measurements are taken
Overall Impact Of Capacitor on

DTR performance as well as Only Overall Impact of
incremental Effect Of capacitor Capacitor On DTR
on DTR performance Can be Performance can be
Calculated calulated
More ime Consuming Less Time Consuming

Method of Evaluation Then Sequential
than batch method. Connection Method
65
Batch-wise Capacitor Addition was the method of

evaluation selected as being the most suitable and
reliable means for the assessing performance im-
pact through the study. This method led to the
most stable before and after conditions and a
higher degree of system equilibrium during the
measurement time period as compared to the se-
quential method. Since relatively constant pump- Image 9: Capacitor used in Phase 1
ing conditions had to be ensured for only a 48-hour period in most cases, this was easier to achieve
as opposed to the week-long study period required per DTR through the other methods. The results
obtained through the Batch-wise method therefore are the primary focus of the evaluation pre-
sented in this report.
66
11. MAJOR RESULTS

This section will provide main results from the PP with respect to, firs, social aspects, and, second,
technical performances. Section 11.1 is rather descriptive, discussing the main observations from the
authors. Section 11.2 reports the summarized results from the evaluation. Here, precise data is avail-
able and demonstrates the actual observed improvements in PF and other important parameters.
11.1. OBSERVATIONS FROM THE FIELD

A social evaluation is still due as it is recommended to evaluate when some time has passed after
project completion. A second social survey is hence planned for June 2013. The same questionnaire
will be applied and with this before and after setting, effects can be quantified. Hence, this section
will be reduced to report the findings and observations from the authors, who all have worked for
several months in the field. In order to make this section useful for readers who are interested in
conducting similar projects, the major difficulties will be reported here.
11.1.1. SOCIAL IMPLEMENTATION

The social part of the project played a crucial role for the projects success. Hence, an emphasis was
put on mobilization of farmers. For this, a local social worker and consultant was employed to over-
see the overall preparation and implementation. Further, the local NGO SEWS was made responsible
for a sound social implementation. This strategy could at least assure that the technical team will not
face large delays. However, after problems with the capacitors occurred, the cooperativeness of the
farmers in Sangula was very low and the social intervention could not manage to regain the trust of
the farmers. In Namiligundupally, the farmers remained cooperative and the overall mood was still
positive. The reason for this seems obvious. Farmers in Namiligundupally have been participating
since long in the watershed program and hence have more trust to the project. This observation
shows that more and longer work with the farmers is required to be resistant to unexpected prob-
lems. The observation further demonstrates the interaction between social and technical aspects. It
is obvious, that the social problems would not have occurred if the technical problems were absent,
and, that with proper social implementation, as in Namiligundupally, technical problems can be ab-
sorbed.
Conclusively, the social implementation could be improved, and although the project has put a high
priority on it, it did not make the project resistant to unexpected exogenous shocks, in this case the
burning of capacitors.
11.1.2. TECHNICAL IMPLEMENTATION

The technical Implementation highly depended on the farmers cooperativeness. SCTI did not face
major difficulties to install the capacitors. However, it turned out that the awareness meetings that
67
had been conducted before installation were crucial. Many farmers asked critical questions and
were, in the first instance, rather reluctant to adapt to the technology. Hence, the support from CESS
and SEWS was a major catalysator for an unproblematic implementation.
During installation, several unexpected difficulties occurred. For example did unfavorable positions of
the starter boxes hinder a sound installation. In some cases, it was not possible to install a capacitor
at all. Also capacitor failures during the process were an issue. Farmers were skeptical and some-
times did not allow to re-install the capacitors. Most of these problems could be solved directly or
with help of the social team. During the first months of installation, a decent learning progress took
place. Installing the first capacitors took a long time and some safety issues were not followed by the
ITI staff. When this problem was detected, another round of training took place. In the process, the
overall performance increased the number of installed capacitors per day raised to three to five ca-
pacitors per person. In phase II, the installation was more complicated because a complete new box
had to be installed. Yet, the staff has gained sufficient experience to complete the installation of
about 400 capacitors in one month.
11.2. TECHNICAL FINDINGS

Batch-wise Capacitor Addition was the method of evaluation selected as being the most suitable
and reliable means for assessing the performance impact through the study. This method led to the
most stable before and after conditions and a higher degree of system equilibrium during the
measurement time period as compared to the sequential method. Since relatively constant pump-
ing conditions had to be ensured for only a 48-hour period in most cases, this was easier to achieve
as opposed to the week-long study period required per DTR through the other methods.
Four DTRs were selected from the 16 transformers connected to the 11 KV Namiligundapally Feeder.
The total capacity of DTRs within the study area was 1489 KVA, total area covered 10.07 square
kilometers, total Nos. of Pumps 325, and the total rated motor capacity 1176.5 hp. Representa-
tive we report in figure 7 and figure 8 the results for one DTR for phase 1 (old capacitors)
68
Figure 7: Impact of Batch-wise Capacitor Addition on DTR Level Performance KTP I Summary - Part 1
Impact of Capacitor Addition on Overall DTR Performance

DTR: Kothapet 1 (Namiligundupalli Feeder)
After
Before
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425
Before After
kW 65.28 88.35
Current 344.25 396.00
kVA 80.70 99.17
Voltage 242.73 246.13
Figure 8: Impact of Batch-wise Capacitor Addition on DTR Level Performance KTP I Summary - Part 2
Impact of Capacitor Addition on Overall DTR Performance

DTR: Kothapet 1 (Namiligundupalli Feeder)
After
Before
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Before After
kVAR/kW 0.73 0.52
kVA/kW 1.24 1.13
I/kW 5.39 4.52
The results from Phase 1 measurements on Kothapet I DTR lead to the following conclusions:
69
Voltage at the DTR increased only marginally from 243 to 246 V and it is not taken to be a
strong indicator of positive impact.
System current at the DTR level increased from 344 Amps to 396 Amps. However, this in-
crease is likely to the increased pumping load operated by the downstream pumps. This is
verified below
Apparent power increased from 81 kVA to 99 kVA. As in the case of current, this could be at-
tributed to increased pumping load and not necessarily reduced efficiency or poorer power
factor
Active power increased from 65 kW to 88 kW, outpacing the percentage increase in appar-
ent power; an indication of increased efficiency or reduced reactive power consumption to
operate a given pumping load.
Power Factor increased from a mean value of 0.80 to 0.89 due to capacitor addition
The key efficiency parameters of I/kW (current per kW), kVA/kW (apparent power per kW),
and kVAR/kW (reactive power per kW) all showed a notable improvement. I/kW reduced
from 5.39 to 4.52, kVA/kW reduced from 1.24 to 1.13, and kVAR/kW reduced from 0.73 to
0.52.
Energy conservation achieved due to an amalgamation of reduction in line losses (i.e. lower I2R loss-
es from lower system currents), and reduced reactive power ranged from 5.7 percent to 27.6 per-
cent with a median of approximately 12 percent. This equated to approximately 271.3 kWh energy
conserved per pump hp per year. GHG mitigation achieved at a horsepower level was approximately
0.25 tons CO2e/mitigated per hp per year. The monetary benefits to the utility, if it were able to sell
the conserved energy to industry, is expected to be in the range of 2,400 INR per hp per year. The
total conservation achieved from the pilot installation on one feeder is estimated to be 3,19,228
kWh/year, 290.5 tons CO2e/year and a potential financial benefit of 28.7 lakh INR per year for the
utility.
The project benefits for the state from upscaling this intervention is expected to be approximately
1.3 to 2.0 million tons CO2e/year of GHG mitigation, avoided power generation of 1,518 to 2,241
GWh and monetary benefit (through sale of power to industry or commercial entities) of approxi-
mately 1,365 to 2,017 Crore INR per year. The Marginal GHG Abatement Cost (MAC) analysis identi-
fied the basic intervention of installing relatively low-cost capacitors on the existing low hydraulic
efficiency pumps in the state as being the lowest hanging-fruit option with a lucrative marginal
abatement cost opportunity at -6,478 INR/ton CO2e abated at a simple payback period of 0.2 years.
The combination of installation of capacitors and replacing existing low hydraulic efficiency pumps
with high hydraulic efficiency pumps would also yield an attractive marginal abatement cost of -
6,307 INR/ton CO2e abated at a simple payback period of 0.3 years, along with a significantly higher
70
total mitigation potential at 7.5 million tons CO2e/year and 8,248 GWh/year energy conservation.
High Efficiency Solar Pumps are expected to be the least attractive in terms of MAC value (-4408
INR/tons CO2e) and longer payback periods (2.3 years) even after factoring in a 30 percent Govern-
ment subsidy. However, they present the maximum potential for GHG Mitigation (17.1 million tons
CO2e/year) and 18,825 GWh/year energy conservation.
71
12. UP SCALING
12.1. REGIONAL UP SCALING
There are different plans to up-scale the project to other regions. First, discussions with CESS are
ongoing to install capacitors in the whole CESS region. This would cover about 60.000 agricultural
connections. Further discussions with officials from governmental departments like APERC and
APCPDCL indicated that the idea to initiate a larger governmental program with capacitors is a realis-
tic option for the future. Another option for regional up-scaling is to incorporate the project into
existing agricultural or rural development projects. Different technology related companies and
NGOs have already been informed about the project. A firm demonstration of the effects of capaci-
tors can help to convince stakeholders of its financial viability.
12.2. TECHNICAL UP SCALING

Having established a firm social structure, further technologies can easily be implemented. In case
the farmers themselves are ready to invest some money into it, it can be done without large financial
support.
Use of heavy duty capacitors for longer life and better reliability.
Individual adjustment of capacitor rating to improve PF compensation
Placing MCB at each terminal running from capacitor to the supply/motor terminals.
Installing dry run preventers to turn-off motor when there is no/ insufficient water in well.
Arranging energy meters, volt meters, ammeters for each pump set for better identification
of power consumption and fluctuations.
Upgrade of pumps to more efficient ones
Improved repair works e.g. training of local repair shops on better rewinding techniques
Solar PV systems to backup grid supply

13. SUMMARY
This report summarized the implementation of a pilot project on energy efficiency in agriculture in
India. From 2011 to 2013, a project consortium from different fields including social research as well
as technical experts, implemented and evaluated the project. The main idea of the project was to
bring an inexpensive yet effective technology in the field and observe how it diffuses, and under
which conditions it fails. The technology of choice was shunt capacitors directly installed at the load
i.e. the motors of the water pumps. To complement the approach, social interventions took also
place. Farmers were motivated to form groups at their respective DTRs to better manage the capaci-
72
tors. This report was divided into two parts. Part I gave general background information on the elec-
tricity sector, the issues arising with agricultural electricity supply, options that can be considered to
cure or at least improve the current scenario and overview of ongoing and recent projects. The pur-
pose of this part was to introduce the reader to the topic and make him aware of the complexity of
the problem and demonstrate why, until now, no "way out" of the vicious circle of agricultural elec-
tricity supply has been found. Further, it was aimed to assure that enough background is provided to
understand the issues raised in Part II. In Part II the PP is introduced with a detailed description of the
project partners, the stakeholder and the location chosen for implementation. Then, the aims and
the rationale of the project were explained. It was discussed why capacitors were chosen. The rea-
sons are, first, they are affordable to the farmers, second, they can be installed rather easily with
help of local mechanics, third, they benefit the utility and the farmers similarly, The utility benefits
from reduced line losses, increased PF at substation level, less energy consumption of agriculture
users and reduced repair costs for burned DTRs. Farmers take advantage of better voltages, leading
to a reduced number of DTR and pump burn outs and, in some cases, increased water flows. To bet-
ter understand how the project was implemented each step was explained in detail. The first phase,
the preparation phase, was concerned with selection of partners, technology and location. Two
workshops have been conducted where experts discussed different strategies for implantation. The
choice of feeders was a result of a one month research including data collection at all feasible feed-
ers and finally a ranking was produced to select the most appropriate feeder. The choice of capaci-
tors followed a similar procedure. Different capacitor manufactures were contacted and, based on
certain criteria, one company had been chosen. The implementation phase included social and tech-
nical interventions. The capacitors were installed and farmers groups were established. Continuously,
farmers were briefed on the project status and made aware of the benefits of capacitors. After instal-
lation, DTRCs and federations were founded. Farmers received trainings, conducted regular meet-
ings, interacted with the utility, CESS, and recorded important variables from the field like number of
motor burn outs. As there were problems with the first batch of capacitors and it turned out that the
capacitors may not withstand the heavy voltage imbalances, all capacitors were replaced with a bet-
ter model and protected with MCBs. Unfortunately, one village had to be dropped because of budget
constraints and uncooperativeness of some farmers.
The social part was accompanied by social surveys, one before initiation of the project and one after
the project had been completed. The second survey is still due and will be conducted in June 2013.
The survey included indicator questions which would allow for quantitative evaluation of the social
impact. The performance of capacitors was evaluated with an extensive measurement process at
selected DTRs. The results indicated an increase of PF of about 16 percent. Finally the potential for
upscaling was discussed. First, it is aimed to extend the project to the whole working area of CESS
73
and again evaluate it. Further, more advanced technology can be tested and evaluated. The long
term aim is to find a holistic approach that can withstand the political and technical problems and
has long term effects on energy quality and consumption as well as on CO2 emissions.
74
Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Ed.), 2000. Tariff Order: FY2000-01. Hyderabad.
Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, 2006. Annual Accounts 2002-03.
Birol, E., Karousakis, K., Koundouri, P., 2006. Using a choice experiment to account for pre-
ference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: The case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece. Eco-
logical Economics 60, 145156.
Columbia Water Center, 2013. Groundwater Depletion in Gujarat [WWW Document]. URL
http://water.columbia.edu/research-projects/india/gujarat-india/
Dash, B.C., 2006. Governance of Power Sector: Orissas Experiments with Village Electricity
Committees. Economic and Political Weekly 195197.
DRUM-Distribution Reform, U., Management, 2006. Alternate participatory models for de-
livery in rural areas.
Dubash, N.K., Rao, D.N., 2008. Regulatory practice and politics: Lessons from independent
regulation in Indian electricity. Utilities Policy 16, 321331.
Dugan, R.C., 2003. Electrical power systems quality, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Gambhir, A., Sant, G., Deshmukh, R., 2010. Need to Realign Indias National Solar Mission.
Economic and Political Weekly.
Hanisch, M., Kimmich, C., Rommel, J., Sagebiel, J., 2010. Coping with power scarcity in an
emerging megacity: A consumers perspective from Hyderabad. International Journal of Glo-
bal Energy Issues 189204.
Harish, S.M., Raghavan, S.V., 2011. Redesigning the National Solar Mission for Rural India.
Integrated Energy Policy: Report of Expert Committee, 2006. . Planning Commission, New
Delhi.
Kapil Narula, Ram Fishman, Vijay Modi, Lakis Polycarpou, 2011. Addressing the Water Cri-
sis in Gujarat, India (White Paper), CWC White Paper. Columbia Water Center, Columbia.
Kimmich, C., 2013a. Networks of Coordination and Conflict: Governing Electricity Transac-
tions for Irrigation in South India. (PhD Dissertation). Humboldt-Universitt zu Berlin, Ber-
lin.
Kimmich, C., 2013b. Incentives for energy-efficient irrigation: Empirical evidence of techno-
logy adoption in Andhra Pradesh, India. Energy for Sustainable Development.
Mehta, P.B., 2010. India: Governance and Growth in State Capacity. Governance 23, 381
384.
Meier, A. von, 2006. Electric power systems: a conceptual introduction. IEEE Press: Wiley-
Interscience, Hoboken and N.J.
Mohan, R., Sreekumar, N., 2010. Improving efficiency of groundwater pumping for agricul-
ture: thinking through together. Centre for World Solidarity, Prayas Energy Group, Hy-
derabad and Pune.
Mohanty, S.B., 2002. When Customers Become Collaborators An Electricity Distribution
Companys Experiences in Indian Villages. Xavier Institute of Management (India), Bhuba-
neswar.
Nair, S.K.N., 2008. Electricity Regulation in India: Recent Reforms and their Impact. The
Journal of Applied Economic Research 87, 87144.
New & Renewable Energy Cooperation of Andhra Pradesh, 2012. Jawaharlal Nehru National
Solar Mission. Hyderabad.
Pani, B.S., Sreekumar, N., Reddy, M.T., 2007. Power Sector Reforms in Andhra Pradesh:
Their Impact and Policy Gaps, GAPS Series. Governance And Policy Spaces Project, Hy-
derabad.
Peoples Monitoring Group on Electricity Regulation (PMGER) Hyderabad, A.P., 2007.
Andhra Pradesh Power Sector Status and Issues Ahead: Presentation by Peoples Monitoring
Group on Electricity Regulation (PMGER) Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh 22nd- 23rd March
2007, Mumbai.
75
Rao, P.M.M., 2006. Rural Power Supply- Micro Experiments in Andhra Pradesh.
Rommel, K., Sagebiel, J., 2011. Can consumer preferences help to design Feed In Tariffs? An
Investigation from a Choice Experiment in India, Paper presented at the International Con-
ference of the IAEE, 19-23 June 2011, Stockholm, Sweden.
Sagebiel, J., 2009. The Potentials of Consumer Cooperatives in the Power Sector in fast gro-
wing Megacities: Work in Progress Paper.
Sagebiel, J., Kohler, F., Rommel, J., Kumar Goyal, V., 2013. Governance of Solar Photovol-
taic Off-Grid Technologies in Rural Andhra Pradesh: Some implications from the field, in:
Energy and Sun: Sustainable Energy Solutions for Future Megacities. Jovis, Berlin.
Sairam, R., 2012. NABARD adds more power to solar mission.
Shah, T., 2009. Taming the anarchy: groundwater governance in South Asia. Resources for
the Future and International Water Management Institute, Washington and D.C. and Colombo
and Sri Lanka.
Swain, A.K., 2007. Introducing Competition in the Indian Electricity: Is Micro-Privatisation a
Possible Way? Mimeo, New Delhi.
TARU Leading Edge (Ed.), 2001. Andhra Pradesh Power Sector Restructuring Programme:
Baseline Survey Report. TARU Leading edge, Hyderabad.
Tongia, R., 2007. The Political Economy of Indian Power Sector Reforms, in: Victor, D.G.,
Heller, T.C. (Eds.), The Political Economy of Power Sector Reform. Cambridge Univ. Press,
Cambridge, pp. 109174.
USAID, 2011. Evaluation of DRUM and WENEXA.
Wilkinson, S., 2007. Explaining changing patterns of party-voter linkages in India, in: Kit-
schelt, H., Wilkinson, S. (Eds.), Patrons, Clients, and Policies: Patterns of Democratic Ac-
countability and Political Competition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and UK and
New York, pp. 110140.
Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission
(Ed.), 2000. Tariff Order: FY2000-01. Hy-
derabad.
Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commissi-
on, 2006. Annual Accounts 2002-03.
Birol, E., Karousakis, K., Koundouri, P., 2006. Using
a choice experiment to account for preference
heterogeneity in wetland attributes: The case
of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece. Ecological
Economics 60, 145156.
Columbia Water Center, 2013. Groundwater
Depletion in Gujarat [WWW Document]. URL
76
http://water.columbia.edu/research-
projects/india/gujarat-india/
Dash, B.C., 2006. Governance of Power Sector: O-
rissas Experiments with Village Electricity
Committees. Economic and Political Weekly
195197.
DRUM-Distribution Reform, U., Management,
2006. Alternate participatory models for de-
livery in rural areas.
Dubash, N.K., Rao, D.N., 2008. Regulatory practice
and politics: Lessons from independent regu-
lation in Indian electricity. Utilities Policy 16,
321331.
Dugan, R.C., 2003. Electrical power systems quali-
ty, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Gambhir, A., Sant, G., Deshmukh, R., 2010. Need
to Realign Indias National Solar Mission. Eco-
nomic and Political Weekly.
Hanisch, M., Kimmich, C., Rommel, J., Sagebiel, J.,
2010. Coping with power scarcity in an
emerging megacity: A consumers perspective
from Hyderabad. International Journal of Glo-
bal Energy Issues 189204.
Harish, S.M., Raghavan, S.V., 2011. Redesigning
the National Solar Mission for Rural India.
77
Integrated Energy Policy: Report of Expert Com-

mittee, 2006. . Planning Commission, New
Delhi.
Kapil Narula, Ram Fishman, Vijay Modi, Lakis Poly-
carpou, 2011. Addressing the Water Crisis in
Gujarat, India (White Paper), CWC White Pa-
per. Columbia Water Center, Columbia.
Kimmich, C., 2013a. Networks of Coordination and
Conflict: Governing Electricity Transactions for
Irrigation in South India. (PhD Dissertation).
Humboldt-Universitt zu Berlin, Berlin.
Kimmich, C., 2013b. Incentives for energy-efficient
irrigation: Empirical evidence of technology
adoption in Andhra Pradesh, India. Energy for
Sustainable Development.
Mehta, P.B., 2010. India: Governance and Growth
in State Capacity. Governance 23, 381384.
Meier, A. von, 2006. Electric power systems: a
conceptual introduction. IEEE Press: Wiley-
Mohan, R., Sreekumar, N., 2010. Improving effi-
ciency of groundwater pumping for agricul-
ture: thinking through together. Centre for
World Solidarity, Prayas Energy Group, Hy-
derabad and Pune.
78
Mohanty, S.B., 2002. When Customers Become

Collaborators An Electricity Distribution
Companys Experiences in Indian Villages.
Xavier Institute of Management (India),
Bhubaneswar.
Nair, S.K.N., 2008. Electricity Regulation in India:
Recent Reforms and their Impact. The Journal
of Applied Economic Research 87, 87144.
New & Renewable Energy Cooperation of Andhra
Pradesh, 2012. Jawaharlal Nehru National So-
lar Mission. Hyderabad.
Pani, B.S., Sreekumar, N., Reddy, M.T., 2007.
Power Sector Reforms in Andhra Pradesh:
Their Impact and Policy Gaps, GAPS Series.
Governance And Policy Spaces Project, Hy-
derabad.
Peoples Monitoring Group on Electricity Regulati-
on (PMGER) Hyderabad, A.P., 2007. Andhra
Pradesh Power Sector Status and Issues
Ahead: Presentation by Peoples Monitoring
Group on Electricity Regulation (PMGER) Hy-
derabad, Andhra Pradesh 22nd- 23rd March
2007, Mumbai.
Rao, P.M.M., 2006. Rural Power Supply- Micro Ex-
periments in Andhra Pradesh.
79
Rommel, K., Sagebiel, J., 2011. Can consumer pre-

ferences help to design Feed In Tariffs? An In-
vestigation from a Choice Experiment in India,
Paper presented at the International Con-
ference of the IAEE, 19-23 June 2011, Stock-
holm, Sweden.
Sagebiel, J., 2009. The Potentials of Consumer
Cooperatives in the Power Sector in fast gro-
wing Megacities: Work in Progress Paper.
Sagebiel, J., Kohler, F., Rommel, J., Kumar Goyal,
V., 2013. Governance of Solar Photovoltaic
Off-Grid Technologies in Rural Andhra Pra-
desh: Some implications from the field, in:
Energy and Sun: Sustainable Energy Solutions
for Future Megacities. Jovis, Berlin.
Sairam, R., 2012. NABARD adds more power to so-
lar mission.
Shah, T., 2009. Taming the anarchy: groundwater
governance in South Asia. Resources for the
Future and International Water Management
Institute, Washington and D.C. and Colombo
and Sri Lanka.
Swain, A.K., 2007. Introducing Competition in the
Indian Electricity: Is Micro-Privatisation a Pos-
sible Way? Mimeo, New Delhi.
80
TARU Leading Edge (Ed.), 2001. Andhra Pradesh

Power Sector Restructuring Programme: Base-
line Survey Report. TARU Leading edge, Hy-
derabad.
Tongia, R., 2007. The Political Economy of Indian
Power Sector Reforms, in: Victor, D.G., Heller,
T.C. (Eds.), The Political Economy of Power
Sector Reform. Cambridge Univ. Press,
Cambridge, pp. 109174.
Wilkinson, S., 2007. Explaining changing patterns
of party-voter linkages in India, in: Kitschelt,
H., Wilkinson, S. (Eds.), Patrons, Clients, and
Policies: Patterns of Democratic Accountability
and Political Competition. Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, Cambridge and UK and New York,
pp. 110140.
REFERENCES
Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Ed.), 2000. Tariff Order: FY2000-01. Hyderabad.
Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, 2006. Annual Accounts 2002-03.
Birol, E., Karousakis, K., Koundouri, P., 2006. Using a choice experiment to account for preference
heterogeneity in wetland attributes: The case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece. Ecological
Economics 60, 145156.
Columbia Water Center, 2013. Groundwater Depletion in Gujarat [WWW Document]. URL
http://water.columbia.edu/research-projects/india/gujarat-india/
Dash, B.C., 2006. Governance of Power Sector: Orissas Experiments with Village Electricity Commit-
tees. Economic and Political Weekly 195197.
DRUM-Distribution Reform, U., Management, 2006. Alternate participatory models for delivery in
rural areas.
Dubash, N.K., Rao, D.N., 2008. Regulatory practice and politics: Lessons from independent regulation
in Indian electricity. Utilities Policy 16, 321331.
Dugan, R.C., 2003. Electrical power systems quality, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.
81
Gambhir, A., Sant, G., Deshmukh, R., 2010. Need to Realign Indias National Solar Mission. Economic
and Political Weekly.
Hanisch, M., Kimmich, C., Rommel, J., Sagebiel, J., 2010. Coping with power scarcity in an emerging
megacity: A consumers perspective from Hyderabad. International Journal of Global Energy
Issues 189204.
Harish, S.M., Raghavan, S.V., 2011. Redesigning the National Solar Mission for Rural India. Economic
and Political Weekly.
Integrated Energy Policy: Report of Expert Committee, 2006. . Planning Commission, New Delhi.
Kapil Narula, Ram Fishman, Vijay Modi, Lakis Polycarpou, 2011. Addressing the Water Crisis in Guja-
rat, India (White Paper), CWC White Paper. Columbia Water Center, Columbia.
Kimmich, C., 2013a. Networks of Coordination and Conflict: Governing Electricity Transactions for
Irrigation in South India. (PhD Dissertation). Humboldt-Universitt zu Berlin, Berlin.
Kimmich, C., 2013b. Incentives for energy-efficient irrigation: Empirical evidence of technology adop-
tion in Andhra Pradesh, India. Energy for Sustainable Development.
Mehta, P.B., 2010. India: Governance and Growth in State Capacity. Governance 23, 381384.
Meier, A. von, 2006. Electric power systems: a conceptual introduction. IEEE Press: Wiley-
Mohan, R., Sreekumar, N., 2010. Improving efficiency of groundwater pumping for agriculture: thin-
king through together. Centre for World Solidarity, Prayas Energy Group, Hyderabad and
Pune.
Mohanty, S.B., 2002. When Customers Become Collaborators An Electricity Distribution Companys
Experiences in Indian Villages. Xavier Institute of Management (India), Bhubaneswar.
Nair, S.K.N., 2008. Electricity Regulation in India: Recent Reforms and their Impact. The Journal of
Applied Economic Research 87, 87144.
New & Renewable Energy Cooperation of Andhra Pradesh, 2012. Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar
Mission. Hyderabad.
Pani, B.S., Sreekumar, N., Reddy, M.T., 2007. Power Sector Reforms in Andhra Pradesh: Their Impact
and Policy Gaps, GAPS Series. Governance And Policy Spaces Project, Hyderabad.
Peoples Monitoring Group on Electricity Regulation (PMGER) Hyderabad, A.P., 2007. Andhra Pradesh
Power Sector Status and Issues Ahead: Presentation by Peoples Monitoring Group on
Electricity Regulation (PMGER) Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh 22nd- 23rd March 2007, Mum-
bai.
Rao, P.M.M., 2006. Rural Power Supply- Micro Experiments in Andhra Pradesh.
Rommel, K., Sagebiel, J., 2011. Can consumer preferences help to design Feed In Tariffs? An Investi-
gation from a Choice Experiment in India, Paper presented at the International Conference of
the IAEE, 19-23 June 2011, Stockholm, Sweden.
Sagebiel, J., 2009. The Potentials of Consumer Cooperatives in the Power Sector in fast growing Me-
gacities: Work in Progress Paper.
Sagebiel, J., Kohler, F., Rommel, J., Kumar Goyal, V., 2013. Governance of Solar Photovoltaic Off-Grid
Technologies in Rural Andhra Pradesh: Some implications from the field, in: Energy and Sun:
Sustainable Energy Solutions for Future Megacities. Jovis, Berlin.
Sairam, R., 2012. NABARD adds more power to solar mission.
Shah, T., 2009. Taming the anarchy: groundwater governance in South Asia. Resources for the Future
and International Water Management Institute, Washington and D.C. and Colombo and Sri
Lanka.
Swain, A.K., 2007. Introducing Competition in the Indian Electricity: Is Micro-Privatisation a Possible
Way? Mimeo, New Delhi.
TARU Leading Edge (Ed.), 2001. Andhra Pradesh Power Sector Restructuring Programme: Baseline
Survey Report. TARU Leading edge, Hyderabad.
Tongia, R., 2007. The Political Economy of Indian Power Sector Reforms, in: Victor, D.G., Heller, T.C.
(Eds.), The Political Economy of Power Sector Reform. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, pp.
109174.
82
Wilkinson, S., 2007. Explaining changing patterns of party-voter linkages in India, in: Kitschelt, H.,
Wilkinson, S. (Eds.), Patrons, Clients, and Policies: Patterns of Democratic Accountability and
Political Competition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and UK and New York, pp.
110140.
83
APPENDIX I: TECHNICAL QUESTIONNAIRE

1. Pump-level data collection questionnaire
Pump set level data questionnaire

VARIABLE DATA/INFORMATION Remarks
1 Investigator Name:
2 Date:
3 11 KV Feeder Name:
4 Village :
5 DTR Number
6 Pump set ID:
7 Owner name
8 Well Type: Shallow well / Bore well
9 Pump Type Centrifugal / Submersible
10 Pump Rating 3 / 5 / 7.5 HP
11 Control panel Available / Not available
12 Capacitor connected : 1 / 2 / 3 KVAR
13 Earthing : Ok / Not ok
14 Over all Condition of
Pump Installation : Good / Not good
15 Maintenance of Pump
Set: Good / Not good
16 Surveyor's opinion: Good / Not good
17 Time: Pump Level Reading - Before Capacitor Installation

R Y B
Voltage
I (Current)
KW
KVA
KVAR
PF
18 Time: Pump Level Reading - After Capacitor Installation
R Y B
Voltage
I (Current)
KW
84
KVA
KVAR
PF
21 Water Output Measurement through 'L' gauge Possible / Not possible
If not possible, reason:
Time Centimetre Litre / second (Cal-
culated)
2. DTR-level data collection questionnaire
Pump set level data questionnaire

VARIABLE DATA/INFORMATION Remarks
1 Investigator Name:
2 Date:
3 11 KV Feeder Name:
4 Village :
5 DTR Number
6 Time: DTR Level Reading - Before Capacitor Installation

R Y B
Voltage
I (Current)
KWh
KVAh
KVARh
PF
7 Time: Pump Level Reading - After Capacitor Installation
R Y B
Voltage
I (Current)
KWh
KVAh
KVARh
PF
85
APPENDIX II: AGREEMENT

Letter of Agreement of the Farmer to become member of Distribution Transformer Committee
Agreement taken by : DTR Committee

VILLAGE _____________________DTR NO _________________
MANDAL ________________
Agreement given by : Mr. / Mrs.____________________________
VILLAGE _______________ DTR NO _____________
MANDAL ________________________
I, a farmer of the above mentioned village, state that there is a need forDistribution Transformer Committees
(DTRC) in our village. To successfully implement the Programme in our village, I agree to observe the rules and
conditions as mentioned below:
1. I will willingly participate in all types of meetings held in the DTRC and contribute to the discussions.
2. I will contribute my energies and time to making the DTRC a success.
3. I will contribute at least two hours labour per week as shramdan (voluntary labour) to the DTRC.
4. I will enforce myself to maintain my capacitor as per the instructions from the DTRC.
5. I will keep away from all types of disputes, at personal or community level, based on caste, religion, class,
politics or difference of opinion, which may affect the community. If any such dispute occurs in the village, I
will provide help in settling it at the village level itself through democratic processes.
6. As I understand that electricity is a scarce resource, I am agreeable to its equitable distribution on principles
decided by the DTRC. I will not put illegal connections and I will not increase the capacity of my motor with-
out reporting to the DTRC
7. We shall be in agreement with all decisions taken for the successful implementation of the project taken by
the DTRC, the Feeder Committee or the Pilot Project Committee.
8. I am in full agreement with the above rules and conditions. I understand that these are binding on me and
my family members. If any of these rules are violated by me or my family members, I would be fully respon-
sible and any decision taken on this violation by the DTRC the Feeder Committee or the Pilot Project Com-
mittee would be acceptable to me.
I am signing this agreement letter, based on full understanding and on my own choice, on
__________, date / /20 , in the presence of witnesses.
Signature of Farmer
Signature DTRC President
Name of Witnesses Signature

1.
2.
86
APPENDIX III: DTRC CONSTITUTION & MINUTES OF THE

MEETINGS
CONSTITUTION 5
Constitution of Distribution Transformer Committee (DTRC)
1 Name of the DTRC
The committee is named after the DTR name:______________________
2 Purpose:
The purpose of the committee is to improve and maintain the electricity supply quality in order to
reduce costs. The core aim of the DTRC is to work towards a contract with CESS. The DTRC commit
itsself to improve power factor of DTRs and reduce DTR burn outs. In turn CESS will grant a discount
of the monthly connection fee of 75 percent to all active members of the DTRC. Apart from this, side
activities shall be considered. These may include training on how to maintain a capacitor, how to
maintain a motor, where to rewind. Also, activities not related to electricity can be included on a
voluntary basis like improved irrigation techniques, savings groups, collective marketing and input
buying, extension etc.
3 Group Formation (General Body):
To participate in the DTRC, all farmers connected to the respective DTR (20 to 30 farmers) are eligi-
ble. All members shall have at least one water pump and are dependent on groundwater Irrigation.
Farmers, who are connected to other DTRs shall not participate in this DTRC. The members of the
DTRC are collectively responsible for maintenance of DTRs. The contract with CESS shall be fulfilled
by the farmers, and all farmers should be aware of their rights and duties before group formation.
The DTRC shall select representatives (Managing Body) and these representatives shall fulfill certain
roles.
4 Managing Body:
The managing committee shall consist of the President, Secretary and Treasurer. Managing Body
shall have power to appeals and raise funds and fulfill and formalities incumbent upon it.
4.1. President: He / She shall be in overall charge of the committee and the general body meetings.
All the policies and programs shall be formulated and implemented only through him / her. He / She
shall operate a bank account jointly with the Treasurer. The President of a committee has four main
elements to his/her remit as follows:
Assisting with the managerial direction of the DTRC
Planning and running meetings
Acting as spokesperson/figurehead
Communicate with the Feeder Committee
4.2. Secretary: He / She shall call for all general body meetings as and when deemed necessary and
the General body meetings and the Special body meeting as per the rules with the previous approval
of the president and maintain the minutes of meeting (MoM) book and record of all the proceedings
5
The constitution and MoM were translated entirely into Telugu
87
of the meetings. He / She shall be the correspondent of the committee and shall be in-charge of the
office with all the record of the DTRC. He / She shall be the custodian of all articles and belonging
both movable and immovable of the committee. The Secretary's main responsibilities are:
Supporting the administration of the DTRC

Facilitating and supporting DTRC meetings
Together with the President, correspond with the Feeder Committee
4.3. Treasurer: The Treasurer has the day-to-day responsibility for looking after DTRCs money.
However the DTRC as a whole is responsible for deciding how funds will be raised and spent. His/her
job is to keep accounts, collect ingoing and outgoing receipts and report to the committee. He / She
shall operate bank account jointly with the President. The Treasurer also has three main areas of
responsibility:
Keeping an overview of the finances of the DTRC
Reporting into DTRC meetings
Making sure the DTRC has the right financial policies and procedures in place
5 Technical assistant:
The technical assistant should be selected based on his (electro) technical skills. He should be aware
of general principals of motors, pump sets, capacitors and DTRs. Further he should participate in
regular technical training sessions held at the Pilot Project Committee. He should consult his fellow
farmers in technical problems and carry out small repair works. He shall get additional payment
based on his works done to other farmers. His main tasks are:
Overviewing the technical health of the DTR and LT grid
Assisting his fellow farmers with technical problems
Participating in regular trainings
Maintaining technical record (log book)
Communicate with Feeder Committee on technical topics
6 Bank Account:
The DTRC will open a separate bank account for all ingoing and outgoing payments from and for the
members. The bank account shall be overviewed and maintained by the Treasurer.
7 Roles of DTRC members:
Committee members are responsible for stimulating and instigating discussion with other farmers
regarding future activities. Each DTRC member is responsible to maintain his capacitor and to main-
tain the DTR as per the instructions by the technical assistant. Each member shall spend at least two
hours per week with voluntary work to maintain the DTR. He shall follow the instructions by the
technical assistant. Each member shall actively participate in the regular DTRC meetings and provide
necessary data to the MoM as per instructions of the secretary. His / Her roles are:
Actively participate in DTRC meetings
Provide data to the Minutes of Meeting
Maintain his capacitor as instructed by technical assistant
Offer some of his work time to maintain the DTR
8 Meetings:
Meetings are the core ground of the DTRC. The meetings should include training sessions, social and
technical presentations, and general discussion. All meetings shall be documented in the Minutes of
Meeting (MoM). The DTRC shall be equipped with a MoM book.
88
8.1. Frequency of Meetings: Regular meetings shall be held monthly once. Occasionally, it may be
necessary to call an extraordinary meeting of the DTRC. It is important to note that the purpose of an
extraordinary meeting must be clearly stated when the request for it is made. The agenda for the
meeting should only contain papers directly relevant to the issue(s) under discussion. The meeting is
not asked to approve minutes, deal with matters arising, nor will discussion of other issues be al-
lowed.
8.2. Duration: The duration of the meeting should be one hour. It can be extended if necessary.
8.3. Topics discussed: The topics discussed shall be based on the MoM. The agenda will be pre-
pared by NGO staff and president. Each meeting shall include:
Training session (Technical staff)
Social Presentation (NGO staff)
Technical Presentation (Technical staff)
Discussion
Documentation
8.4. Minutes of Meeting: DTRC Secretary is responsible for distributing hard copies of the MoM to
committee members.
8.5. Quorum: The quorum of the meeting shall be 1/3rd of the total membership of the committee.
8.6. Collection of fees: The treasurer shall collect the fees from all members at the beginning of the
meeting. 6
9 Fees:
An amount of Rs. 50/- per month from each farmer is suggested but can be increased or reduced by
the farmer. The fees will be maintained by the treasurer and used for general DTRC expenses, com-
mon repair work and savings.
Life Membership fees Rs. 100/-
Monthly saving Rs. 50/-
10 Election:
Voting shall be conducted by show of hands or secret ballot. Managing Body member shall undertake
the role for a minimum of one year, with each member to have the option of re-nominating following
completion of the term. To retain, appoint, promote, and dismiss any member for managing and
functioning of the DTRC.
11 Place of Meeting:
A common meeting place can be suggested by DTRC
12 Support:
Support to the DTRCs and farmers will be available through ITI guys for technical issues and SEWS for
social related issues.
13 Relationship with Feeder Committee:
The Feeder Committee is the head organization of the DTRC. The DTRC shall provide some financial
contribution to the Feeder Committee. The Managing Body shall participate in regular Feeder Com-
mittee meetings and contribute to the discussion.
89
1. PROTOCOL OF THE MEETING

Date: Time: Venue:
People attended: People missing: Necessary quorum:
1.1. Social Presentation Held by:

Role:
1.2. Technical Presentation Held by:

Role:
90
1.3. Farmers discussions (open problems)
Recorded
Problem specifi- Occurred Involved Proposed solu-
in Log
cation since people tion Book?
Yes /
No
Yes /
No
Yes /
No
Yes /
No
Yes /
No
Yes /
No
Yes /
No
91
1.4. Actions taken & planned
Action Responsible (name) Completed on

e.g.: Capacitor acquisition
& Costs
1.5. Trainings conducted
92
1.6. Log Book

Date on which Name of electrician
Name of farmer problem has been Time of prob- attending the prob-
S.no Complaint of Farmer affected Reported/Occurred lem Occurred lem/complaint
93
Log Book (ctd.)

Date of
Problem Problem problem
Pump No code Solution solved Y/N solved Comments
Signature President:________________
94
1.7. Attendance signatures:
President:
Secretary:
Treasurer:
Farmers:
1.8. Technical Observations (for this month)

Variable No Time of measurement
No of Motor burnouts
No of Capacitor Failures
No of DTR burnouts
PF at DTR
Voltage at DTR
Current at DTR
Further Observations
95

Megacity Project Report PIP v1.1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Megacity Project Report PIP v1.1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Project Implementation Report

PILOT PROJECT: IMPLEMENTING COOPERATIVE AND

Co-operative Electric Supply Society Ltd.

Steinbeis Centre for Technology Transfer

cBalance Solutions Hub Pvt. Ltd.

International Institute of Information

Self Employed Welfare Society

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................... II

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ V

List of Boxes ............................................................................................................................................. V

Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................. VIII

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ IX

Structure and Intention of the Report .................................................................................................... X

Part I: Background ................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Background on the Project Initiator ................................................................................................ 3

3. Background of the Agricultural Power Supply Situation in Andhra Pradesh .................................. 4

3.1. History of the Power Sector in India ....................................................................................... 4

3.2. Structure of the Power Sector ................................................................................................. 5

3.3. The Agricultural Power Supply .............................................................................................. 11

4. Review of Recent and Ongoing Projects in India........................................................................... 15

5. Discussion on Different Implementation Strategies ..................................................................... 20

5.1. Low Cost vs. High Costs ......................................................................................................... 20

5.2. Institutional vs. Technical ...................................................................................................... 23

6.1. Technical Parameters ............................................................................................................ 24

6.2. Electricity Infrastructure........................................................................................................ 25

6.3. Motors for Water Pumps ...................................................................................................... 25

6.4. Reasons for Low Quality Supply ............................................................................................ 26

6.5. Impact of Capacitors.............................................................................................................. 27

Part II: Pilot Project................................................................................................................................ 29

7. Pilot Project Region ....................................................................................................................... 30

7.1. Description of Region ............................................................................................................ 30

7.2. Reasons for choosing this location ........................................................................................ 30

8. Participating Organizations / Stakeholders ................................................................................... 32

8.1. COOP ..................................................................................................................................... 32

8.2. CESS ....................................................................................................................................... 33

8.3. SEWS ...................................................................................................................................... 33

8.4. IIIT-H ...................................................................................................................................... 33

8.5. SCTI ........................................................................................................................................ 34

8.6. CWS ....................................................................................................................................... 34

8.7. cBalance Solutions Hub ......................................................................................................... 35

8.8. PPEG ...................................................................................................................................... 36

9. Approach to the Project ................................................................................................................ 37

9.1. Stakeholders .......................................................................................................................... 37

9.2. Aims of the Project ................................................................................................................ 38

9.3. Research Aims ....................................................................................................................... 39

9.5. Technical Approach ............................................................................................................... 41

9.6. Social Approach ..................................................................................................................... 41

10. Project Steps Details .................................................................................................................. 44

10.1. Preparation Phase ............................................................................................................. 44

10.1.1. Rationale for Choice of Intervention ............................................................................. 44

10.1.2. Selection of Feeders ...................................................................................................... 46

10.1.3. Social Survey .................................................................................................................. 47

10.1.4. Technical Survey ............................................................................................................ 57

10.1.5. Selection of Capacitors .................................................................................................. 57

10.1.6. Farmers Awareness Meetings ....................................................................................... 58

10.1.7. Installation of Capacitors ............................................................................................... 59

10.1.8. Establishing Farmer Committees................................................................................... 59

10.1.9. Overall Monitoring and Service Process........................................................................ 60

10.1.10. Cooperation with CESS .............................................................................................. 60

10.2. Implementation Phase II ................................................................................................... 61

10.2.1. Major Issues of phase I .................................................................................................. 61

10.3. Evaluation Phase ............................................................................................................... 62

10.3.1. Technical Evaluation Methods ...................................................................................... 63

10.3.1.1. Incremental Connection of Capacitors ...................................................................... 63