Electricity Use in Indian Agriculture: Trends and Determinants

•
ELECTRICITY USE IN INDIAN AGRICULTURE: TRENDS AND DETERMINANTS ·
A. NARAYANAMOORTBY
Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics

(Deemed to be a University)
Pune- 411 004, Maharashtra
October, 1997
Ce>ritei2tS
List of Tables ii
List of Figures iii
Abbreviations iv
Abstract 1
1. Introduction 2
2. Data and Method 5
3. Trends in Electricity Use 6
4. Factors Determining Electricity_Use 14
5. Factors Determining Electricity_Use at State Level 23
6. Variations in Electricity Use 28
7. Measures to Control Electricity Consumption 35
8. Conclusions 41
References 43
1
1. Consumption Qf Electricity by Sectors 7
2. Growth Rates of Electricity Use by Sectors 7
3. Average and SD of the Study Related Variables 8
4. Results of Linear Trend Exercise for Electricity

Consumption in-Different Sectors 9
5. State-wise Electricity Consumption: Agriculture
and Total 11
6. State-wise Growth Rates (per cent/annum) of
Electricity Consumption: 1980-1 to 1992-3 12
7. Growth Rate of Electricity Use in Agriculture
and Change in (in time) Electric Pumpsets 13
8. Results of Linear Trend Exercise for Electric
Pumpsets and Groundwater Area 16
.
9. Factors Determining Electricity Use in Agriculture 17
10. Correlation Values for the Variables Related to
Electricity Use, India: 1970-1 to 1990-1 18
11. Factors Determining Electricity Use: Simple
Regression Results, India: 1970-1 to 1990-1 19
12. Trends in Electric Pumpset, PPEC and ECPHGWA in
India: 1970-1 to 1990-1 21
13. Results of Linear Trend Exercise for Per Pumpset
Electricity Consumption (PPEC) 23
14. State-wise Change in Electric Pumpsets 24
15. Correlation Value: Factors Determining
Electricity Use (State-wise data) 25
16. Factors Determining PPEC (State-wise) 27
17. State-wise Proportion of Electric Pumpsets and
Electricity Consumption 29
18. State-wise Ppr Pumpset Consumption of
Electricit~~roundwater Area per Pumpset 31
19. ANA and BNA States Group in Electricity
Consumption and Their CharacteristicS 33
20. Average Cost of Generation & Supply of Power:1992-3 37
21. Achievable Efficiency in Electricity Consumption
in Agricultural Se~tor 40
11
1. Consumption of Electricity by Different Sectors 7a
2. State-wise Growth Rate of Electricity Use,
Agriculture and Total: 1980-1 to 1992-3 13a
3. Source-wise Share of Irrigated Area to Net
Irrigated Area 16a
4. Trends in Groundwater A~ea and Electric Pumpsets in,
India: 1970-1 to 1990-1 17a
5. Trends in PPEC at National Level: 1970-1 to 1990-1 21a
6. State-wise Per Pumpset Electricity Consumption:
1980-1 and 1990-1 26a
7. State-wise Share of Electric Pumpset and
Electricity Consumption: 1990-1 30a
111
ACR - Average Cost of Realisation
ACGS - Average Cost of Generation and Supply
ANA - Above the National Average
BNA - Below the National Average
CI - Cropping Intensity
CMIE - Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy
cv - Coefficient of Variation
ewe - Central Water Commission
ECPHGWA - Electricity Use Per Hectare of Groundwater Area
EU - Electricity Use
FA! - Fertiliser Association of India
FCA - Food Crops Area
FR - Flat-Rate
GCA Gross Cropped Area
GIA - Gross Irrigated Area
GO! - Government of India
GWA - Groundwater Area
GWAPP - Groundwater Area Per Pumpset
ha. - Hectare
II - Irrigation Intensity
IPS - Irrigation Pumpsets
IWCC - Irrigated Water Consuming Crops
Kwh - Kilowatt hours
LPE - Low Pump Efficiency
ml. - Million
MOA - Ministry of Agriculture
NAT - New Agricultural Technology
NEP - Number of Electric Pumpset
NIA - Net Irrigated Area
PPEC - Per Pumpset Electricity Consumption
PR - Pro-Rata
REC - Rural Electrification Corporation
REP - Rural Electrification Programme
SD - Standard Deviation
SEBs - State Electricity Boards
T&D - Transmission and Distribution
1v
Electricity Use in Indian Agriculture: Trends and Determinants
A. Narayanamoorthy*
Abstract
Electricity is an important input for the ~evelopment ~f
groundwater irrigation and thus became a crucJ.al factor J.n
agricultural development especially after the introduction of the
new technology. The rate of growth in the use of el~ctricity
in agriculture is very high in the recent years. QuJ.te a few
studies have analysed the consumption of electricity by comparing
different pricing policies of electricity followed so far to
understand the relationship between price and consumption.
However, not many studies attempted any analysis of the recent
trends and determinants of electricity consumption in Indian
agriculture. As the consumption of electricity is determined by
many factors other than tariff, a modest attempt is made in this
paper to understand the trends and determinants by using macro-
level data. The study noted that growth rate of electricity
consumption in agriculture is higher than the growth raEe of the
same in other major ·sectors namely industry and domestic sectors .
The rate of increase in electricity consumption is much higher
than the rate of increase in area under groundwater and electric
pumpsets. The rapid increase of electricity consumption in
agriculture is mainly because of increase in the per pumpset
consumption and not merely because of the increase in the number
of electric pumpsets. The analysis of correlation and regression
shows that area under groundwater and number of electric pumpsets
are the important factors responsible for the significant
increase in the consumption of electricity. The State which has
higher ratio of area under groundwater to the net irrigated area
consumes higher amount of electricity per pumpset. In respect
of the variations in the electricity consumption across the
states, the study found that although variations exist in the
consumption (per pumpset), these have come down significantly
over the last three decades because of the development of
groundwater in the low developed states. The paper concludes
that a properly framed rationing policy in supply of electricity
can only act as a policy control tool and more effectively than
the tariff policy.
* - Research Associate, Gokhale Institute of Politics and

Economics (Deemed to be a University), Pune 411 004,
Maharashtra.
. An earlier version of the paper was presented at the staff
sem1nar in the institute on July 19, 1997. The author is
grateful to ~is senior colleague R.S. Deshpande and participants
of the . sem1nar for conunents. However, author alone is
respons1ble for errors, if any.
1
Electricity use in Indian Agriculture: Trends and Determinants
INTRODUCTION
Electricity is not only an important input for industrial
development but also equally important for the development of
agriculture especially in post green revolution era. Electricity
use in Indian agriculture has been increasing at a fast rate
compared to other sectors of the economy namely industry and
domestic in the recent period. While the consumption of
electricity in industrial sector d-eclined from 70 per cent of the
total use in 1960-61 to 41 per cent in 1992-93, use of
agricultural sector increased significantly from six per cent to
30 per cent during the same period. Though the consumption of
electricity in absolute terms has increased impressively in all
the important sectors, its growth rate pertaining to agricultural
sector is substantially higher. Many studies have analysed the
impact of electr.icity tariff policies on the consumption of
electricity as well as the use and management of groundwater
(Copestake 1986; Shah 1993; Palmer-Jones 1994; Narayanamoorthy
1996 and 1997) . However, not many studies attempted to
understand the recent trend and development of electricity
consumption in agriculture. After the inception of five year
plan, Government has given due importance for the development of
rural electrification network1 specifically to develop
1
Rural Electrification Programme (REP) was introduced as a
plan programme in the First Plan. The importance of this
programme was recognised during the drought in the mid-sixties
when lift.irrigation had to be resorted to on a large scale t~
save subs~stence crops. The REP gained special importance for
2
groundwater irrigation through energisation of pumpsets. In
fact, ·in response to the electrification programme, the number

of electric pumpsets have increased from 1.60 lakhs in 1960-61
to 92 lakhs in 1991-92, an increase of about 58 times.a
It is obvious that when area under groundwater increases,
electricity use in the agricultural sector increases as the major
portion of electricity is consumed by pumpsets which are being
used for lifting water from wells (Sharma, 1994; GOI, 1992).
Macro-level data also show that percentage of groundwater area
to the Net Irrigated Area (NIA) has ~ncreased significantly from
29 per cent in 1960-61 to over 50-per cent in 1990-91. 3 As a
result of this, the consumption of electricity· in the

agricultural sector might have increased significantly in the
recent past.
There will not be any problem as long as the increasing rate
of groundwater area irrigated by electric pumpsets is more than
the rate of increase of electricity use. But, researchers
recently argued that the introduction of Flat-Rate (FR)
electricity pricing policy in agriculture has significantly
providing electricity for operating agricultural pumpsets to

utilise available groundwater potential. In 1969, Government
formed R~ral Electrification Corporation (REC) to strengthen it
and prov~des over 90 per cent of funds for rural electrification
as concessional loans to the State Electricity Boards (GOI
1992) o I
a It has not only increased electric pumpsets but also

changed_proporti?n of electric pumpsets in the total pumpsets
~electr~c plus o~l pumpsets) . Proportion of electric pumpsets
~n the total pumpsets has increased from 23.4 per cent in 1950-51
to 65 per cent in 1990-91.
3
In absolute terms, area under groundwater increased from
7.4 ml.ha in 1960-61 to 24.16 ml.ha. in 1990-91, an increase of
over 3. 3 times.
3
increased the per pumpset consumption of electricity when
compared to the area under groundwater irrigation. This means
that farmers use electricity in-efficien~ly under the FR system

as the marginal cost (MC) of electricity under FR pricing system
is almost near zero (Abbie et al., 1982; GO!, 1989 & 1992;
vaidyanathan, 1994). However, it is difficult to say clearly
that cheaper electricity pricing policy alone is responsible
factor for the rapid increase of electricity use in agricultural
sector. This rapid increase of electricity could also have
happened because of the fast development of groundwater in many
states in the recent years.• Moreover, besides tariff
policies, factors ~ike development of groundwate~ irrigation,
cropping pattern of the groundwater irrigated area, area under
water consuming crops, availability of groundwater and surface
sources of irrigation, efficiency of the electric pumpset used
for pumping water from wells etc., determine the electricity use
in agriculture. Therefore, one has to consider all these factors
while studying consumption of electricity in agriculture.
It is in this context, a modest attempt has been made in
this paper to understand the trends and determinants of
electricity use in agriculture by using macro-level data. The
main objectives of this paper are: (1) to understand the growth
of use of electricity in agricultural sector for different
periods from 1960-61 to 1990-91 and compare with other important
4
For instance, states like Andhra Pradesh, Bihar,
Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and West Bengal altogether had
only 11.50 lakh hectares of groundwater area (9.36 per cent of
total groundwater area) during 1970-71, but during 1990-91 these
same states altogether accounted for 71.35 lakh hectares of
groundwater area (29.53 per cent of total GWA).
4
sectors, (2) to find out the relationship between consumption of
electricity and area under groundwater as well as number of
electric pumpsets, (3) to analyse the fact9rs which determine the
electricity use in agriculture and (4) to understand the
variations in the use _of electricity across the different states.
While analysing these, the study also tries to suggest some
appropriate policies to control the rapid use of electricity in
agriculture.
II
DATA AND METHOD
As the factors determining -electricity consumption vary

significantly acro~s the states, the results relating to the
national level may not be similar to the different states.
Therefore, the present study focuses both national as well as
state level factors associated with electricity consumption in
agriculture. For this, data related to electricity use in
agriculture, area under groundwater, total number of electric
pumpsets, gross irrigated area (GIA), area under water consuming
crops, proportion of groundwater area to the total irrigated area
etc., have been compiled for the major states as well as for
India for the period 1960-61 to 1990-91 from different reports
published by Central Water Commission (CWC), Ministry of
Agriculture (MOA), Fertiliser Statistics of Fertiliser
Association of India (FAI) and publications of Centre for
Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE) .
To understand the growth of electricity consumption for
different periods, growth rates have been computed by using log
linear function (log Y = a + bt) and linear function ( y = a +
5
bt) has been employed to study the absolute change. Correlation
and mUltiple regression have been computed to understand as well

as to capture the factors which influence the growth of
electricity consumption in agriculture.
III
TRENDS IN ELECTRICITY USE
Electricity use has increased in all the major sectors since
independence. However, the proportion of different sectors in
the total use has undergone substantial changes (Table 1). The
major changes have occurred in the industrial and agricultural
sectors. Industr~al sector claimed nearly 70 per cent pf the
total electricity consumption in 1960-61, but this share declined
to about 40 Pel:' cent in 1992-93. On the other hand, consumption
of electricity in agricultural sector has increased from six per
cent to nearly 29 per cent during the same period(see; Figure 1).
To understand the trends in electricity consumption across major
sectors, we computed growth rates by using log-linear function
(log Y =a + bt) linear function (Y =a + bt) for different time
periods. The former has been employed to show the growth rate
in terms of per cent per annum and the latter has been used to
indicate the average increase of electricity in absolute term.
Growth rate for different periods as well as for different
sectors is given in Table 2. It clearly shows that rate of
growths of electricity during 1960-61 to 1992-93 is not the same
5
Growth rate of electricity consumption for different
sectors has been computed by using absolute figures (KWH) and not
by using proportion of each sector.
6
Table 1: Consumption of Electricity by Sectors.
(per cent)
-------------------- ------ ----------------------------- -------
year Industry Agriculture Domest_ic Others* Total
---------- ----------------------------------------------------
1960-61 69.4 6.0 10.7 13.9 100.0
1994-65 71.8 5.8 9.2 13.2 100.0
1970-71 67.6 10.2 8.8 13.4 100.0
1974-75 62.1 14.7 9.8 13.4 100.0
1980-81 58.4 17.6 11.2 12.8 100.0
1984-85 55.2 18.4 13.6 12.8 100.0
1990-91 44.9 26.0 16.5 12.6 100.0
1992-93 40.6 28.9 17.9 12.6 100.0
Source: CMIE (1994l, Current Energy Scene in India, June.

Note: * - includes commercial, traction and others .
•
Table 2: Growth Rates of Electricity Use by Sectors
(per cent/annum)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sector 1960-1 1970-1 1980-1 1960-1
to to to to
1970-1 1980-1 1992-3 1992-3
--------------------------------------------------------------
Industry 11.66 5. 77 5.39 6.54
Agriculture 19.04 12.98 14.10 14.15
Domestic 9.52 9. 72 13.06 10.56
Others 11.74 6.81 8.34 8.09
--------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: All the values are significant at one per cent level.
Growth rates are computed by using log linear function.
across the major sectors of the economy. Growth rate of

electricity consumption in the industrial sector was 11.66 per
cent/annum during 1960-61 to 1970-71 and the same declined to 5.4
per cent/annum during 1980-81 to 1992-93. At the same time, the
growth rate of electricity consumption in the agricultural sector
7
Consumption of Electricity by Different
Sectors
Per cent
80.---------------------------~--------------,
40 ------ ------·--·-. -·-·-- -···-·- ---·-·-··-·--·--·--·-·-------------··------
Figure 1
- Industry -+- Agriculture -+- Domestic -e- Others
7a
has been increasing continuously during seventies (1970-71 to
1980-81) as well as in eighties (See also Table 3). The over all
rate of growth of electricity consumption ~uring 1960-61 to 1992-
93 was only 6.54 per cent per annum in industrial sector, while
it was 14.15 per cent in agriculture, indicating a substantial
Table 3: Average and SD of Study Related Variables

Variables Name 1970-1 1970-1 1980-1
to to to
1990-1 1980-1 1990-1'
ETY use by Industry 52162.18 . 38266.13 65689.14
(17477. 71) (7268. 79) (12085. 86)
ETY use by Agriculture 18601.49 8878.02 27951.79
(13443. 93-) (3436.15) (12295.74)
ETY use by Domestic 12480.78 6012.66 18652.93
ETY use by Others
. (8595.89)
12373.65
(1852.86)
8171.01
(7581.57)
16409.87
(5441.32) (1772.50) (4365. 87)
Tube Well Area (rnl.ha) 9.44 6.88 12.00
(3.20) (1. 73) (1. 76)
Other Well Area (rnl.ha) 8.22 7.82 8.61
(0.52) (0 .-36) (0.26)
Total Groundwater Area 17.66 14.70 20.62
(3. 70) (2.05) (2.00)
Number of Purnpsets (lakhs) 42.69 26.04 59.06
(21.11) (8.27) (14.99)
ETY Per purnpset (kwh) 3953.94 3341.93 4538.79
(898. 81) (279.17) (870.87)
IWCC (rnl. ha) 34.15 30.22 38.21
(5.08) (3.38) (2.28)
GIA (rnl. ha) 49.42 43.48 55.39
(7 .47) (4.35) (3. 81)
Cropping Intensity 123.82 120.85 126.86
(3.83) (2.09) (2.28)
IWCC/GIA x 100 69.13 69.44 69.04
(1.27) (1.27) (1. 43)
ETY Use/ha of GWA 957.05 584.99 1316.59
(511. 07) (151.13) (454.94)
GWA/NIA x 100 45.12 42.14 48.15
(3.88) (2.49) (2.02)
~~~~~~~-~~;~~~d-f~~;-~~~~-<~~~~>-~d-(~~~~;;-~---------------
Notes: Figures in brackets are standard deviation (SD).
ETY - Electricity in million Kwh.
IWCC - Irrigated water consuming crops.
GIA - Gross Irrigated Area.
NIA - Net Irrigated Area.
GWA - Groundwater Area.
8
difference between agricultural and industrial sector. Trend
equation (Table 4) also shows that electricity consumption in
agricultural sector in absolute term ha~ been increasing at a
-
very fast rate compared to industry. For instance, during 1960-
61 to 1970-71, the average increase of electricity consumption
in agricultural sector was 263 million Kwh per annum, while the
Table 4: Results of Linear Trend Exercise for Electricity

Consumption in Different Sectors '
Sectors/Period a b N
l~6Q-6l tQ l~ZQ-Zl
Industry 7290.4 2024. 7* 0.99 11
Agriculture -15.2 362. 9* 0.92 11
Domestic 1175.2 226. 5* 0.9a 11
Others 1305.1 391.1* 0.9a 11
All Total 7756.2 3005. 3* 0.99 1).
l~ZQ-Z1 tQ l~BQ-!31
Industry 4193.4 2129. 6* 0.94 11
Agriculture -7566.9 1021. a·· 0.9a 11
Domestic -2a11. 6 551. 5* 0.9a 11
Others -255.1 526. 6* 0.97 11
All Total -6440.2 4235. 5· 0.97 11
l~BQ-Bl tQ l~~Q-21
Industry -2a110.1 3607. 7* 0.9a 11
Agriculture -65a23.9 3606. a· 0.94 11
Domestic -39a55.1 2250. 3* 0.96 11
Others -17379.0 1299. 6* 0.97 11
All Total -15116a.o 10764 .3· 0.9a 11
l~6Q-6l tQ l~~Q-~l
Industry 3564.7 235a. 3* 0.97 31
Agriculture -a300.2 1345. 3* o.a2 31
Domestic -41a4.7 a3a.4· o.ao 31
Others -9a7.1 654. a· 0.93 31
All Total -9925.4 5196. a· 0.92 31
---------- ----------------------------------------------------
Source: Computed from CMIE. (1994).
Not~: Electricity consumption in million Kwh.
* - Significant at one per cent level.
same was about 2024 million Kwh in industrial sector. But the
position has entirely changed in the succeeding periods. During
the eighties (1980-al to 1990-91), the average consumption of
9
electricity is almost the same in both industrial and
agricultural sectors. This clearly shows the substantial
increase in the consumption of electr~city in agricultural
sector.
Though use of electricity in agricultural sector has
increased substantially, it may not be the same across different
states. Since the factors which are responsible for the use of
electricity widely vary across the states in India, we have
resorted to a comparison between percentage change for different
states to understand the state-wise growth of electricity.
Table 5 includes information relating to growth of electricity
use in terms of p~rcentage in agriculture for all the major
states for the period 1965-66 to 1992-93. It is evident from
the table that consumption of electricity in the agricultural
sector has increased substantially in absolute terms in all the
major states of India. The rate of increase in the agricultural
sector is much higher than the rate of increase in total
consumption of electricity (combined use of all sectors) .
Another important point is that the proportion of electricity
consumed by the agricultural sector in the total use of each
state has also increased in almost all the states. Although
electricity use has increased in almost all the major states,
the increasing rate is not the same across different states.
At national level, electricity consumed by the agricultural
sector has increased from 1892 ml. kwh in 1965-66 to 63328 ml.
kwh in 1992-93, an increase of about 33 times. But, the
increasing rate is over 100 times in states like Madhya Pradesh,
Orissa, Rajasthan and West Bengal between 1965-66 and 1992-93.
10
Table s: Statewise Electricity Consumption: Agriculture and
Total - (million Kwh}
-----------------~--------------------------------------------
States 1965-66 1970-71 1980-81 1992-93 Ratio
(1) (2) (3) - (4) (4/1)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andhra Pradesh
Agril. 173 408 977 8095 46.79
Total 1048 2193 5086 19336 18.45
Bihar
Agril. 29 69 435 1549 53.41
Total 1933 2585 3'756 7858 4.07
Gujarat
Agril. 101 405 1334 7804 77.27
Total 1796 3322 7566 20000 11.14
Haryana
Agril. 299 954 4063 13.59
Total 891 2556 8091 9.08
Kama taka
Agril. 66 180 393 5374 81.42
Total 1382 2973 5164 12948 9.37
Kerala
Agril 2"4 41 80 235 9.79
Total 750 1525 2756 5698 7.60
Madhya Pradesh
Agril. 12 65 345 3750 312.50
Total 1028 1883 4567 16065 15.63
Maharashtra
Agril. 90 357 1724 8068 89.64
Total 4717 7650 14037 34428 7.30
Orissa
Agril. 2 11 59 280 140.00
Total 977 1599 2480 5320 5.45
Punjab
Agril. 211 464 1850 6144
Total 2350 29.12
2116 4997 13937 5.93
Rajasthan
Agril. 20 113 1009 3097
Total 326 154.85
499 2935 10635 32.62
Tamil Nadu
Agril. 820 1275 2367 5226
Total 3222 6.37
5146 8595 19645 6.10
Uttar Pradesh
Agril. 316 721 2792 8536
Total ·2372 27.01
4285 7846 21890 9.23
West Bengal
Agril. 4 21 72
Total 4065 738 184.50
4754 5678 10030 2.47
ALL INDIA
Agril. 1892 4470 14489
Total 26735 63328 33.47
43724 82367 220674 8.25
--------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CWC (1996).
11
The increasing rate of electricity consumption is also much
higher in states like Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Karnataka
and Maharashtra when compared to the _national average.
Surprisingly, the increasing rate is below the national level in
states like Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Punjab and Haryana. This
is because of the reason that these states consumed a
considerable portion of electricity even in 1965-66 as they had
higher proportion of electric pumpsets. In the case of other
'
states, use of electricity increased only in the recent years due

to the recent development of groundwater irrigation. Therefore,
the increasing rate is much higher in these states over the
national average.
Table 6: State-wise Growth Rates (per cent/annum) of
Electricity Consumption: 1980-1 to 1992-3
GROWTH RATE• CHANGE IN PUMPSETS
State Agriculture Total 1980-1 1993 (4/3)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
~--r----------------------------------------------------------
Andhra Pradesh 20.42 11.15 472 1409 2.98
Bihar 12.56 5.99 160 262 1.64
Gujarat 18.71 8.97 231 520 2.25
Haryana 11.92 9.37 218 399 1.83
Kama taka 28.53 8.07 311 886 2.84
Kerala 9.79 6.73 90 271 3.01
Madhya Pradesh 20.84 10.74 315 1008 3.19
Maharashtra 14.49 8.34 658 1777 2.70
Orissa 14.39 6.68 17 62 3.63
Punjab 11.84 9.65 291 649 2.23
Rajasthan 9.98 11.53 205 445 2.17
Tamil Nadu 6.64 7.69 912 1412 1.55
Uttar Pradesh 10.99 9.22 399 704 L77
West Bengal 21.73 4-49 29 96 3.31
All INDIA 14.13 8.77 4334 9952 2.29
--------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CMIE (1994a) and CWC (1996).
Note: * - All the values are significant at one per cent level.
Growth rates are computed by log linear function. We have

also computed growth rate by using log-linear function in
12
electricity use for the major states for the period 1980-81 to
1992-93 separately for agricultural sector and total consumption
.
of electricity. This is done to understand the differences in
the growth of electricity consumption as well as to compare with
the total consumption of electricity across the states. As in
the case of absolute consumption, growth rate of electricity use
also varies significantly across the states (Table 6) . Rate of
growth of electricity use in agricultural sector is much higher
than the growth rate of total consumption of electricity in all
the major states except Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu (see; Figure 2).
It is also evident from Table 7 that there is a positive
relationship betwe~n growth of electric pumpsets and growth of
electricity consumption. This means that the state which
Table 7: Growth Rate of Electricity Use in-Agriculture and

Change in (in time) Electric Pumpsets
--------------------------------------------------------------
Change in Pumpsets States Range of Growth
1980-1 to 1992-3 rate in Agricul.
(in time) (per cent/ annum}
--------------------------------------------------------------
Upto 2 times Bihar, Haryana, TN. ,
UP. 6.64 to 12.56
2 to 3 times AP., Gujarat, Karnatka,
Maharashtra, Punjab,
Rajasthan. 9.98 to 28.53
above 3 times Kerala, MP., Orissa,
West Bengal. 9.79 to 21.73
------------------~-------------------------------------------
Source: Computed from CWC (1996), CMIE. (1994), FAI (1996).
achieved higher growth in electric pumpsets also has higher

growth of electricity consumption in agricultural sector. It
shows that the increasing rate of electricity consumption in
agriculture is associated with the increasing rate of electric
13
Statewise Growth Rate in Electricity Use
Agriculture and Total: 1980-1 to 1992-3
Growth Rate (per cent/annum)
30.---------------------------------------------,
25
20
15
AP Bih Guj Har Kar Ker MP Mah Ori Pun Raj TN UP WB India
States
Figure 2
- Agriculture Use a Total Use
Source: ewe (1996).
13a
pumpsets. For instance, in states like Bihar, Haryana, Tamil
Nadu and Uttar Pradesh, the growth rate of electric pumpsets is
in the range of 1.55 to 1.64 during 1980:81 to 1992-93 and the
growth rate of the same states in electricity use is only in the
range of 6.6 to 12.5 per cent per annum. At the same time, the
state achieved more than two times change in pumpset has a growth
rate in the range of 9.98 to 28.53 per annum. It comes out from
the above discussion that, although there· are varia~ions in
electricity use across the states, electricity consumed by the
agricultural sector has increased impressively in almost all the
states.
IV
FACTORS DETERMINING ELECTRICITY USE
As indicated earlier, electricity use in agricultural sector
has been increasing at a fast rate compared to other sectors in
the recent period, especially after the 1980. Let us see whether
the increasing rate is mainly because of the continuous increase
of electric pumpsets or because of the increase in the per
pumpset consumption of electricity. As we know, electricity in
agriculture is mainly used for irrigation pumpsets. Generally,
when electric pumpsets increase total electricity consumed by the
agricultural sector also increases. However, one cannot always
say that a mere increase of electric pumpset will increase total
electricity consumption. Worki~g hours of pumpsets is also a
key factor in determining the electricity use. Working hours
of pumpsets are determined by the availability of water in the
well, supply of electricity, cropping pattern of the well owners,
14
development of water market, rate of rainfall etc. When farmers
get enough amount of water from their well, generally they prefer
to go for the cultivation of remunerative water consuming
crops.' Since water consuming crops require more amount of

water, farmers have to operate their pumpsets for more number of
hours for each turn of irrigation. This will ultimately
increase the consumption of electricity in agriculture.
Therefore, one has to analyse the working hours of pumpsets, area
irrigated by electric pumpsets and the crops cultivated under
groundwater irrig~tion for understanding the electricity
consumption. Unfortunately, we do not have data for any of these
items even at macro-.level. Available data related to electricity
use are Net Irrigated Area Under Groundwater (NIAUGW) and number
of electric pumpsets being used for irrigation purposes. _ Since
electric pumpsets dominate in all the states in relation to
diesel pumpsets, we assume that the whole groundwater area is
irrigated through electric pumpsets.'
Now let us analyse the factors which are responsible for the
rapid growth of electricity consumption in agricultural sector.
As indicated earlier, area under groundwater and number of
electric pumpsets are the two main factors that determine the
electricity use predominantly in agricultural sector. Both
' Since the cost of water pumped out from well is costly
compared to other sources namely Canal and Tank, farmers tend to
cul~ivate high remunerative crops to make more profit.
~nc~de~tly, most of the remunerative crops are water intensive
~n Ind~a.
' Since we do not have data on gross area under g~oundwater

irrigation, assuming all the groundwater area as irrigated by
electric pumpsets would not make any serious problem in the
calculations.
15
electric pumpset and area under groundwater have increased
significantly especially after the introduction of New

Agricultural Technology (NAT} (Table 8). For instance, area
under groundwater increased from 7.3 ml.ha in 1960-61 to about

24.2 ml.ha in 1990-91, an increase of about 3.3 times (Table 9}.
within groundwater irrigated area, area under tubewell ~ncreased
from just 0.14 ml.ha in 1960-61 to about-14 ml.ha in 1990-91, an
increase of about 100 times during the last 30 years o~ period.
Table 8: Results of Linear Trend Exercise for Electric

Pumpsets and Groundwater Area.
--------------------------------------------------------------
a b N
Variables
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pumpsets:
(in lakhs}
1970-71 to 1980-81 -13.74 2 .49* 0.99 11
1980-81 to 1990-91 -57.12 4 .47* 0.98 11
1970-71 to 1990-91 -27.70 3 .35* 0.97 21
Groundwater Area:
(million hectares}
1960-61 to 1970-71 6.19 0 .47* 0.92 11
1970-71 to 1980-81 11.06 0. 60* 0.98 11
1980-81 to 1990-91 5.09 0. 60* 0.98 11
1960-61 to 1990-91 5.53 o .sa· 0.99 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Note: * - Significant at one per cent level.
Source: Computed from CMIE (1994 & 1994a}.
That is, in the total NIA, percentage of groundwater irrigated

area increased from 34 to 51 per cent during the same period
(Figure 3) . Since electricity requires to create every hectare
of groundwater irrigation, electricity consumption in the
agricultural sector has increased tremendously along with
groundwater irrigated area. It is also noted that electricity
consumption increases when number of electrical pumpsets
increase. The increasing rate is much faster in electricity use
16
Source-wise Share of Irrigated
Area to Net Irrigated Area
per cent
60~------------------------------~----------------,
50 t----- - -
40
30
20
10
0
1960-1 1970-1 1980-1 1992-3
Figure 3
-Canals - Tanks D Groundwater - Others
Source: eMIE (1994a) & ewe (1996)
16a
than in the number of electric pumpsets (see; Figure 4) ·
However, the important point to be analysed here is that why the
increasing rate of electricity consumpti9n is higher than the
increasing rate in the number of electric pumpset.
Table 9: Factors Determining Electricity Use in Agriculture

-------------------------------------------~------------------
1960-1 1970-1 1980-1 1960-1
variables to to to to
1970-1 1980-1 1990-1 1990-1
------------------------------------ --------------------------
Tube Well Area:
Growth Rate 35. so· 7. 99* 4 .38* 13.01*
Average (ml.ha) 1.80 6.88 12.00 6.62
Other Wells Area:

Growth.Rate 0. 83** 1.20* 0. 69* 0. 89*
Average (ml.ha) 7.19 7.82 8.61 7.84
.
Total Groundwater Area:
Growth Rate 5 .41* 4 .24* 2. 94* 4 .26*
Average (ml.ha) 9.00 14.70 20.62 14.77
Electric Pumpset:
Growth Rate NA 10. 59* 7. 86* 8. 87*
Average (lakhs) 26.04 59.06 42. 69.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: *, ** - Significant at one and five per cent level
respectively.
NA - not available, a - from 1970-1 to 1990-1.
Growth rates (per cent/annum) are computed by using log
linear function.
Source: CMIE (1994) and CWC (1996).
As the electricity consumption in agricultural sector is
determined by many factors, we have tried to understand the
intensity of association of each related factors with electricity
consumption. For this, we have calculated correlation for
variables which have some theoretical relationship with
electricity consumption. These values are computed by using
national level data for the period 1970-71 to 1990-91. The
results are reported in Table 10 separately for total use of
electricity in agriculture as well as per pumpset consumption of
17
Trends in Groundwater Area and Electric
Pumpsets In India: 1970-1 to 1990-1
In lakha .
250
.200
150
..
___./
---- __/
l.----'
100
50
.
~
'
'·
I I I I I I I I
0 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I I
Year (1970-1 to 1990-1)
Figure 4
- GWA -I- Pumpaeta
Source: eMIE (1994) & ewe (1998)
17a
Electricity (PPCE) . As we expected, value of correlation shows
that electricity use is positively and significantly related with
area under groundwater irrigation and n~mber of pumpsets. We
expect that ratio of area under Irrigated Water Consuming
Crops(IWCC) 1 to NIA would be positive. But, it turned out with
a negative sign. This could be because of the improper selection
of water consuming crops. Since we do not have data on cropping
pattern separately by groundwater and surface irrigated,area, it
is difficult to assume the crops which are cultivated under
groundwater irrigation. However, it is clear from the value of
-
correlation that both area under groundwater and number of
electric pumpsets. are positively influencing the total
electricity use as well as per pumpset consumption of
electricity.
Table 10: Correlation Values for the Variables related to

Electricity Use, India (1970-71 to 1990-91) .
Variables Name Total Electrfcity PPEC
Use in Agriculture
--------------------------------------------------------------
I
Tube-well Area 0 .94" 0. 91"

Other Wells Area 0. 87" 0. 84"
Total Groundwater Area 0. 93" 0. 91"
Number of Pumpsets 0. 98" 0. 95"
IWCC o. as· o. as·
Gross Irrigated Area 0. 92" 0. 91"
Cropping Intensity 0. 92" 0. 91"
IWCC/GIA x 100 -0.34 -0.33
GWA/NIA x 100 0 .90" o. as·
~~~~;~--:-=-~i~i!i~~~-;~-~~~-;~d-fi~~-~~~-~~~~-1~~~1~-------
PPEC - Per Pumpset Electricity Consumption
IWCC - Irrigated Water Consuming Crops. ·
GIA - Gross Irrigated Area.
Source: Computed from CMIE. (1994 & 1994a) .
. ·Area under irrigated paddy, wheat and sugarcane have been

cons1dered as water consuming crops for analysis.
18
As the influencing variables of electricity consumption in
agricultural sector vary widely, we have computed simple
regression for some variables. This is done primarily to
understand the influence of these variables in electricity
consumption for the period 1970~71 to 1990-91. The regression
results related to electricity consumption are reported in Table
I
11. It is evident from table that area under groundwater and
number of electric pumpsets are positively and significantly
increasing the consumption of electricity in agricultural sector.
Table 11: Factors Determining Electricity Use: Simple
Regression Results, Ind~a (1970-71 to 1990-91) .
REGRESSION CO-EFFICIENTS
Variables Electricity use PPEC
(ml.Kwh) (in Kwh)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Groundwater Area (ml.ha.) 3399. 09" 221.36"
(0.88) (0.83)
No. of Electric Pumpsets (lakhs) 623. 93" 40. 59*
(0.96). (0.91).
Gross Irrigated Area (ml. ha) 1662 .19"
(0.85)
IWCC/GIA x 100 -3579 .31"" -234.81""
(0.12) (0.11)
Ratio of Groundwater Area to
Net irrigated Area (per cent) 3119 .15.. 205. 71"
(0.81) (0.79)
Cropping Intensity ( per cent) 214.01"
(0.83)
Irrigation Intensity (per cent) 250. 01*
(0.74)
----------
Notes: Fi~~~~-i~-b~;~k~~~-;~~-;;:----------------------------
* - Significant at Dne per cent level.
ns - not significant.
IWCC - Irrigated water consuming crops.
Irrigation intensity (GIA/NIA x 100) .
Cropping Intensity (GCA/NIA x 100) .
Source: CMIE (1994a) and CWC (1996).
The same variables are also influencing PPEC significantly. For

instance, one unit (million hectares) of increase of groundwater
area increases about 3399 units (ml. Kwh) of electricity in
19
agriculture. Likewise, one unit of increase of GWA increases
about 221 unit of electricity in PPEC. It implies that when
electric pumpsets increase total electr~city consumption in kwh

also increases because total electricity use is a function of
total working hours of pumpset. This has been clearly observed
in the regression results. As we expect, the results of the

regression analysis show that the ratio of groundwater area to
net irrigated area increases in aggregate as well as in terms of
per pumpset consumption of electricity in agriculture. It is
true that whenever, there is a change in the rainfall, there are
changes in the area irrigated by surface sources. Shortages or
downward fluctuations in the normal rainfall will increase the
exploitation of groundwater. As a result, working hours of
pumpsets as well as consumption of electricity will increase.
One can also easily understand from the macro-level data that
total electricity consumption has a positive relationship with
total number of electric pumpsets. However, it is necessary to
understand what could be the reason for the significant increase
in the PPEC especially in the recent years: PPEC has increased
from 3293 kwh in 1970-71 to 5822.7 kwh in 1990-91 (Table 12 &
13). There could be three reasons for the rapid increase of
PPEC (see; Figure 5). ' remuneration in
Firstly, because of low
crops like paddy and wheat, farmers in the groundwater irrigated
regions have changed the crop pattern towards high remunerative
water consuming crops like Sugarcane, Banana etc. It might have
increased the operating hours of pumpset resulting in increase
in the per pumpset consumption of electricity. Secondly,
20
Table 12: Trends in Electric Pumpset, PPEC and ECPHGWA in
India: 1970-71 to 1990-91
;;;;---------------~~~~~------~-~~~c------~c~~~~~-----------
(lakhs> (Kwh) _ (Kwh)
~~;o=;~-------------~;:~~----------;;~~-------;;~-------------
1971_72 16.20 ' 2818 372
1972-73 19.00 3100 454
1973-74 21.05 3127 496
1974-75 24.26 3189 544
1975-76 26.05 3353 605
1976-77 27.34 3508 636
1977-78 30.35 3332 649
1978-79 33.00 3654 734
1979-80 36.00 3731 752
1980-81 39.66 3655 819
1981-82 43.24 3506 834
1982-83 45.30 3925 924
1983-84 49.75 3662 932
1984-85 51.04 4112 1054
1985-86 57.09 4115 1167
1986-87 61.52 4795 1412
1987-88 . 66.57 5315 1616
1988-89 72.26 5387 1746
1989-90 78.19 5631 1931
1990-91 85.00 5823 2049
--------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: PPEC - Per pumpset Electricity Consumption
EUPHGWA - Electricity use per ha. of Groundwater Area.
Source: CMIE. (1994).
because of the continuous over-exploitation of groundwater across

the country, water level has gone down sharply.• This could
have caused an increase in the working hours of pumpset required

to irrigate one hectare of land. 10 Thirdly, because of the
• It has been noted that exploitation of groundwater is

more wherever electric pumpsets are more. For an elaborate
discussion on the magnitude of groundwater exploitation across
the different states see, Dhawan (1996) .
10
A study on the consequences of aquifer over-exploitation
related to Tamil Nadu (Janakarajan,1997) shown that there is a
relationship between water table and consumption of electricity.
It indicates that "the progressive lowering of the water table
results in ever increasing pumping depths, resulting in turn in
the simultaneous rise in energy consumption. A steady rise in
energy consumption per electric operated well in the State stands
as the best testimony to the progressive lowering of the water
table .... n (p.S7).
21
Trends in PPEC at National Level:
1970-1 to 1990-1
In kwh
7000.-------------------------------------------~
-----·---- ------- · - - - - - - - ---- -···-··-·----------·--··-·- -·--
1000 ·-----~---·--- -----------· --- -····--··---...!..---·.
Year (1970-1 to 1990-1)
Figure 5
-PPEC
Source: eM IE (1994a) & ewe (1996) ·
2la
recent development of groundwater market, farmers owning wells
use water not only for their own cultivation but also tend to
sell water for non-well owning poor farmers. This has resulted
in huge increase in the working hours of pumpset. 11 Besides
these reasons, Flat-Rate (FR} pricing policy has also been
identified by studies as one of the main reasons for the rapid
increase in the working hours of pumpset as the marginal cost of
electricity is near zero under FR pricing system. 12 Another
strong reason for the rapid increase of electricity in
agricultural sector in the recent years is that state electricity
boards (SEBs) dump transmission and distribution losses in the
consumption of agr~cultural sector to show low TD losses. 13 On
the whole, it is clear from the regression results that area
under groundwater and number of electric pumpsets are the two
important factors which positively influence the consumption of
electricity in agricultural sector.
11
Many micro-level data based studies have confirmed that
the introduction of water market has increased the working hours
of pumpset. For an elaborate discussion in this regard see,
Narayanamoorthy (1994 & 1996}; Shah (1993}.
12
Reviews related to different tariff policies of
electricity and their impact on the electricity use in
agriculture are available in Shah (1995}; Palmar-Jones (1994);
Narayanamoorthy (1994a} .
u In this connection, a recent-study indicated that "the
SEBs know that IPS consumption is lower than what they claim.
It has been alleged by researchers as well as ex-officials in
power sector, that SEBs dump T and D losses in IPS consumption,
t<;> show low T and D losses ( ... ) . Metering all IPS will expose
h1gh T and D losses, which are a sum of technical losses and
commercial losses, such as theft. But for proper running of
power utilities, this is all more reason for metering all IPS".
For more details in this regard see Roy (1995} Sant and Dixit
(1996). ,
22
Table 13: Results of Linear Trend Exercise for Per Pumpset
· Electricity Consumption (PPEC) .
~~~i~d---------------------;---------b--~----;;--------;-----~
--------------------------------------------------------------
1970-71 to 1980-81 2200.6 71.3* o. 72 11
1980-81 to 1990-91 -2011.7 251. 9* 0.92 11
1970-71 to 1990-91 1188.82 131. 7* 0.83 21

--------------------------------------------------------------
Note: * - Significant at one per cent level.
Source: Computed from CMIE (1996).
v
FACTORS DETERMINING ELECTRI~ITY USE AT STATE LEVEL
So far we have analysed the factors which determine the
electricity use in"agriculture at national level. The results
arrived at national level may not be similar to the state level.
Moreover, increasing rate of electric pumpsets across the states
is also not be similar between 1970-71 and 1990-91 (Table 14) .
Therefore, we have tried to analyse the factors which determine
electricity use at state level and tried to compare the results
arrived at national level. To understand this, we have computed
correlation and multiple regression for three time points viz.,
1970-71, 1980-81 and 1990-91 using the cross section data of 14
major states. The variables included in this analysis are:
number of electric pumpsets (NEP) , percentage of groundwater
irrigated area to net irrigated area (GWA/NIA), groundwater area
per pumpset (GWAPP), cropping intensity (CI), ratio of gross
cropped area to electric pumpset (GCA/NEP) and percentage of food
crops area to GCA (FCA/GCA) . We believe that these variables
have some relationship either directly or indirectly with
consumption of electricity in agriculture. We have also
23
computed correlation separately for PPEC as well as percentage
of electricity consumed by the agricultural sector for 14 major
Table 14: State-wise Change in Electric ~mpsets.

(in '000)
------------------- -------------------------------------------
Ratio
States 1968-69 1980-81 1990-91 2/1 3/2 3/1
(1) (2) (3) (5) (6) (7)
-------------------------------------------------------------
1165 3.83 2.47 9.47
Andhra Pradesh 123 472
Bihar 50 160 255 3.20 1.59 5.10
Gujarat 42 231 460 5.50 1.99 10.95
Haryana 45 218 359 4.84 1.65 7.98
Karnataka 92 311 723 3.38 2.32 7.89
Kerala 14 90 222 6.43 2.47 15.86
Madhya Pradesh 25 315 879 12.60 2.79 35.16
Maharashtra 125 658 1608 5.26 2.44 12.86
Orissa 1 17 51 17.00 3.00 51.00
Punjab 59 291 602 4.93 2.07 10.20
Rajasthan 18 205 389 11.39 1.90 21.61
Tamil Nadu 410 912 1319 2.22 1.45 3.22
Uttar Pradesh 76 399 649 5.25 1.63 8.54
West Bengal 1 29 89 29.00 3.07 89.00
INDIA 1089 4334 8818 3.98 2.04 8.09
--------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Computed from CMIE (1994).
states. Correlation values computed across the 14 major states

are given in Table 15. It is evident from the table that the
relationship among the variables in determining electricity use
have largely changed between 1970-71 and 1980-81. For instance,
contrary to the common belief that number of pumpsets and ratio
of GWA to NIA are negatively related with PPEC during 1970-71.
The relationship is not stable over years especially for 1980-81
and 1990-91. During 1970-71, states like Andhra Pradesh, Tamil
Nadu, Maharashtra and Karnataka had relatively .more electric
pumpsets, but their consumption of electricity in terms of PPEC
is much lower and _hence the correlation between NEP and PPEC
turned out to be negative. As we expected, GWAPP has a
24
positive relationship with PPEC at all the three time points.
It implies that state which has more GWAPP also consumes more
electricity per pumpset. The variables such as CI and ratio of
FCA to GCA are also positively related with PPEC. On the whole,
the correlation coefficients calculated for identifying the
factors which determine the electricity use at· state level
indicate that ratio of GWA to NIA and GWAPP are the two main
factors which positively influence the electricity use in
agriculture. These results are almost similar to the results
arrived with the national level data.
Table 15: Correlation Value: Factors Determining Electricity

Use (Sta~e-wise data) .
1970-71 1980-81 1990-91
Variables %EUATE PPEC %EUATE PPEC %EUATE PPEC
%EUATE -0.12 0. 74 8 0. 67 8
NEP 0 .39c -0.35 0.35 0·. 04 0.33 0.11
GWA/NIA 0 .42c -0.15 o. 65. 0. 76 8 0 .44c 0. 77 8
GWA/NEP -0.13 0.37 0.09 0. 59b -0.26 0.29
CI 0.25 0.29 0 .43c 0 .49b 0.01 0.14
GCA/NEP -0. 47b 0. 78 8 -0. 46b -0.02 -0. 57b -0.14
FCA/GCA 0.07 0.26 0.15 0.11 0.21 0.32
--------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: a,b, c - significant at one, five and 10 per cent level
respectively.
% EUATE - Percentage of Electricity used for Agriculture
to Total Electricity.
NEP - Number of Electric Pumpsets.
GWA - Groundwater Irrigated Area.
CI - Crcpping Intensity.
GCA - Gross Cropped Area.
FCA - Food Crops Area.
Source: CMIE (1994) and ewe (1996).
It is difficult to understand the consumption pattern (who

uses more and who uses less) of electricity by using total
electricity consumption of different.states. Total electricity
will not show the intensity of its use as it is determined by the
25
number of electric pumpsets. PPEC can be considered to judge the
state-wise consumption pattern of electricity. We have seen
earlier that consumption of electricity in_terms of total as well
as PPEC have increased in almost all the states especially after
1970. However, . the increasing rate of PPEC is not uniform
across the states (Figure 6). Since the factors determining
electricity use widely differ across regions, the rate of
increase of PPEC also changes across the states. Therefore, to
I
understand the influence of different variables on the PPEC, we

have computed multiple regression. The model used for this
analysis is as follows;
PPEC = a + b1 NEP + b 2 GWA/NIA + b 3 GWAPP + b 4 CI + b 5 GCA/EP

+ b, FCA/GCA
where,
PPEC - Per Pumpset Electricity Consumption (in Kwh) .
NEP - Number of Electric Pumpsets (in '000).
GWA/NIA- Percentage of Groundwater Area to.Net Irrigated Area
GWAPP - Groundwater Area Per Pumpset (in ha) .
CI - Cropping Intensity (per cent) .
GCA/NEP - Gross Cropped Area per Electric Pumpset (in ha) .
FCA/GCA - Percentage of Food Crops Area to Gross Cropped Area.
By using the above model, we have computed regression for

factors determining PPEC for three time points (1970-1, 1980-1
and 1990-91). The results of analysis for the three time points
are presented in Table 16. It is evident from table that
regression results are not very consistent between 1970-71 and
26
Statewise Per Pumpset Electricity
Consumption: 1980-1 and 1990-1
in '000
14,-----------------------------------------------,
AP Bi Guj Har Kar Ker MP Mah Ori Pun Raj TN UP WB India

States
Figure 6
- PPEC in 1980-1 - PPEC in 1990-1
26a
1990-91 although the states and variables considered for the
analysis are same. The co-efficient of GWAPP related to the
year 1970-71 shows a negative relation w~th.PPEC, but the same
is positive and significant in 1990-91. Likewise, GCA/NEP in
1970-71, positively and significantly influenced the PPEC,

whereas the same variable relating to the year 1990-91 turned out
Table 16: Factors Determining PPEC (State-wise}.

--------------------------------------------------------------
(Dependent Variable PPEC}
Variables 1970-71 1980-81 1990-91
--------------------------------------------------------------
NEP (I 000} 0.09 1.23. -0.75
( 0. 01} (0.99} (-0~38}
GWA/NIA x 100 155.76 63.79 98.29
(4.51}* (4.23}* (1.84}***
-45.73 138.34 781;73
GWA/NEP . (-1.98}*** (1.73}*** (1. 62} ••••
CI 153.91 48.65 4.36
(3.14}** (3.29}** (0.12}
GCA/NEP 2.93 1.13 -65.39
(7 .24}* (0 .40} (-1.99}***
FCA/GCA -58.87 -27.97 -20.15
(-1.26} (-1.49} (-0.39}
Constant -15582.85 -4775.79 1554.69
(2.27}** (-2.20}*** (0.27}
Rz 0.91 0.91 0.77
N 14 14 14
F 12.52 11.83 3.86
Probability of F 0.00 0.00 0.05
--------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: *, **, ***, **** - Significant at one, five, 10 and 15
per cent level respectively.
Figures in brackets are 't• values.
Source: CMIE (1994} and CWC (1996).
to be negative sign w,ith significant value. This indicates that

the influencing variables in determining PPEC are varied between
1970-71 and 1980-81. This is because of the substantial
development of area under groundwater and electricity use in most
of the states between 1970-71 and 1990-91. For instance, states
like, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, West Bengal, Karnataka and Tamil
27
Nadu had less than 30 per cent of groundwater area to their total
NIA in 1970-71, but the position has changed entirely in 1990-91
- most of these states have more than 30 per cent of area under
irrigation through groundwater source. Some similarities are
also observed among the variables that determine PPEC especially
between 1980-81 and 1990-91. The co-efficients for the
variables such as GWA/NIA, GWAPP and CI are positively and
significantly related with the PPEC at both time points. This
is because of the fact that there were no major changes noticed

in determining variables across the states between 1980-81 and
-
1990-91. On the whole, it is clear from the regression results
that ratio of GWA . to NIA and GWAPP are the two main' factors
responsible for the rapid increase in the per pumpset consumption
of electricity.
VI
VARIATIONS IN ELECTRICITY USE

As in the case of other inputs used in agriculture, there
could be variations in the electricity use across the different
states. We have seen earlier that though the consumption of
electricity has significantly increased since 1970, - its
increasing rate is not the same across different states in India.
Some states continued to dominate in the use of electricity,
while others started using electricity increasingly in the recent
years. In this section, we intend to analyse (i) how consumption
of electricity varies across the different states in different
points of time?, (ii) is there any relationship between
proportion of pumpsets and the share of electricity use?, and
28
(iii) which are the states using electricity Above the national
average (ANA) and below the national average (BNA) and their
specificities.
Table 17: State-wise Proportion of Electric Pumpsets and

Electricity Consumption
--------------------------------------------------------------
1970-71 1980-81 1990-91
States EU EP" EU EP EU EP
-----------------------------------------------~--------------
Andhra Pradesh 9.13 11.29 6.74 10.89 12.84 13.21
Bihar 1.54 4.59 3.00 3.69 2.91 2.89
Gujarat 9.06 3.86 9.21 5.33 11.29 5.22
Haryana 6.69 4.13 6.58 5.03 5.39 4.07
Karnataka 4.03 8.45 2.71 7.18 8.79 8.20
Kerala 0.92 1129 0.55 2.08 0.41 2.52
Madhya Pradesh 1.45 2.30 2.38 7.27 5.02 9.97
Maharashtra 7.98 11.48 11.90 15.19 13.12 18.24
Orissa 0.25 0.09 0.41 0.39 0.36 0.58
Punjab 10.38 5.42 12.77 6.71 10.13 6.83
Rajasthan 2.53 1.65 6.96 4. 73 4.70 4.41
Tamil Nadu 28.52 37.65 16.34 21.04 8.06 14.96
Uttar Pradesh 16.13 6.98 19.26 9.21 15.42 7.36
West Bengal 0.47 0.09 0.50 0.67 0.90 1.01
INDIA"" 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Average 7.08 7.09 7.09 7.10 7.09 7.11

SD 7.47 9.20 5.87 5.44 4.84 5.14
C'V 105.51 129.76 82.79 76.62 68.27 72.29
Notes: * - data related to 1968-69.

** - total may not tally as we excluded small states.
SD - Standard deviation.
CV - Co-efficient of Variation.
EU - Electricity Use.
EP - Electric Pumpsets.
Source: Computed from CMIE (1994 & 1994b).
First, let us explain how electricity use varies across the

major states during 1970-71, 1980-81 and 1990-91. Table 17
furnishes the state-wise proportion of electricity consumption
and electric pumpsets . It is evident from the table that
electricity use in terms of proportion to the total varied widely
across the states. Among the states, Tamil Nadu alone consumed
more than one fourth of the total electricity use of the country
29
during 1970-71. Since Tamil Nadu accounted for about 37 per
cent of total electric pumpset, its percentage of consumption
seems to be very high. States like Punjab, Uttar Pradesh.,
Haryana and Gujarat consumed higher share of electricity which
was more than their share of pumpsets. This means that these
states consumed higher electricity per pumpset compared to other
states. Proportion of electricity consumption by each state has
also varied between 1970-71 and 1980-81. During 1970-71, Tamil
Nadu dominated in both electricity use as well as in the number
of electric pumpsets. But, the same has changed significantly
in 1980-81 when compared to 1970-71. Though Tamil Nadu
accounted for about one fifth of the electric pumpsets in the
country, its consumption of electricity is only about 16 per
cent. This means that per pumpset consumption has come down
drastically in Tamil Nadu in 1980-81 when compared to 1970-71.
But, on the other hand, UP had only about 9 per cent of electric
pumpsets, but consumed nearly 20 per cent of electricity in 1980-
81. Likewise, Punjab had only 6 per cent of the total electric
pumpsets and consumed about 12 per cent of electricity in India.
The pattern of 1990-91 is almost similar to the pattern of 1980-
81 (see; Figure 7). Although variations still exist in the
consumption of electricity across the states, it has come down
significantly between 1970-71 and 1990-91 as it is evident from
the co-efficient of variation.
PPEC is one of the best indicators to understand the
variation in electricity use across different states. Therefore,
we have calculated PPEC for the 14 major states for three
different periods. The state-wise results are reported in Table
30
Statewise Share of Electric Pumpset
and Electricity Consumption: 1990-91
AP Bi Guj Har Kar Ker MP Mah Ori Pun Raj TN UP WB

States
Figure 7
- Electricity - Electric Pumpset
JOa
18. It is evident from table that PPEC varies widely across
different states in all the three reference periods namely 1970-
71, 1980-81 and 1990-91. However, its v~riation has declined·
Table 18: State-wise Per Pumpset Consumption of Electricity

and Groundwater Area per Pumpset
--------------------------------------------------------------
1970-71 1980-81 1990-91
States PPEC GWAPP* PPEC GWAPP PPEC GWAPP
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andhra Pradesh 3317 4.62 2070 1.66 5545 1.12
Bihar 1380 11.64 2719 6.23 5737 5.96
Gujarat 9643 26.60 5775 7.32 12348 4.32
Haryana 6644 13.20 4376 4.84 7554 3.47
Kama taka 1957 4. 77 1264 1.29 6115 0.99
Kerala 2929 0.42 889 937 0.29
Madhya Pradesh 2600 24.80 1095 3.17 2871 2.44
Maharashtra 2856 6.17 2620 1. 75 4107 0.70
Orissa 11000 130.00 3471 12.18 3588 14.53
Punjab 7864 26.34 6358 7.12 8465 3.71
Rajasthan 6278 63.94 4922 8.91 6085 6.00
Tamil Nadu 3110 2.00 2595 1.15 3077 0.80
Uttar Pradesh 9487 50.87 6997 14.74 11955 10.68
West Bengal 21000 17.00 2483 15.31 5101 8.00
INDIA 4105 11.28 3343 4.29 5707 2.74
-------------------------~---------------
SD 5077 33.63 1911 4.81 3148 4.06
Average 6433 27.31 3402 6.59 5963 4.50
cv 7~ 123.14 56 72.98 53 90.22
Notes: Figures rounded off to the nearest integer.
* - Since data related to 1970-71 on Electric
pumpsets are not available, we have used data relating
to the year 1968-69 for computation.
SD - Standard Deviation.
CV - Coefficient of Variation.
PPEC - Per Pumpset Electricity Consumption.
GWAPP - Groundwater Area Per Pumpset.·
Source: Computed from CMIE (1994 & 1994a).
considerably over the last two decades as is evident from the co-
efficient of variation. It is also evident from the table that
PPEC is higher wherever, ratio of groundwater area to total 'NIA
is higher. This is because when a state has lower surface
irrigated area, it has to rely more on groundwater for its
31
irrigation. In order to exploit groundwater and to irrigate
more'area, pumpsets have to be operated more number of hours.
Electricity consumption per pumpset is di~ectly related with the
number of working hours of the pumpset. This relationship is
clearly observed in the present study. For instance, states like
Gujarat, Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and UP., have more than 50
per cent of irrigated area through groundwater and thus PPEC of
these states is much higher than the national average a~ well as
the same for many other states. Interestingly, PPEC has
increased significantly in states like Bihar, Karnataka,
Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh between 1970-71 to 1990-91. This
is because of t~e massive development in the groundwater
irrigation and subsequent development in the energisation of
pumpsets in the recent past. Altogether, data show that
inequality in PPEC across the major states has declined over the
period.
It is understood from the foregoing section that inequality

in the use of electricity still exists across different states
although it has considerably declined over the last twenty
years. Now, let us analyse the agglomeration of the states
which consume electricity above the national average (ANA) and
below the national average (BNA) and their characteristics. The
results related to ANA and BNA states are given in Table 19.
It is evident from the Table that there are no major changes in
the ANA and BNA states group between 1970-71 and 1990-91. For
instance, during the period 1970-71, states like Andhra Pradesh,
Gujarat, Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Uttar
32
Table 19: ANA and BNA States Group in Electricity Consumption
and Their Characteristics
----~---------------------------------------------------------
ANA states BNA states
i97a=7i------------~;~-~~j~~~~----------~i~~~~-~~~~~~k~~-----
(National Haryana,Punjab, Kerala, Maharashtra,
Average 10.22%) Rajasthan,TN, UP. MP, Orissa, WB
-----------------------------------------
773 (70.98) 308 (28.28)
NEP ( 1 000)
------------------------------------------
3685 (82.00) 744 (16.64)
TEU (in ml . Kwh)
GWA ( 1 000 ha)
------------------------------------------
9670 (78.75) 2565 (20.89)
------------------------------------------
4767.40 2415.58
PPEC (kwh)
------------------------------------------
381.08 290.06
EU/GWA
==============================================================
1980-81 AP, Gujarat, _ Bihar, Karnataka,
(National Haryana, Punjab, Kerala, Maharasntra,
Average 17.59%) Rajasthan,TN, UP. MP, Orissa, WB.
NEP (I 000)
------------------------------------------
2728 (62.94) 1580 (36.45)
TEU (in ml . Kwh)

------------------------------------------
11283 (77.87) 3180 (21.45)
GWA ( 1 000 ha) 14359 (77.14) 4203* (22. 58)
PPEC (Kwh)
------------------------------------------
4135.99 1967.09
EU/GWA 785.78 720.43
==============================================================
1990-91 AP, Gujarat, Bihar,Kerala, MP,
,(National Haryana, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Orissa,
Average 26.44%) Punjab, Rajasthan, TN, WB.
UP.
NEP (I 000) 4347 (49.29) 4423 (50.16)

TEU (in ml.Kwh) 34495 (68.55) .15494 (30.79)
GWA ( 1 000 ha.) 16759 (69.36) 7375 (30.52)
PPEC (Kwh)
-----------------------------------------
7935.36 3503.05
EU/GWA
------------------------------------------
2058.29 2100.88
~~~=~7=:=:=i:;~i~=i~=~~~=i~~i~d=d~============================
NEP - Number of Electric Pumpsets.
TEU - Total Electricity Use.
PPEC - Per Pumpset Electricity Consumption.
EU(GWA - ~lectricity Consumed Per ha. Groundwater Area.
F1gures 1n brackets are percentage to total.
Source: Computed from CMIE. (1994 & 1994a).
33
Pradesh, were coming under the group of ANA states, while Bihar,
Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and West
'
Bengal were under the category of BNA s~ates. This pattern
continued in 1980-81 and 1990-91 with little changes. The

changes occurred only between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. For
instance, Karnataka was coming under the group of BNA both in
1970-71 and 1980-81 and making its entry into the group of ANA
in 1990-91. During the same period, Tamil Nadu was falling in
the group of ANA states, but it lost its place in 1990-91 and
became a constituent of BNA group.
As far as the characteristics of ANA and BNA states are
concerned, most of. the agriculturally advanced states 'consumed
electricity above the national average at all the three time
points. Since these ANA states have higher share of the
electric pumpsets and groundwater area, their consumption of
electricity is significantly higher than the consumption of BNA
states. During 1970-71, seven ANA states altogether accounted
for nearly 71 per cent of electric pumpsets and consumed about
82 per cent of electricity of the national total. However, this
pattern has slightly changed in 1980-81 and 1990-91. Consumption
of electricity by the ANA group of states declined from 82 per
cent in 1970-71 to 68.5 per cent in 1990-91. During the same
period, consumption of electricity by the BNA states has
increased from 17 per cent to nearly 31 per cent. This implies
that domination of developed states in the use of electricity has
been declining in the recent past. This is primarily because of
the recent development of rural electrification and groundwater
in the low developed states (in terms of groundwater) like Bihar,
34
west Bengal, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa. Though the
propo~tion of electricity consumed and pumpsets owned by the ANA
states have declined over the period, PP~C has not declined in
these states. In fact, PPEC of the ANA states has increased at

higher rate than BNA states between 1970-71 and 1990-91. For
instance, while the PPEC of ANA state increased 1.66 times, the
same was little less (1. 45 times) for BNA states. The continuous
increase of PPEC in the developed states is possibly because of
'
depletion of groundwater level. If water level of a well
declines, electricity required to pump-out per unit of water
I
will increase. This is further confirmed by the data on

electricity consumed (in KWH) per hectare of groundwater area.
On the whole, it is clear that though electricity use per pumpset
has increased substantially in almost all the states
(irrespective of developed and less developed states), variations
in PPEC has come down significantly.
VII
MEASURES TO CONTROL ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION
It is clear from the foregoing sections that though there
are variations in the use of electricity across the states,
consumption of electricity has increased rapidly in almost all
the states of India especially after 1970. It is also found
that the increasing rate of electricity is much higher than the
• • I
~ncreas~ng rate of area under groundwater and electric pumpsets.
Consumption of electricity per pumpset has increased rapidly in
the recent years barring a few states. Since electricity is a
costly input and the potential for economically and
35
environmentally generating electricity is narrowing down at a
fast rate, it is essential to find out options for controlling
consumption of electricity in agriculture! Researchers advocate
many policy measures to reduce electricity consumption and
increase its efficiency in agriculture. The policy measures
are; (i) increasing existing tariff rate or abolishing FR tariff
policy, (ii) introducing differential tariff rate for different
categories of farmers, (iii) restricting electricity supply or
imposing rationing of use, (iv) introducing regulations for
curbing groundwater exploitation etc. There is no doubt that
these policy measures will make some positive impact on the
consumption of electricity, however, there are difficulties in
introducing these policies especially tariff rate at field level.
For instance, how do we increase the existing tariff rate for
agriculture?, should we fix more than the cost of generation and
distribution or should we fix this based on the level of
consumption (on slab basis) of electricity.
Although it is difficult to fix an appropriate tariff rate
to reduce the electricity consumption or to increase the
efficiency of its use, let us first discuss about the possible
impact on the consumption of electricity if government fixes
tariff on the basis of cost of generation and distribution
(CGAD). Presently, the average cost of generation and supply
of electricity varies from 83 paise/kwh in Kerala to 188.04
paise/kwh in Bihar (Table 20). -
It means that government may not
be willing to fix tariff beyond 188.04 paise/kwh for agriculture
at this stage. There is no guarantee that the CGAD related
tariff rate would make positive impact in the consumption of
36
electricity. As we know if price of electricity supplied for
irrigation pumpsets increases, fanner may go for diesel pumpsets,
which is an alternative for electric pumps~ts. Price of diesel
Table 20: Average Cost of Generation and Supply of Power:

1992-93
----------------------------------------~~~-i~-~~~1!;~~!~~----
States ACGS ACR from Supply Cost
(paise) (paise) (in paise) (in %)
--------------------------------------------------------------
105.56 97.33 -8.23 7.8
Andhra Pradesh
Bihar 188.04 122.22 -65.82 35.0
Gujarat 160.36 119.01 -41.35 25.8
Haryana 139.02 82.05 -57.56 41.2
Himachal Pradesh 109.99 108.29 -1.71 1.5
Karnataka 98.77 97 .~6 -0.81 0.8
Kerala 83.00 81.22 -1.77 2.1
Madhya Pradesh 157.99 132.10 -25.89 16.4
Maharashtra 148.06 141.84 -6.22 4 .'2
Orissa 104.99 103.26 -1.73 1.6
Punjab 126.91 78.83 -48.09 37.9
Rajasthan 141.60 113.25 -28.35 20.0
Tamil Nadu 133.27 108.26 -25.01 18.8
Uttar Pradesh 155.17 113.14 -42.34 27.2
West Bengal 163.97 119.88 -44.09 26.9
--------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: ACGS - Average Cost of Generation and Supply.
ACR - Average Cost of Realisation.
Source: CMIE (1994).
oil is already about Rs. 8/litre and it is expected to go up

further in the near future. For diesel pumpsets, apart from
diesel cost, fanners have to spend more money on lubrication oil
plus other maintenance. Normally, these maintenance costs are
substantially higher for diesel pumpsets when compared to the
electric pumpsets. 14 Hence, the cost of water per unit pumped-
out from diesel pumpset must be much higher than the electric
pumpset. Moreover, apart from cost, fanners always prefer to
u .For more details on the cost of water per unit pumped

out by electric and oil pumpsets see, Narayanamoorthy (1996) .
37
have electric pumpsets because of its ea~y nature of handling and
other · advantages. Because of these reasons, it is very
difficult to control the consumption of ~lectricity by fixing
tariff on the basis of CGAD. On the same line, there are other
practical problems in reducing the consumption of electricity by
way of revising the pricing policy of electricity fixed for
agriculture. Therefore, one needs to find out suitable
alternative policies to reduce the consumption of electr~city or
to increase its efficiency.
One of the main reasons identified recently for the rapid
-
increase and inefficient use of electricity in agriculture is Low
Pump Efficiency (L.PE) . Efficiency of the pumpset · largely
determines the consumption of electricity. Low pump efficiency
is mainly because of the improper use of matching pump, delivery
pipes, sizes of suction etc. Inefficient use of electricity
increases when number of inefficient pumpsets increase. As the
pump efficiency is an important deciding factors for the
efficient use of electricity, researchers advocate that huge
amount of electricity can be saved by improving the efficiency
of the existing pumpsets. In this connection, Palmer-Jones
(1994) has indicated "pumping efficiencies are usually found in
the range of 30-40 per cent when 60 per cent could easily be
achieved. In ~ield condition, pumping efficiency can often be
improved rather easily by simple low cost improvement and
modifications .... " (p.33). Likewise, Moench (1994) has also
indicated that the agricultural pumpsets are running with low
efficiency in India. According to his calculation (Moench,
1994) that over 15 per cent of the total electricity consumption
38
could be saved through pump efficiency. He has used SO per cent
-
as achievable efficiency to find out the drop in the consumption
of electricity for the year 1986-87. Based on the calculation
of Moench (1994), we have calculated achievable efficiency for
the year 1990-91. The results are presented in Table 21. It
is evident from table that by improving pump efficiency, more
than so per cent of total electricity can be saved and over 1S-20
per cent in total consumption (including all sectors) of
electricity in majority of the states. As the electricity use
in agriculture is positively related to the number of pumpsets,
by improving efficiency of the pumpsets saving of electricity
will be higher whe!e electric pumpsets are more. Since the
increasing rate of electric pumpsets is much faster especially
from 1980, unproductive use of electricity will increase further
in the future in case government fails to·deliver appropriate
measure· to improve pump efficiency. Pump efficiency can be
increased by improving matching engines and pump capacity, the
sizes of suction and delivery pipes etc. Unlike other policy
measures, there would not be much problem in introducing this at
field level. It is also not so easy to improve pump efficiency
by manipulating tariff policies of electricity. Farmers require
adequate extension facilities for improving pump efficiency.
The available knowledge of the farmers regarding the pumpsets
maintenance is quite low and not· enough to improve pump
efficiency. One can also expect that farmers would not waste
electricity irrationally and for unproductive purposes and if
they come to know some simple methods to reduce the consumption
of electricity they will adopt it. Therefore, by delivering
39
quality extension network, electricity use in agriculture can be
saved to a considerable amount.
Table 21: Achievable Efficiency in Electricity Consumption in

Agricultural Sector 1990-91.
s~~~;;---------;~------i;~~------~~~~~~~i~~----i-~!-~~~~----
(in Reduction achievable
ml.kwh) increasing by PE in
by 50% PE. total con-
sumption·
-------------------------------------------
Andhra Pradesh 6460 41.79 3230
-----------~-------
20.89
Bihar 1463 20.40 732 10. 20'
Gujarat 5680 32.9Z 2840 16.46
Haryana 2712 44.81 1356 22.41
Kama taka 4421 36.31 2210 18.16
Kerala 208 3.94 104 1. 97'
Madhya Pradesh 2524 10.73 1262 9.36
Maharashtra 6604 21.47 3302 10.74
Orissa 183. 3.82 91 1. 91'
Punjab 5096 42.54 2548 21.27
Rajasthan 2367 28.99 1183 14.49
Tamil Nadu 4058 24.07 2029 12.04
Uttar Pradesh 7759 39.95 3880 19.97
West Bengal 454 5.16 227 2.58
INDIA 50321 26.44 25161 13.22
--------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: ECA - Electricity Consumption in Agriculture.
%TEU - Percentage of Electricity used by Agriculture to
total.
PE - Pumpset Efficiency.
* - Total consumption includes all sectors.
Source: Computed from GOI, MOA (1993).
It is also found recently that new method of irrigation such as

drip and sprinkler has tremendous potential to redu~e the
electricity consumption in agriculture. Both drip and sprinkler
methods of irrigation have helped to reduce the consumption of
water per unit of land to a considerable extent when compared to
flood method of irrigation. Because of the less consumption of
wate~, working hours of pump set will be reduced. This ultimately
reduces the consumption of electricity. A study conducted by
using field level data collected from two districts of
40
Maharashtra shows that consumption of electricity can be saved
up to 2434 kwh/ha for Banana crop and 1476 kwh/ha for Grapes in
drip method of irrigation when compareQ. to the same crops
cultivated under the flood method of irrigation (Narayanamoorthy,
1996a) . Although it has an advantage to reduce the electricity

consumption, development of area under drip irrigation is not
appreciable barring a few states in India. Therefore, government
can formulate a target oriented programme to increase the drip
irrigated area not only for reducing the electricity consumption
in agriculture but also for reducing water consumption.
VIII
CONCLUSIONS
Energy use in agriculture has been quite a controversial
point of debate in the recent past. The major problem erruJ?.ted
due to the pricing flaws and extremely high use rates of
resources. Energy as a resource gets closely associated with
other natural resources thereby jeopardising the environmental
sustenance, economic viability and the existing policy
imperatives. In this context, pattern of energy use
(specifically use of electricity) over the years and its spatial
changes naturally attracted the attention of the researchers.
Coupled with this is the issue of determinants of energy use and
pattern of changes in it. As it is, there are good number of
controversial stand-points both on the use of energy as well as
the determinants of this use compelling to operate on the policy
front. The present paper on electricity use in Indian
agriculture tried to analyse some of these issues and
41
specifically attempt is made here to analyse {i) trends in
electricity consumption over the last 30 years of period, {ii)
relationship between electricity consumption and groundwater
area as well as electric pumpsets, {iii) factors determining
electricity consumption in agriculture and {iv) variations in the
use of electricity across different states. This study analyses
both state as well as country level position by using macro-level
data as the factors determining consumption of electr~city at
national may not be similar to the different states. The study
noted that electricity consu~ption has been increasing at a fast

rate in agriculture when compared to other sectors namely
industrial and domestic sectors. Growth of electricity
consumption is much higher than the growth of area under
groundwater as well as electric pumpsets. It is noticed that the
rapid increase of electricity consumption· in agriculture is
mainly because of increase in the per pumpset consumption and not
merely because of more number of electric pumpsets. The state
level results also show that the growth rate of electricity is
higher in agriculture especially in the eighties when compared
to the total consumption in almost all the major states.
Results of the regression and correlation analysis show that area
under groundwater and number of electric pumpsets are the
important factors responsible for the significant increase in the
consumption of electricity. Consumption of electricity per
pumpset is more, wherever the ratio of groundwater area to net
irrigated area and groundwater area per pumpset are higher. In
respect of the variation in the electricity consumption across
the states, the study found that although variations exist in the
42
consumption of electricity across states, it has come down
significantly over the last three decades because of the
development of groundwater in the low dev.eloped states. The
study understood that pricing policy alone cannot be used for
controlling electricity consumption as it has little role in
determining the electricity consumption. Therefore, the study
suggests five policy options: (i) improving pumpset efficiency,

(ii) appropriate rationing in supply of electricity, (iii)
restricting over-exploitation of groundwater, (iv) introducing
new irrigation methods like drip and sprinkler and (v) rational
pricing policy for controlling the consumption of electricity in
agriculture.
REFERENCES
Abbie, Leslie., James Q. Harrison., John W. Wall (1982), Economic

Return to Investment in Irrigation in India, World Bank Staff
Working Papers, No.536, The World Bank, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
Bhatia, Bela. (1992), "Lush Fields and Parched Throats: Political
Economy of Groundwater in Guj arat", Economic and Political
Weekly, December 19-26, pp. A142-A170.
CMIE. (1994), Current Energy Scene in India, Centre for
Monitoring Indian Economy, June, Bombay.
CMIE. (1994a), Basic Statistics Relating to Indian Economy
Center for Monitoring Indian Economy, August, Bombay. '
Copestake, J.G. '(1986), Finance for Wells in a Hardrock Area of
'Southern Tamil Nadu, ODAI/NABARD Research Project: Credit for
Sma~l Farmers and Rural Landless, The National Bank for
Agr~cultural and Rural Development, Bombay.
CWC.(1996), Water and Related Statistics, Central water
Commission, Government of India, New Delhi, June.
Dhawan .. B:D. (1993), "Groundwater Depletion in Punjab", Economic
and Pol1t1cal Weekly, October 30, pp. 2397-2401.
43
Dh awan, B . D. (1995) , "Magnitude of Groundwater Exploitation",
Economic and Political Weekly, April 8, pp. 769-775.
GOI. (1985), Rajadhyaksha Committee Report on Efficient
Generation and Use of Power, Planning Commission, Government of
India, New Delhi.
GOI. (1992), Eighth Five Year Plan Document, 1992-97, Vol. II,
Planning Commission, New Delhi.
Janakarajan s. (1197), "Consequences of Aquifer Over-
Exploitation: Prosperity and Deprivation", Review of Development
and Change, Vol.2, No.1, January-June, pp. 52-71.
Moench, Marcus. (1992), "Drawing Down the Buffer: Science and
Politics of Groundwater Management in India", Economic and
Political Weekly, March 28, pp. A7-A14.
Moench, Marcus. (1994), Groundwater Policy: Issues and
Alternatives in South Asia, Natural Heritage Institute, San
Franscisco, U.S.A.
Narayanamoorthy, A .. (1994), "Who Sells More and Who Seils Less
on Deep Bore-Well Water Business in Pudukkottai District, Tamil
Nadu: Some Empirical Analysis", Journal of Indian Water Resources
Society, Vol.14, No.l-4, January-October, pp. 51-56.
Narayanamoorthy, A. (1994a), "Free Power Supply and Groundwater
Management", Financial E:x;press, April 4, Madras, p.7.
Narayanamoorthy, A. (1996), "Electric Pumpset and Groundwater
Management: Macro and Micro Evidence of India", Water Resources
Journal, No. ST/ESCAP/SERC/189. June, pp. 23-33.
Narayanamoorthy, A. (1996a), "Bore-Well Water Market and Farmers'
Participation: A Study of South India", Energy Management,
Vol.20, No.3, July-September, pp. 23-30.
Narayanamoorthy, A. (1996b), "Impact of Drip Irrigation on
Consumption of Water and Electricity", The Asian Economic Review,
Vol 38, No.3, December, pp. 350-364.
Narayanamoorthy, A. (1997), "Impact of Electricity Tariff
Policies on the Use of Electricity and Groundwater: Arguments and
Facts", Artha Vijnana, Vol. 39, No.3, September, pp. 323-340.
Palmer-Jones, Richard. (1994), "Groundwater Markets in South
Asia: A Discussion of Theory and Evidence", in Moench, Marcus
(ed.) (1994), Selling Water: Conceptual and Policy Debates over
Groundwater Markets in India, Natural Heritage Institute San
Francisco, U.S.A., pp. 11-46. '
Reddy K N Amulya and Gladys D Sumithra. (1997), "Karnataka' s
Power Sector: Some Revelations", -::E:-:c~o~n~o~m~i~coc.....~ai!.!n""ld-..,P~olo!ol.......
i.J..t...,i..~oc;.S;!a..,l...._.zW!Seo.seO.J:klo.l~y,
Vol. 32, No.12, March 22-28, pp. 585-600.
44
Roy, S.N.(1995), "The Bright of Indian Mirage", Economic Times,
Bombay, November 10.
sant, Girish and Shantanu Dixit (1996), "Beneficiaries of IPS
Subsidy and Impact of Tariff Hike", Economic and Political
Weekly, Vol.31, No.Sl, December 21, pp. 3315-3321.
Shah, T. (1993), Groundwater Markets and Irrigation Development:
Political Economy and Practical Policy, Oxford University Press,
Bombay.
Sharma, Anil. (1994), "Electricity for Minor Irrigation",
Seminar, No.418, June, pp. 21-24.
Singh, Surendar. (1995), "Some Aspects of Groundwater Ba],ance in
Punjab•, Economic and Political Weekly, December 28, pp. A146-
A155.
Vaidyanathan, A. (1994), Food, Agriculture and Water: Second
India Studies Revisited, Madras Inst-itute of Development Studies,
Madras, January.
Vaidyanathan, A. (19Sl6), "Depletion of Groundwater: Some Issues",
Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 51, Nos. 1 & 2,
January-June, pp. 184-192.
45

Electricity Use in Indian Agriculture: Trends and Determinants

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Electricity Use in Indian Agriculture: Trends and Determinants

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

•

ELECTRICITY USE IN INDIAN AGRICULTURE: TRENDS AND DETERMINANTS ·

Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics

2. Growth Rates of Electricity Use by Sectors 7

3. Average and SD of the Study Related Variables 8

4. Results of Linear Trend Exercise for Electricity

* - Research Associate, Gokhale Institute of Politics and

fact, ·in response to the electrification programme, the number

result of this, the consumption of electricity· in the

providing electricity for operating agricultural pumpsets to

a It has not only increased electric pumpsets but also

that farmers use electricity in-efficien~ly under the FR system

DATA AND METHOD

As the factors determining -electricity consumption vary

and mUltiple regression have been computed to understand as well

1994-65 71.8 5.8 9.2 13.2 100.0

1970-71 67.6 10.2 8.8 13.4 100.0

1974-75 62.1 14.7 9.8 13.4 100.0

1980-81 58.4 17.6 11.2 12.8 100.0

1984-85 55.2 18.4 13.6 12.8 100.0

1990-91 44.9 26.0 16.5 12.6 100.0

1992-93 40.6 28.9 17.9 12.6 100.0

Source: CMIE (1994l, Current Energy Scene in India, June.

across the major sectors of the economy. Growth rate of

40 ------ ------·--·-. -·-·-- -···-·- ---·-·-··-·--·--·--·-·-------------··------

Table 3: Average and SD of Study Related Variables

Table 4: Results of Linear Trend Exercise for Electricity

agricultural sectors. This clearly shows the substantial

increase in the consumption of electr~city in agricultural

states, use of electricity increased only in the recent years due

Growth rates are computed by log linear function. We have

Table 7: Growth Rate of Electricity Use in-Agriculture and

achieved higher growth in electric pumpsets also has higher

- Agriculture Use a Total Use

Source: ewe (1996).

crops.' Since water consuming crops require more amount of

' Since we do not have data on gross area under g~oundwater

significantly especially after the introduction of New

under groundwater increased from 7.3 ml.ha in 1960-61 to about

Table 8: Results of Linear Trend Exercise for Electric

That is, in the total NIA, percentage of groundwater irrigated

Source: eMIE (1994a) & ewe (1996)

Table 9: Factors Determining Electricity Use in Agriculture

Other Wells Area:

Year (1970-1 to 1990-1)

Source: eMIE (1994) & ewe (1998)

Table 10: Correlation Values for the Variables related to

Tube-well Area 0 .94" 0. 91"

. ·Area under irrigated paddy, wheat and sugarcane have been

The same variables are also influencing PPEC significantly. For

electric pumpsets increase total electr~city consumption in kwh

in the regression results. As we expect, the results of the

because of the continuous over-exploitation of groundwater across

have caused an increase in the working hours of pumpset required

• It has been noted that exploitation of groundwater is

-----·---- ------- · - - - - - - - ---- -···-··-·----------·--··-·- -·--

1000 ·-----~---·--- -----------· --- -····--··---...!..---·.

Year (1970-1 to 1990-1)

Source: eM IE (1994a) & ewe (1996) ·

1980-81 to 1990-91 -2011.7 251. 9* 0.92 11

1970-71 to 1990-91 1188.82 131. 7* 0.83 21

Table 14: State-wise Change in Electric ~mpsets.

states. Correlation values computed across the 14 major states